User talk:G-13114

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		Thank you for your excellent work overhauling SS Waratah. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou :) G-13114 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten, or had never noticed, this one's not capped, not originally, and not even in the 21st century. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi - Well done on both these articles. I hope you don't mind but I have tweaked the order in the case of the Rugby article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you experienced this issue? template talk:infobox mapframe#Just a pale blue panel displayed intermittently? ? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my error and correcting it.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamworth, Staffordshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up in regards to this youtube channel, do not use it as a source as he uses Wikipedia as a source for his information.

In the description of his video on the Class 323 it states “References Leeds Engine (and their respective references)” and “Wikipedia (and it’s respective references). Maurice Oly (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Britain at the 2020 Summer Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duncan Scott.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2 changes you reverted for links in the Long Itchington page are now linking to 'page not found' sites. Should they be either updated or removed?

Indeed, it seems they either removed the pages for some reason, or there's some fault (or maintenance) on their website. I suspect the latter tbh, so the pages might be up again at some point. Either way the replacements were of no use as they didn't provide any reference to the text. I suggest leaving it for a few weeks to see if the pages come back up again. Otherwise, we'll have to find some new references. G-13114 (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If you don't already have Weedon (and maybe Weedon Bec) on your watchlist, I'd appreciate it if you would, please. I'm concerned that the advocacy campaign is beginning to annoy me and I will overreact. I'm sympathetic to the kid's wishes but this is an encylcopedia not a fanzine. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching it. I feel that the campaign probably deserves a brief mention, as it's generated some media interest. However the campaigners are getting a bit ahead of themselves with their claims. I put it down to youthful enthusiasm and inexperience. I've raised the matter at the UK railways forum, so others can get involved. G-13114 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You have reverted my amendment on the location of this station. The station was located between Leamington Spa and Coventry and not between Leamington Spa and Warwick. Please re-examine my amendment.Steamybrian2 (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

That referred to its geographic location, not its location on the railway. As the text explains, the station was originally built to serve both Leamington and Warwick, hence it was stuck awkwardly between the two, which is why they could never make up their mind what to call it. G-13114 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on the use of the lead photo in Shipston on Stour. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipston-on-Stour#/media/File%3AShipstonTownCenter.jpg

I think it's a copyrighted image and doesn't pass WP:FAIRUSE. The author has linked the website but in the photo it clearly states copyright and the website. So I don't think they had permission to upload it? DragonofBatley (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone started a deletion request on Commons, so I've responded there. G-13114 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay no worries thought I'd bring it to your attention as you were one of the recent editors on the pages thanks anyway DragonofBatley (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for finding an image that folks can agree on! Did you use a tool to add the images to Commons or upload manually? I used to use Geograph2Commons but it hasn't worked for me for a while so I'm wondering if there is an alternative. NemesisAT (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I do it manually, I download the image from geograph to my computer and then upload it to commons using the basic upload form where I can use a copied and pasted geograph template. It's a bit of a faff but I've never got to grips with the tools. G-13114 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The collapsed= parameter is not very logical. If you put anything after the equals, it means collapse. Even collapsed=no. Sigh. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm totally confused. Why is one of these expanded and the other collapsed?

v t e Northampton loop
Legend
Birmingham Loop Line Trent Valley line Trent Valley Junction Rugby Hillmorton Junction Rugby Parkway (proposed) Kilsby and Crick Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) Daventry South Junction Crick Tunnel Watford Lodge Tunnel Long Buckby Althorp Park Church Brampton Northampton– Market Harborough line Northampton Northampton–Peterborough line & Bedford–Northampton line Blisworth Northamptonshire Ironstone Railway Hunsbury Hill Tunnel Roade Cutting Roade Hanslope Junction Castlethorpe Wolverton Milton Keynes Central West Coast Main Line

More information West Coast Main LineAll services & branches ...

