User talk:Chrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to add your comments below the line. I'll get back to you whenever I remember to read this page.

Requested moves[edit]

Hi, Chrism, I've removed your mass nomination of articles for moves from the WP:RM page. I did this because I think it's a little premature. The Barack Obama case is still under discussion. See how that one goes, first. If that move gets approved, then I would just go ahead and BOLDly move the others without going through WP:RM. If that move is rejected, then I would say there's no point in nominating the others. Also, this is clearly a case where consistency is desired across a series of articles, so having individual discussions on each article's talk page is not going to result in the desired outcome. Once the Obama inauguration discussion is settled, then you can move the other articles to match its name format.--Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"So Help Me God"[edit]

I responded to your query on "So Help Me God" change to question form. See the talk site pleaseArodb (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Cox[edit]

I request your intervention. Baroness Cox has not been involved with Christian Solidarity Worldwide since 2003. She successfully sued the Evening Standard for the false article that you now reference. It is a subjective statement to say the film was anti-Islamic. Check out www.worldcommittee on Disability, all of her disability work has been removed. This is libel!!!

The opening paragraph should read:

Caroline Ann McNeill Love Cox, Baroness Cox FRCN (born 6 July 1937) is a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords, and campaigner for many humanitarian causes and issues relating to disability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talkcontribs)

DYK for 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Tags[edit]

Be careful with these, The club penguin show doesn't fit under G1, and a mistagged article can be bitey to newbies. But keep up the good work on new page patrolling! Regards, ƒingersonRoids 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

Hi ChrisM,

Im Alex Irwin Randy and i want to ask why are you doing a speedy deletion?! please do not delete it because i am a singer because i sang with T-Pain, kite, Rihanna, David Guetta, Ed Sheeren and D. Prince for real i am there best friends so thanks for reading.--AlexanderPark1 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


help please[edit]

Chrism, I'm really trying to get this right. I'm working on the page for Christopher Tenzis and I believe he is credible and noteworthy enough to be on this site. Can you tell me exactly what I'm doing wrong or how I should clean up this page? I've read over lots of the help pages, and I'm doing my best, but I feel like I must be getting the formatting wrong or something. I've sited everything I could think of. Thank you for your time. I'm sure you get lots of this. :( Piesandcakes343 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

Haha, no problem. Δnnuit Cœptis 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Famous Evertonians[edit]

Hey, well done! I have been interested in this section and you have done a remarkable job. Though have to add Freddie Starr (very well known, FA Cup Final 1984 especially outside team hotel). If complete I will look for more WITH source Babydoll9799 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No necessity to move[edit]

Again moving theses articles. No necessity to move. According the RFEF and LFP, the official name is Segunda División B Play-Off ..... I will revert your changes. There are not discussion about this. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been the title since the creation of playoffsin 1990. In Spain, the play-offs have other name and different system from England. Since the play-offs creation in 1990, always has carried the same name. All people and journalists in Spain calls this as Segunda División Play-Offs and Segunda División Play-Offs. Do not you know you? --Raymond Cruise (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't feel bad Chrism. The play-off between those clubs that finished 16th is actually a relegation play-in with the winners remaining in the Segunda B while the losers are relegated to the Tercera! It's just the fact these clubs were from the Segunda B so it does make sense that section is under Segunda B play-offs Raul17 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback[edit]

No problem, we've all been there! –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


For reverting the Jennette McCurdy vandalism. Jeneral28 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Copyright[edit]

Can't you simply put a block on entry of edits from that IP address? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Everton F.C.[edit]

A source is provided for Shkodran Mustafi's squad number on the Everton article, it's the UEFA link. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mick Rathbone[edit]

Hello. Not sure why you replaced the Category:Everton F.C. with Category:Everton F.C. players? AFAIK, he never played for them. Category:Everton F.C. non-playing staff would be better, if anyone could be bothered to create one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor brain freeze, I think I've confused his article with another one I had open at the time. Mea culpa. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It pushed me into creating the appropriate category, anyway :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Main news page vandalism[edit]

Can you have an admin revert the main current events page: Someone wrote "I am the king of the World." Thanks!

-- (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversing Edit on 2010 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Hi, I saw you reversed my entry. Not entirely sure why; couldn't quite get the whole point but basically it seems like you are saying that there are allowed to be opinions in articles. Although I agree with this you can not link to a article that is not written by someon well known and it should be in reference directly to that person. If you are able to link any opinion article you are going to end up having complete untrue things being said. Some of what this article says and is used in the 2010 page is also factually incorrect as the 2010 page states: "the natural sounds of people in the stands are drowned out" This is referenced from the article and is incorrect. Even at the games with the most Vuvuzelas (South Africas matches) you can hear the crowd singing Shosholoza and also cheers when there are goals over the Vuvuzelas. I have also had this on the Discussion page for 3 days and there were no complaints so I changed it. The point that they are irritating to some is also clearly shown by the preceding article that talks about the footballers opinions with all the statements/opinions being linked to their names. Would be unfair of me not hear the other side of the story but this is my point and reasoning behind the edit. Also here was my post on the discussion board:


I find a huge problem with Reference 114 linking to a hugely opinionated and biased opinion column. It is also untrue that the Vuvuzelas drown out the crowd as you can clearly hear chants and cheers by spectators during goals and exiting moments. Also in one match you could clearly hear the beat of a drum echoing around the stadium. Often the sound of the ball kicked is also heard so I think the "Others watching on television have complained that the ambient audio feed from the stadium only contains the sounds of the Vuvuzelas and the natural sounds of people in the stands are drowned out.[114]" comment should be removed; along with the 114 reference. --Tanka8 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry it keeps changing as people edit. The reference is the one to the New York Post. "Valenti, Elio (13 June 2010). "Buzz off, vuvuzelas!". New York Post." --Tanka8 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Tanka8 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raghupati Raghava Rajaram[edit]

