User talk:Langcliffe

Hi Langcliffe

I would have to disagree with your wording change to "sometimes" on the speleothem page. My original word "usually" is definitely more appropriate. Even in railway tunnels they spray a thin layer of concrete, cement or lime to stabilise the rock strata, so that small pieces do not fall away from the bed rock.

If the bedrock is a calcarious rock (e.g. limestone or dolomite etc) and not sprayed with concrete, the calthemites chemistry would mean that the secondary deposits are growing verbs slowly - see growth rates in soda straw. Compare the usual speleothem chemistry with calthemite chemistry - although if they occur in a railway tunnel they will be classed as calthemites.

Most people notice calthemites on man made concrete buildings or structures. When ever calthemites are seen on concrete structures it is an indication that the concrete, "is being" or "has been" leached of some Calcium Hydroxide or other form of calcium irons as per the Calthemite page.

I think my wording of usually is very appropriate and does not exclude the less common occurrence in a railway tunnel which may not have been sprayed with a thin layer of concrete.

Regards Newcaves Newcaves (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Newcaves: The great railway and canal tunnels in the UK built in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries rarely saw any concrete, but most have their formations. We would have to redefine concrete degradation to be confident that the word "usually" is appropriate. Again, the spectacular formations in Peak Dale Tunnel are nothing to do with concrete degradation, but result from the leaching out of overlying lime waste deposits by percolation water. I would prefer to see the word "sometimes" retained. However, rest assured that I don't get involved in edit wars so feel free to change to whatever wording pleases you. --Langcliffe (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Langcliffe

You have raised a very appropriate point - waste lime above the tunnel, means that the leachate is hyperalkaline and fits in very well with the section on the calthemite page, noted as "An unusual occurrence of hyperalkaline leachate in caves" You are actually correct in that it is not strictly concrete that is degrading, however it does fit in with calthemites in that it is due to concrete, lime or mortar being leached of calcium hydroxide. So your circumstance, it seems that it would be appropriate that I add a few extra words on the speleothem page to include, "lime" or "mortar" even though the lime above the railway tunnel is actually waste and not in a structure. The fact that the secondary deposit is in a manmade tunnel still means that it is classed as a calthemite.

Thanks so much for your interest and diligence on this matter. Happy to talk about this subject any time as it is a huge passion of mine. Newcaves (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Just double checked Concrete degradation under the heading "decalcification" is the sentence, "The sight of calthemite is a visual sign that calcium is being leached from the concrete structure and the concrete is gradually degrading.[10][14]" which includes references. Hope this helps.

Regards NewcavesNewcaves (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Newcaves: I have no problem EXCEPT that in the cases that I have cited calthemites exist but not as the result of concrete degradation as concrete is not involved. I still content that the word "usually" is too strong a word. --Langcliffe (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Langcliffe, I have hopefully found a compromise in the middle of our two opinions. I have changed the word, "usually" to "often". Hope this is a satisfactory compromise.

I have been thinking a lot about your comments, and conclude that there are probably far more examples around the world, of calthemites under concrete buildings and structures than in mines or tunnels. That aside, I see your point and hope we have reached a compromise with the wording.

Regards Newcaves Newcaves (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Newcaves "Often" is good. --Langcliffe (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Newcaves: Your recent change: "Calthemites which occur on concrete structures, are created by completely different chemistry to speleothems. Refer to Calthemite page for chemistry details." Surely this is misleading? I thought that we were agreed that concrete was not a prerequisite? Just as a matter of interest, how would you classify the formations in such a place as Conistone Copper Mines, or a lot of the limestone mines? The chemistry is probably similar to that of regular speleotherms. --Langcliffe (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lancliffe. I didn't intend to go against your thoughts on this subject. Just trying to direct people toward the different chemistry which the majority of calthemits are created by as a result of - being hyperalkaline leachate and the chemistry which goes with that (associated with cement, lime or mortar). Yes, I agree that we can always find exceptions to the norm. I wasn't saying in this new sentence that concrete derived secondary deposits is the only type of calthemite - just that the chemistry is different to speleothems. I am struggling to come up with a sentence which is simple but conveys the message. I thought that this inclusion would not be controversial, nor contravene what you had been talking about earlier. You have raised a point that we could cover such situations of calthemites in tunnels through limestone bedrock where the calthemites are derived from limestone. in this case the chemistry would indeed be the same as speleothems (provided there was no lime waste or cement involved). This would mean another small section added to the calthemite page. Any other suggestions on how to move forward on this?

