User talk:Steinsky

Note: This page is on Wikipedia, if you have been redirected from another project please mention that in your message.

CLOSED

This should be discussed on Talk:Lytchett Matravers.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lytchett Matravers

It is noticed that you removed the current title holder of the manorial title to Lytchett Matravers after the repeated vandalism of the article by Richard Horlock was reverted.

The title was indeed passed to Hon. G J Beck in 2005 by the Maltravers family, and a conveyance deed is held in his possession. If you would like to see a copy of it, then please provide an email address so that proof can be provided, but it was most certainly not a case of “self aggrandisement” or a “private joke” as has been noted on the article history. A separate email will be sent to the Wikipedia Foundation to rectify those rather defamatory notes.

As the transfer of title was a private arrangement, and not made a public document, as is allowed under conveyancing rules and the Land Registration Act, then obviously a publicly-available citation isn’t available. However, there was no need to remove the original paragraph that’s been in situ for a number of years before Mr Horlock’s repeated vandalism. Sadly, Mr Horlock is renowned for posting all sorts of fantastical claims or comments on social media in relation to the village as can be seen on platforms such as Facebook.

In the meantime, evidence of the Hon. G J Beck’s title will be sent to the Wiki Foundation and yourself upon provision of contact details. 92.23.58.214 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed on Talk:Lytchett Matravers, not on my page. Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. -Joe D (t) 09:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A vanity “lordship”…

… is what, exactly? 89.240.137.94 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Bristol Harbour

Bristol Harbour has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorset Council.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bridport (ward), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sherborne Rural (ward), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Holwell and North Wootton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:UKcountythumb

Template:UKcountythumb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED

Moved discussed to Talk:Corfe Mullen.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Corfe Mullen - Your Edits on 14th August

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your assertion the half the content should be removed because Wikipedia is not a business directory. Some of the entries, I accept, are somewhat commercial, but schools and churches? Also the number of pubs and clubs in the town (it was a village) are relevant to the character of the location and would apply to any village or small town. Most of these entries have been there since I created the page many years ago.

Are you going to do the same on all pages that list such details? You could be kept quite busy. Terry C (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Ralston Kennedy Paterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arms and Flag in English counties

Any further explanation as to why you’ve removed the flags and arms? I can’t find any suggestion on a quick glance through of the attached guidance that they shouldn’t be included and it seems like an enormous oversight. I for one would like to see them quickly in the info box for reference and I’m sure I won’t be alone in that sentiment Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the How to write about counties guidance, under "English ceremonial counties" – "Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there." The guideline is the result of extensive historical discussion on the UK geography WikiProject, for example some of the more recent discussions include:

If you need further clarification, or want to relitigate the issue, I'd suggest raising it on the WikiProject talk pages - I am merely maintaining the current consensus position. Joe D (t) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Bristol Old Vic

Bristol Old Vic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charminster (disambiguation)

The article Charminster (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoes of the United Kingdom

Hi, you removed the references to traditional counties at the article in the heading. On the rationale that these are an "obsolete geography". I have no problem with them being removed if they're felt unnecessarry, but its incorrect to refer to them as "obsolete"; the historic counties still exist, and are by far the most referred to geographic reference in academic circles. JoeyofScotia (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parkstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]