User talk:Ziggyfx

Image:P1020543.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:P1020543.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yapaca-screenshot.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Yapaca-screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Chalkface for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chalkface is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chalkface until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire
I reverted your edit to Milton Keynes because you appear to have misunderstood what happened when the Borough of Milton Keynes came out from under Buckinghamshire County Council as a unitary authority. The Buckinghamshire article explains this quite well. There is one Shire, it has two administrations (which I agree that in law are each a county for the purpose of various Acts).

I understand where you are coming from, indeed a few years ago I edited a load of BMK articles to insert the word "ceremonial" because the Buckinghamshire article was clearly locked onto the idea that "Bucks equals the domain of Bucks County Council". But with work, the article no longer says that and consequently IMO the "ceremonial" is redundant.

If you are not persuaded by this argument then we has best take it to talk:Milton Keynes per WP:BRD. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your gracious reply.
 * FWIW, I have been working to get the article up to GA standard so I would really appreciate you giving it a thorough going over if you can afford the time. We all have our blind spots and I'm sure that there other unconscious errors there to be found.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Revo (climbing)
Hi Ziggyfx, you added on the Revo page that the device would "'chatter' with ropes >10mm and light climbers". Could you let us know what you mean with 'chatter' in this context and what the source of the statement is? --Polarbear24 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)