I have already been involved in considerable discussion regarding whether Calthemites should be a new category, OR just a subcategory of "speleothems" and "Concrete" or "concrete degradation". The latter obviously rules out the mines which you mention. I am personally in favour of it being a new category and having " stalactites", "soda straw", "flowstone", "calcite rafts", "stalagmites" and "concrete degradation" etc as subcategories. Hence in most cases calthemites would have a parallel set of subcategories as Speleothems - except for "concrete degradation". Clearly "concrete" is the wrong location, "speleothems" is the wrong location, as is "concrete degradation". Hence after all this too and fro with other editors, calthemites are now subcategories of "Speleothems" and "Concrete". It is probably a less than satisfactory compromise, but I am wearing down with this debate. So I am not perusing the categories debate any further. Regards NewcavesNewcaves (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Newcaves: I was under the impression that the term 'calthemite' is used to encompass the various concrete-, mortar- or lime-derived secondary deposits consisting primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) - so it's a term defined by the source of the deposit rather than the location of the deposit. Calthemites can exist in caves, and speleothems often exist in mines. Calthemites are typically associated with man-made structures, but not necessarily so (e.g. Peak Dale Tunnel), and are typically associated with concrete, but not necessarily so (e.g. Peak Dale Tunnel). Any attempt to closely associate either will lead to confusion.

• So statements such as "Secondary deposits derived from concrete, lime or mortar, as found on man-made structures outside the cave environment or in artificial caves (e.g. mines, vehicle and train tunnels), can mimic the shapes and forms of speleothems,[2] but are classed as calthemites.[3] The occurrence of calthemites is often associated with concrete degradation,[4] but could also be linked to leaching of lime, mortar or other calcarious material.[3] Despite similar appearances, "calthemites" (created outside the cave environment) are not considered to be "speleothems" (created inside the cave environment), as per their definitions." are misleading.

• It could be simplified as: "Secondary deposits derived from concrete, lime or mortar, as typically found on man-made structures, can mimic the shapes and forms of speleothems,[2] but are classed as calthemites.[3]"

• The sentence "Calthemites which occur on concrete structures, are created by completely different chemistry to speleothems. Refer to Calthemite page for chemistry details" quite apart from suffering from severe over-dabbing is irrelevant to the page in question. We have differentiated the two already, and provided a link.

--Langcliffe (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Langcliffe . Greatly appreciate your interest in this subject. I must clarify a particular point which you make "so it's a term defined by the source of the deposit rather than the location of the deposit". From the calthemite page "Calthemite is a secondary deposit, derived from concrete, lime, mortar or other calcareous material outside the cave environment". Other Calcarious material includes limestone, dolomite etc which naturally occur in nature and the calthemites occurring in manmade tunnels, mines etc as per the definition in the publication - reference ^[1]. This also includes "Calthemites may also contain minerals such as gypsum" as mentioned on the calthemite page. The definition of calthemites does have the grey area in that it does not include other secondary mineral deposits not containing calcium, such as can form in coal mines, copper mines etc. an example is Melanterite stalactites (FeSO₄.7H₂O) - no idea what overall category these fall into, other than stalagmites, stalagmites etc.. So by the calthemite definition if there is no calcium in the secondary deposit, it is not a calthemite.

So getting back to the subject - tunnels in limestone (without any lime mortar or concrete involved) are still considered calthemites if the secondary deposit contains some calcium. I will closely look at what is on the Wiki pages later today to see if anything is contradictory or misleading as per your concerns. Hope I have covered your concerns adequately and if I find any issue on the wiki pages from what you have raised, I will amend immediately. It is a tricky subject, however if I have achieved nothing else than raise readers awareness of the different chemistry and why the majority of concrete derived stalactites grow far more quickly than speleothems, then I have achieved something. Just re-read your comments - "Calthemites can exist in caves, and speleothems often exist in mines". This can't occur according to the definition of each. NO calthemites can't occur in caves and NO speleothems can't occur in mines, according to the definitions of both Speleothems and Calthemites. Sorry to be so blunt on this, but when you look at the definition of both these terms and the latin/roman/greek derivation of the words and the various original publications where the terms were first used and defined, it is very definite. What is true is that stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone, coralloids etc which describes the shape of the secondary deposit, can occur in both speleothems and calthemites and the other unknown classification of a secondary deposit such as Melanterite stalactites in coal mines. Wow we are getting in deep discussion here.