West Coast Main Line All services & branches
Legend
Edinburgh Waverley ( St Andrew Sq.) Haymarket Glasgow Central ( St Enoch) Motherwell Carstairs Carstairs South Junction Lockerbie Scotland England Carlisle Penrith Oxenholme Lake District for Windermere Lancaster Preston for Blackpool North Euxton Junction Bolton Wigan North Western Warrington Bank Quay Liverpool Lime Street Liverpool South Parkway Runcorn Weaver Junction Manchester Piccadilly Stockport Holyhead for Dublin Port Wales England Chester Cheadle Hulme Junction Crewe North Junction North Wales Coast Line Crewe Macclesfield Stoke-on-Trent Stone Junction Norton Bridge Junction Stafford Stafford South Junction Colwich Junction Wolverhampton Lichfield Trent Valley Cross-City Line Sandwell and Dudley Birmingham New Street Tamworth Cross Country Route Birmingham International Nuneaton Coventry Rugby Trent Valley Junction Rugby Hillmorton Junction Northampton Hanslope Junction Milton Keynes Central Watford Junction London Euston
All routes shown. A detailed diagram of the core route can be found at West Coast Main Line diagram.
This diagram: view talk edit

Close

Wibble wibble wibble. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Guild of the Holy Cross requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ––FormalDude talk 05:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Did it fail to occur to you, that I was intending to create the second article which the disambiguation page was created for? If you had bothered to check you would see that I said that was what I intended to do on the talk page. Also, had you bothered to check, you would have noticed that I had moved the original article to make way for the disambiguation page for that very reason. Now the page Guild of the Holy Cross has been deleted leaving the page without any redirect, rendering this move doubly idiotic! This is what happens when things get implemented mechanically without any application of common sense! G-13114 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I was going to revert IP reversion of your edit. But decided against as I looked at the population figure reference and it gives the figure in the IP version which matches the infobox. I will leave you to fix if you revert. Regards Keith D (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Keith D: This situation is starting to get out of hand now see Stratford-upon-Avon history something is going to have to be done, as this editor just keeps ploughing on and doing the same things regardless. G-13114 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi G-13114, please limit discussion on article talk pages to the content of the article, not user behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. G-13114 (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is G-13114 reported by Robin75aw. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Beat me to reverting my own error. It's pretty close! Sirhissofloxley (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi G-13114. I think that, in the cases of File:West Coast Main Line (edited).png and File:Cross-City Line Map (alt version).png, it would have been better upload over the original files, or even better, to ask their creator (me) to make the small changes, rather than creating near-duplicates on Commons. I have now applied the minor changes to the original files, making your uploads redundant, so could I ask you to request deletion of those to avoid future confusion? Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (state) 15:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether it counted as a minor change as the policy page wasn't very clear. Also, some people aren't keen on their graphics being edited. So I thought uploading a separate version would be safer. I'll ask them to be deleted as they are not needed. G-13114 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Just leaving a reminder about these.. Rcsprinter123 (note) 13:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I put in a deletion request. G-13114 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed your update to Daventry. Just a general caution, no idea if it is specifically relevant, but citypopulation.de can be rather unreliable because they miss details. For example, their figures for Milton Keynes have been consistently wrong. I would prefer to wait for NOMIS and do E&W in one campaign. But not my call. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