Best regards Newcaves (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Newcaves There are innumerable examples of "standard" / "orthodox" formations occurring in limestone(and other rocks) mines. If you classify these as calthemites, you'll have to rewrite the chemistry on the calthemite page to include the standard limestone speleothem chemistry - have a look at which has a lot of aragonite formations. As I implied in my posting, there is no point in referring back to the etymology, as the term 'speleothem' predates a lot of the subsequent research and thinking on the subject. I wouldn't normally be bothered, but in my opinion you have made the speleothem page even muddier than it was. --Langcliffe (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Langcliffe. Great photos in the mine as per your link. Yep, definitely look like aragonite secondary deposits. Bare in mind that "calcium carbonate" can be deposited in the form of calcite, aragonite or vaterite - they are all the same chemical composition - it is just the crystal structure shape which is different. Yes, I agree that when Moore (1952) first used and defined the word "Speleothems" that the chemistry related to concrete was not known at the time. Also the renowned book "Cave Minerals Of The World" by Hill and Forti (edition 1 & 2) is the most cited speleological publication in the world, states that "secondary deposits" in mines and tunnels are not classed as speleothems, despite mimicking them. "Cave Minerals of the World" is considered by the majority of speleologists as the absolute bible when it comes to minerals and secondary deposits in caves. It drew on the knowledge of thousands of renowned experts from around the world and the revised edition 1997 was published well after the hyperalkaline chemistry of concrete secondary deposits was known. The word "caves" is also very clearly defined in this book and does not include caves and mines. Cave is defined as a natural cavity large enough for a human to enter-------- etc etc. Then if you look at the Calthemite page on Wikipedia, scan down to equations [5 through to 9] which is the same chemistry as would be occurring to deposit the (calcium carbonate) aragonite's in the mine which you have linked to. (great photos of mine tunnel and secondary deposits - thanks for the link.) As yet I have not been able to find any pier reviewed publication of note, which has redefined the meaning of speleothems to include secondary deposits in manmade mines and tunnels. As you probably gather the chemistry of secondary deposits inside and out of caves has been a passion of mine for about 45 years, as is speleology which I am heavily involved in for a longer period. If your of a similar persuasion, I recon we could have some great discussions.

You may also note (equations 5 to 9) on the calthemite page, that the same chemistry which occurs in limestone caves can actually leach calcium carbonate from very very old concrete (more likely in thin concrete) and deposit calthemites. The calcium hydroxide has the be leached out of the leachate path before this chemical reaction can occur.

Anyway, I think I see what you are getting at regarding chemistry/location and can add a sentence or two in the calthemite page to cover the mine tunnels in limestone, dolomite or other calcareous rock which have secondary deposits with the same chemistry as calcium carbonate speleothems in caves. What do you think???? With regards the speleothem page, I didn't think it was muddied, but will certainly have a closer look to see if it can be further clarified. Hope I can get a bit of time tomorrow. Thanks so much for all your interest in this subject. Regards, NewcavesNewcaves (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some minor changes to the speleothem definition have been added to the speleothem page. Hope this de-muddies the water a little. Will address some more of your concerns on the calthemite page in the next day or so. Appreciate all your comments and I am sure that the pages and descriptions will be the better for our discussions. And will do something about specifically mentioning mines in limestone and dolomite etc as well as those other mineral stalactites in mines which would not be covered by calthemites due to the definition.Newcaves (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my edits to include the word 'tsingy' on the karst page. This is fine, and I understand the decision. But I ask that you please find a more appropriate place to include 'tsingy' on the karst page, as the search term tsingy redirects to the page, but the word is not mentioned there. Thanks Mark D. Scherz 08:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.scherz (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skirwith Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mississippian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Langcliffe Pot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mississippian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit said "Modify latest contribution to match the source, tidy up, and re-arrange"

Instead, you just removed the entire latest contribution. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorian Sugar Nips (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Victorian Sugar Nips - Thank you for your message. I seem to have upset you, for which I am sorry. I have taken a look at my edit, and being a bear of little brain I cannot identify the section I removed. Would you mind very much if you could be more explicit? Thanks. Langcliffe (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You,re right, my mistake! I was looking at the wrong version. Thanks.Victorian Sugar Nips (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an inclusion criteria, such as the waterfall reaches a certain size. It would seem large underfalls should be included on a list. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly Valoem - but a 200 metre high subterranean waterfall in Austria is probably less notable than Ruby Falls in the USA which is in a showcave. There are probably a couple of hundred waterfalls higher than Ruby Falls in the Yorkshire Dales alone. The problem is that waterfalls in caves are extremely common - far more so than above ground. As soon as we start having a list, than it will rapidly become unwieldy. Langcliffe (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hebden, North Yorkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Leeds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Langcliffe. I see that you've done a lot of work on caving articles, including List of UK caving fatalities. Back in 2014, you did a bunch of clean-up including edits like this one, removing Alexander Rea and this one removing multiple entries to drop from the list any deaths that don't appear to have happened during recreational caving. I certainly agree that mining accidents are not relevant to the issue of cave exploration deaths, but I wonder whether there's any value in excluding the deaths of poorly prepared people who chose to venture into caves. I understand that from an experienced caver's perspective these deaths are in a very different category than, say, the Mossdale Caverns tragedy. But it seems somewhat arbitrary to only include people who died despite a fairly high level of preparation and exclude those of people who died because of a fairly low level of preparation.