They seem to usually be correct. If they don't match the more official figures we can just change them later, but in my experience they usually match up. G-13114 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I'm more concerned with NOMIS being unreliable at least for smaller places, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 22#Proposed merge of Bircotes and Harworth. (Possibly other civil parishes)? for Drinkstone Green/Drinkstone. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: If NOMIS have failed to report ONS data accurately, call them out. They seem responsive. But as they (or maybe it was the ONS directly) acknowlege, the ONS positively declines to give parish level data where the population is so low as to make it even theoretically possible to identify specific households. That is an entirely reasonable position to take if the guarantee of anonymity is to have any meaning. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Indeed that seems to be the case they are using parish figures for BUA area figures. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, fyi please see [] for the reasons for the tags. Used to be a good article, later delisted and now a B. Hope that provides some context to the tags, which you may not have been aware of. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That was in 2009, 13 years ago. The article has been completely rewritten several times since then (by me and others) As far as I can see, none of those issues are relevant any more. G-13114 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, please remember that when giving measurements without using the {{convert}} template you need to leave a space between the figures and the unit symbol; e.g. 100 mph, not 100mph. Ideally it should be a non-breaking space, which looks like this 100{{nbsp}}mph or this 100 mph in Wikitext, but any space is better than nothing. Thanks. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been adding population figures for the former parishes in Northamptonshire, see User:Crouch, Swale/Northamptonshire for a long time Corby was still shown as an unparished area but in the last few days its been shown as parished. Kettering is still shown as unparished even though a Kettering Town is shown as parished that parish isn't shown as covering the town as I noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 21#Northamptonshire but indeed it still seems like an error and the town is in fact parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The article cannot confidently be updated until 2021 census figures are made fully available from the ONS. Individual urban component figures have been released but crucially, ONS haven't stated which of these areas make up the overall 'conglomerations'. The website you referenced seem to have a habit of making certain assumptions with the incomplete data, discussed previously here, there and elsewhere. They have been useful if the figures pre-existed and weren't in one place on the ONS sites, but that isn't the case here. Please consider whether the edit and update message are pulled and that we wait. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I dunno, the figure can't be too far off given the large % increase of Leicester's population since 2011. I would stick with it until a more authoritative figure becomes available. G-13114 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Rugby, Warwickshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grange.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your 25,000+ contributions to the project over the course of 13 years. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) G-13114 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a page where it says interchanges shouldn’t be included if they’re less than 10% of the station usage. The likes of Aston, Birmingham Snow Hill, Wolverhampton have their’s included despite being well below 10% of station usage? JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It was definitely discussed somewhere (I can't find it) and it received a lot of support. There's nowhere where it says that interchange figures should automatically be included either, generally if they are so tiny as to be insignificant, they are probably best left out. G-13114 (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @G-13114: How goes it. I reviwed that article. Each and every entry needs a reference per consensus. You can't a have a block of unsourced content that effectively makes it a unsourced structured list. If you can't add references then they need to be removed. scope_creep^Talk 14:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, G-13114. Thank you for your work on St Luke's Hospital, Rugby. User:Storye book, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thankyou for this article. This new page has been reviewed. A minor copyedit was given, but no real issues were found.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Storye book}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Storye book (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, G-13114. Thank you for your work on Hartshill Hayes Country Park. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing the inactive notice on the article for Another Angry Voice. The article, as per its lead, is about the blog itself, not the author's personal social media accounts (Another Angry Voice (AAV) is a British left-wing political blog written by Thomas G. Clark).

It is not WP:OR to note that the blog itself has not posted since late September 2023 and is therefore inactive, as it is acceptable under WP:PRIMARY ("A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"). In fact, it is very much WP:OR to instead revert based on no reliable sources to state it's active because "he's still active on social media" when that is not the blog itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't come here using that tone with me!! Has there been any positive indication that the blog has been abandoned, or that the author intends to abandon it permanently? No, so claiming that it is inactive for not posting for a few months counts as original research. G-13114 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't require waiting for the writer to put out a statement that the blog has been "abandoned" (which I haven't claimed to begin with). If a formerly frequently posting blog hasn't posted for months on end, that's by any reasonable meaning "inactive". Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The current image is terrible! I've been trying to change it with much better images but keeps you keep reverting it back to this grainy terrible image! I don't want to start an edit war but it is highly annoying when a much improved image gets changed by something far worse. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/323210_AST.jpg This is, in my opinion, a much better image and is much clearer and less grainy. Vanmanyo (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is improved, it's dark, gloomy and taken from a frontal angle which doesn't show the traIn particularly well. I agree the current picture isn't great but at least it's reasonably well lit. G-13114 (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Rugby, Warwickshire you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Rugby, Warwickshire for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I can recommend WP:Twinkle which makes it very easy to do things like requesting page protection, among many other maintenance tasks. I've requested page protection for Wolverhampton. I hope a page protector spots the request soon and does the work. PamD 08:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that the way the owners described the metro is accurate. Do you not think there should be a citation that isn't from the business Sharnadd (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi G-13114. Thanks for this edit to Langwathby railway station. The edit summary mentions a consensus to remove stationmaster lists but (a) there's no evidence of a consensus and (b) searching for stationmasters comes up with a great many articles listing them. If there is a consensus, it would be useful to link to it in the edit summary. Thanks :) --Northernhenge (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, there's this discussion and this discussion from the UK railways project. G-13114 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Edward Melly. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and more WP:RS are needed for biography. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, hopefully. You could have just tagged it as needing more refs. G-13114 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

They are both linked close enough not to need repeating. If you insist on duplicating the links then it should be at the first instance of the name in the section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You have to go back 11 sections to find a link to Arabic, and nine sections to find a link to Oceanic, so they aren't really that nearby. There didn't seem to be any logical reason for them to not be linked, unless you expect readers to back up vast chunks of text to find the nearest link. I just linked the most logical instance, maybe it should be the first one. G-13114 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § JosueBitimunu not discussing controversial railway changes. I see you've also been reverting this user and would like your input on the matter. Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements prefers the term Demography. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any discussion to support that conclusion. From what I can discern, the Cambridge dictionary defines demographics as the "the number and characteristics of people who live in a particular area". Whilst demography appears to refer to the study of demographics , although they are often used interchangeably. It would appear to me that demographics is the more correct choice. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

That woud need taking up with the authors of the guidelines. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about it. G-13114 (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Look, today's image, - she "portrayed" herself with her husband at the end of the table, - would have been good for Thanksgiving ;) - Thank you for your arguments in an RfC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Shaw, Savill & Albion Line has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi G-13114. Thank you for your work on Northampton (civil parish). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a good weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 03:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tony Greenwood, Baron Greenwood of Rossendale, a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1963 Labour Party leadership election was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naworth level crossing accident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naworth level crossing accident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Tenshi! (Talk page) 10:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

G-13114, you may be interested in WP:ADESELF. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Northampton (civil parish), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northampton (civil parish) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing to run in the May 2026 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 6–7: Housekeeping phase (we are here)
• May 8–12: Discussion phase
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

All times are in UTC. The first date in the range starts at 00:00, and the last date in the range ends at 23:59. So for example, the Discussion phase opens on 8 May 2026 at 00:00 UTC, and ends on 12 May 2026 at 23:59 UTC.

We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from May 8–12. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your vote total during the election.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which does not have an exact end date, but typically takes a few days to a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must receive at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi There,

Please can you advise me why you have removed the main image for Leicester?

There is no license within Wiki to advise against using Co pilot for editing an image as long as correct credit has been given to the author (which it had). Sadly you have replaced the great image with an older imsge for no good rational or reason.

Im afraid we are in a different era to what we were before and times are changing rapidly.

Please explain?

Many thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:AIIMAGE. G-13114 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This is what the article states:

Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace, especially for named people and in technical or scientific subjects such as anatomy and chemistry. This rule should be applied "subject to common sense and with a number of exceptions". Obvious exceptions include articles about AI and articles about notable AI-generated images; other categories of exceptions may arise through further community discussion. Community members have largely rejected making exceptions merely because an image lacks obvious errors, or because no free non-AI-generated images are available.

This image has not been generated wholly by AI and credit was given to the author. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It also says Images whose details have been substantially regenerated by generative AI (e.g., in order to create a colorized or higher-resolution image) should not be used, subject to the same exceptions as images fully generated by AI. Generally, the original version of the image should be used instead.

That covers your image. It's inferior to the original anyway. G-13114 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Generally… it’s subjective. And it wasn’t fully generated by AI. It’s within copyright. But it was your decision that you didn’t like it 🤷‍♂️ MatthewDavid41 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to put you off editing, but do you think it's worth waiting until this round of reorganisation into unitary authorities has happened, or at least until the final plan has been announced, before adding sections to the English county articles? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Not really because the fact that it's going to happen one way or another is noteworthy. It can easily be updated once the final decisions are made. I wrote a section about the proposed reorganisation of Warwickshire back in 2020 and no-one objected, so why not other counties? G-13114 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Warwickshire still hasn't been reorganised six years later, so that section was possibly quite premature. It should probably be removed from the encyclopedia, as proposed local government reorganisations are not noteworthy in themselves.