Could we find some way to include these "misadventure" type deaths? Maybe we can indicate "non-cavers" in the table. Maybe we have a second list in a separate section. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Rupert Clayton. I originally created the list to be intended as a list of cavers who have died caving in UK caves, which allows us to see how changing techniques, equipment, and demographics affect the figures over the years, and I tried to be explicit in my criteria. Including boy scouts who blunder down 100 metre shafts with a penknife torch skew the figures. If you are really keen to see a list of such people, a new list could be created. Alternatively, one could include a second list after Breakdown over time, so that it was obvious that the lists were separate. Personally, I really would prefer not to see the current list compromised. Cheers - Langcliffe (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the Cleeves Cove article and it has links with the Culzean Caves video because they are both recorded as Elfhames as recorded in Robert Burns' 'Halloween' poem as stated on the video towards the end. Both sites were also used as hiding places by Covenanters. First time I have been suspected of vanity - I hold with Oscar Wilde on that emotion. Rosser Gruffydd 10:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rosser Gruffydd: The only reason I could hazard (note that there was a question mark) for the inclusion was that it must have been a vanity link as it is a very tangential connection. As you know, some people take every opportunity to ensure that their websites and videos are linked in as as many wikipedia articles as possible.

However, assuming that this is not the case, I contest that if we are to have video links to every topic relating to an article, we are going to become well and truly bogged down. In this case your argument seems to be that Cleeves Cove is an example of "A". Culzean is also an example of "A". Therefore we should have a video link to Culzean. Using the same argument we could say that Cleaves is a Carboniferous limestone cave; Gaping Gill is an example of a carboniferous limestone cave; therefore we should have a video link to a Gaping Gill video, which is plainly ridiculous.

Wouldn't it be better to expand the Elfhame article to further your discussion, and have the link there? As far as the Covenanters are concerned, there is no reference to Culzean Caves in the Covenanters article, and no reference to Covenanters in the Culzean article, so I think that you are relying on unreferenced personal knowledge. Langcliffe (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A few of your points are taken and I would deduce that you originally acted in haste as suggested by your well researched reply. It is the only other referenced Elfhame I am aware of, thus it is significant in the Ayrshire and Scottish context. Covenanters - I came across several online references to its use as a hiding place during my research. Personal knowledge - I am not from the Covenanting times as it happens. Have you written any articles on Wikipedia? Rosser Gruffydd 11:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Rosser Gruffydd: Thank you for your reply. I gather from it that you have accepted my main argument for not adding video links to articles that have only a very tenuous connection, and will not revert its removal again. Langcliffe (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caving in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mendip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rutherford and Son, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you reverted a modification which was accurate, as can be seen by simply opening the reference in question. What to do now to have the appropriate first name without risking a further revert? PRZ (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

PRZ: Mea Culpa - I was trying to revert the edit previous to yours which was vandalism, and failed. That reversion was subsequently done by somebody else correctly. Please carry on with your modification, and apologies for the inconvenience. Langcliffe (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I failed to notice that I hadn't actually fully reverted the vandalism on that page.  A S U K I T E   20:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem - it took me three goes to work out what had happened! - Langcliffe (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask that why you're removing my link KUTTANI (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, KUTTANI - blogs and self-published websites are not considered to be appropriate links, which is why one of your edits was automatically reverted. See WP:BLOGS for further information on this Wikipedia policy. Cheers - Langcliffe (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I understood but tell me is there any other way to link my website.plz tell KUTTANI (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, KUTTANI - I'm sorry, but Wikipedia discourages unnecessary linking. It is, after all, intended to be an encyclopedia, rather than a link farm. If you would like a second opinion or advice, I suggest you visit the friendly people at the Teahouse, providing a link to this discussion (User talk:Langcliffe#Removing external link). If you think that I am being unreasonable, then there is a Wikipedia dispute resolution protocol which you may wish to read. All the best - Langcliffe (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies – I didn't doubt the validity of your change, but when I saw that you'd changed the ranking in the article without changing the reference I assumed we'd need a new citation for the current information. Sorry – should have checked the existing ref. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Dave.Dunford - no problem! It's always best to question. Langcliffe (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haitón del Guarataro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cavernicola.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Re.: “Reverted good faith edits by JamesHaigh (talk): It does't make sense to link to a "see also" article which doesn't exist”)