When an area has had its local government reorganised then it's appropriate to include the history of the process, but many of these proposals don't go anywhere or take many years to complete. It's best to wait before adding them. A.D.Hope (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

But this one is definitely going ahead in 2028, with the final decisions being made this year sometime, and the first elections to the new authorities being held next year. There's no doubt about it. Anyway it's done now, and it can be updated when the final decisions are made. It would be pointless and foolish to undo it. G-13114 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean 'this one'? Warwickshire only mentions the 2020 attempt to reform the county's local government, and there's no indication that it will go ahead in 2028. The information is outdated and should probably be removed.

The same would go for any other similar article section. As a rough guide, I'd suggest that the relevant statutory instrument should have been published before we include a change in an article, or at least widespread coverage that this is imminent. There have been too many failed attempts to assume that a reorganisation will definitely happen just because it's been reported on. A.D.Hope (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It's been covered widely in the local press. In any event you need to read through the relevant article and its references. Basically the government is going to get rid of all of the remaining two tier areas of local government in one big swoop, and replace them with unitary authorities by 2028. The process is already well underway, and every area has undergone a final consultation. G-13114 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You can't use one article as a source for another. If a ministerial decision has been made on local government in an area then there's a reasonable argument for including any pending local government changes in the relevant ceremonial county article. If the proposals are only at consultation stage then there isn't, as there are too many variables and we're too close to speculation.

In cases like Warwickshire, where the information is about a previous attempt at reorganisation that didn't happen, there's not a good justification for retaining that information unless it is notable in some way. It might be mentioned briefly when the actual reorganisation happens as part of its history. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying that the fact that the biggest shakeup of local government in 50 years is taking place isn't notable, except as a footnote in the history section when it has happened? Sorry I disagree totally. A ministerial decision has been made to go ahead with the local government changes, it's only the final details which will be announced in the next few months. I think the process is far enough advanced to be included, you obviously don't, however as we are only a few months away from the final details being announced it would be silly to remove the information only to re-add it again in a few months time. Maybe you should raise it on some forum like the UK geography or politics forum if you feel so strongly. G-13114 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, no. The reorganisation as a whole is notable, but failed attempts to reorganise from 2020 aren't inherently notable, and neither are reorganisations that are only at the consultation stage. Once a reorganisation has happened, any previous failed attempts might be metioned briefly in the 'history' subsection of the 'local government' section or some other appropriate place.

I will open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about how to approach reorganisations that have not yet happened or have been abandoned, but probably after the bank holiday. The weather in the UK is too nice at the moment to spend it on a Wikipedia debate! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello G-13114! I was the Person who edited the SS Atlantic Wiki Article, it's a Mission of mine to try to understand and help people understand SS Atlantics Story and People, was wondering if you wanted to collaborate and work on editing some things on the SS Atlantics Wiki and i have noticed some Issues with the article, I don't want to argue with anyone but i would be great to work on the article and help make it more accurate, it was my first time editing the Wiki so I do apologize if i forgot to include evidence, but I hope next time we can find something and come to a agreement and eventually collaborate on the article! Thank you for your time! -Mr.Andrews1873 Mr.Andrews1873 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, yes I am one of the main editors of that page. I would be happy to work to improve it as it does leave a lot to be desired still. I reverted your edit because you made an unsupported assertion about that photograph, you need to have published evidence to back up your claim otherwise it could be regarded as original research. G-13114 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand thank you for that, Next time I'll be more through with it, I do have quite the info with SS Atlantic & Oceanic Class, such as photos and Lithographs I would love to share but I'm not too sure how to do but through Email or Some other App that Allows Communication. I would love to help improve Atlantic's Wiki page, I have a group of about 4 people where we all work together to research, and we would love to provide any help we can! Mr.Andrews1873 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to upload files like photographs etc, the place to do it is at Wikimedia Commons. I found the link to the oceanic class category here. You can use any files you upload there on any wikimedia project. You'll need an account there as well but it's quite easy, and follow the instructions. The files will also need to be released under a free licence, however that shouldn't be too difficult with things from the 19th century. Hope that helps. G-13114 (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much ill keep it in mind! Mr.Andrews1873 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)