Thanks for making me aware of that guideline against redlinks in see also sections. Wikipedia's policy has ballooned over the years and I find it a hindrance to contribution tbh., so try to balance it with WP:IAR because otherwise I find myself spending silly amounts of time for tiny amounts of editing. Anyway, I've just created a stub for plaintext email. I suppose I'll make it known at [[talk:MOS:SEEALSO]] that I think that redlinks in see also sections are more useful to the reader than their invisible absense, but I guess I'll be shot down as is increasingly typical on the Internet these days. :-/ —James R. Haigh (talk) 2021-04-08Thu13:20:11Z

An update is needed but neither original research nor unreferenced material is acceptable.

This is interesting

https://www.ilkleygazette.co.uk/news/19587081.video-shock-youtuber-measures-depth-strid-bolton-abbey

but it's only the local rag. Geofpick (talk)

Hello I would like your opinion on to find out if I should avoid my participation on en.wikipedia. Friendships --Biboc (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Biboc - you certainly shouldn't stop helping to develop en.wikipedia - you have done some fantastic work!

In the case of the list of the longest caves, it really is not very important where the limit is. I think that the way in which Leithmotiv has expressed his opinion has been a little strong, but he is a dedicated editor and is intentions are the best. I tend to walk away when another editor feels that strongly about something. In this case, I do agree with him that your first limit of 100 km is probably the best. It is a nice round number, and the list will stay a reasonable length. We don't have a list of the longest caves in the UK, but I suspect that because our caves are much shorter than the US and French ones, our limit would be 20 km. In terms of depth, it would probably be 200 metres, whereas the French one would probably be 1000 metres!

All the very best, and let us all stay wiki-friends for the good of caving on en-wikipedia. - Langcliffe (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your encouragement. If you are interested in European caves you have these lists outside en.wikipedia:

Allemagne

Belgique

Espagne

France

Italie

Suisse

Friendships --Biboc (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello I translated part of my article on the network of the clot d'Aspres into English. Can you see if the translation is not too bad? Friendships Gilbert. Biboc (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Biboc Hi, Gilbert - I will look tomorrow. John Langcliffe (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Salut Gilbert, je pense que j'ai terminé. Pouvez-vous le vérifier pour moi, s'il vous plaît ? John ~ Langcliffe (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Langcliffe

Thank you for your help with the translation.I also thought to translate the gouffre

[] translated into eight languages

but not into English. When do you think?

Friendships

--Biboc (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@biboc - Je pense que c'est une très bonne idée et je serai heureux de vous aider. Il y a un mauvais article sur grotte touristique de Verna : La_Verna_cave. Je suis passé une fois de Tête Sauvage au Tunnel EDF - un voyage magnifique. ~ Langcliffe (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Bonsoir Langcliffe

j'ai fini la traduction: User:Biboc/sandbox — Wikipedia. Si tu veux modifier et améliorer n'hésite pas.

Amitiés. Biboc (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Bonjour Langcliffe

J'ai essayé d'améliorer l'article sur le gouffre Jean Bernard [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouffre_Jean-Bernard ]

Si tu pouvais regarder.

Amitiés

--Biboc (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Je regarderai plus tard, @BibocBiboc - peut-être demain. John Langcliffe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Biboc: M'aidez, s'il vous plaît. Est la salle des Crêpes dans la Gouffre B19, et le Gouffre B19 était-il connecté au collecteur en 1975 ou 1976? Merci. Langcliffe (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Bonsoir

Le gouffre B19 est relié au Jean-Bernard le 1 novembre 1975 faisant passer le gouffre à - 1208 m. La salle des Crêpes est située dans le gouffre Jean-Bernard à -938 m par rapport à l'entrée du Jean-Bernard (entre P11 et E8) avant la galerie de Sezhommes. Biboc (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Je pense que j'ai fini, mais je suis encore un peu flou sur les dates. Puis-je ajouter des versions Deep Zoom des topos GJB à mon site Web ? Langcliffe (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Merci pour ta participation, j'ai également amélioré le https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouffre_Mirolda .

Si tu pouvais regarder.

Amitiés

--Biboc (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Bonjour

I also create art in English that

completes [].

Friendships

Biboc (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Langcliffe! I had not read that, and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. Best, Kafka Liz ^{A girl is no one} 17:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of show caves, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ingleton and Pen-y-cae.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)