I agree that the article Raghupati Raghava Rajaram should be deleted, specially as it does not have the coverage to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. However, as it is one in a series of recent problems for director Shaji Kailas, I went ahead and added one sourced sentence to Shaji Kailas#2000-Present, mentioning Raghupati Raghava Rajaram in context to his other recent setbacks as a director.[1] Might you agree that after deletion, and as readers might still search for the cancelled film by name, that a redirect to the director's section will serve? I also believe a redirect will help prevent an inappropriate recreation of this article. --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701[edit]

Hi Chrism,

Sorry. I'm not too experienced in editing Wikipedia articles but it seems to me you brought back word "Roman" (which I deleted a day earlier) in the sentence "descendants who had not married a Roman Catholic; those who were Roman Catholic, and those who married a Roman Catholic,"

I would like to point out what is written above is simply not true. If (theoreticaly) Prince William gets married with lady who is member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (not a Roman Catholic!!!!!) can he still become a king? No, because the Act of settlement says "That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever" Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is in full communion with the Holy See, so if Prince William gets married with such a lady unfortunately he has to forget, even though she is not Roman Catholic.

The clause in the Act is about ALL Catholics both Roman Catholics and members of ALL Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome (Ukrainian is only an example)

Best regards Tomasz (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Response on user's talk page. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting of my edits re Israel & US support[edit]

I don't see why you removed my reference to the fact that this offer relates to alleged Israeli war-crimes and occupied West Bank - these are verificable points of fact, not a POV.

Aa42john (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree an Israeli settler may respond as you suggest. But Nazi invaders of Moravia or their sympathisers may have regarded that as part of Germany. Are we therefore not allowed to refer to "Occupied Czechoslovakia"?

The report I saw specifically referred to 'war crimes': are we also not allowed to refer to that? (I did say 'alleged war crimes' which should cover the alleged criminals.)

Editing seems careful to protect the Israeli POV, but not the Palestinians' POV - they get called 'terrorist' without even the 'alleged' prefix. It all seems rather biassed to me, and your edit seems part of it.


Aa42john (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up![edit]

Just a friendly heads up to alert you to Portal:Current events/2010 December 5. You seemed to have inadvertantly removed "<!-- All news items above this line -->|}" from the bottom of the page. The hidden comment isn't so important, but the rest of it ensures that the collapsable box ends at that point. If the bracket is not present, the entire page it's transcluded on (in this case WP:ITN/C) becomes enclosed within the collapsable box! --Dorsal Axe 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Chrism/1950 BEA Viking incident[edit]

Hi, just a request to add a colon before "Category" so as to prevent the cats becoming live until such time as you move the article to mainspace, at which point the colons can be removed. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation of the word Act[edit]

I have noticed your recent edit to Act of Settlement 1701.

WP:MOSCAPS is not applicable because there is no consensus that capitalization is not necessary in this case. James500 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus that MOSCAPS is applicable per WP:BURO and common sense. WP:MOSCLEAR is not applicable because this is a case where there is a specific focus, and in any event, the outcome of the specific discussion about this "trumps" WP:MOSCLEAR, because it proves that there is no consensus in favour of that either. The discussion of this is here

Thank you for your message.

It would be manifestly absurd to insist that a guideline (it is not even a policy) should apply to a specific case when it had been positively established that there was no consensus to apply to that case. That is what I mean by common sense.

As far as I can see, WP:BURO creates a presumption against policies that has to be defeated by an actual consensus. It has been established that none exists in this case.

As far as I can see, the Manual of Style is written by a vocal minority and actually has minimal support. There is, as far as I can see, certainly a consensus that the Manual of Style has serious problems. I remember a discussion on its talk page to that effect and it is of course still locked from editing.

I do not think it is fair to suggest that I am in favour of capitalizing the word "because I feel like it". In this case there is very strong evidence (I am tempted to call it overwhelming) that the rules of grammar are in fact to capitalize the word in this context, and the sources that were adduced against that proposition lack legal credentials and are not reliable.

James500 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrism. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Short titles[edit]

Please provide a source for this. Since the short title is prescribed by statute, it really needs to be a case on the construction the generic clauses that create these citations. I have had this discussion before at User talk:Andrew Gwilliam. I can identify pieces of legislation and textbooks that indicate that the definite article is part of the short title. James500 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And the title of that Act is "An Act to replace section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 with other provision against fraudulent conduct; and for connected purposes." James500 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrism. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your message[edit]

Even if it is correct for Canada (I observe that it cites no cases), the Canadian source does not claim to apply to the United Kingdom. contains errors. In particular, for example, they omit the words of enactment of certain early Acts because these were not included in The Statutes of the Realm from which Statutes In Force was compiled. They also, for example, refer to the subdivisions of Schedules of Acts as "sections" instead of as "paragraphs" which not correct either.

If you look at secondary legislation (i.e. statutory instruments) on that website, you will find that the heading of the page always includes the definite article (which causes me to think that the omission from Acts is probably just a mistake that they have not corrected, possibly because they don't have time). You will also find that the titles of Church Assembly Measures (I looked at the Interpretation Measure 1925) are being printed in block capitals, which is plainly nonsense.

In fact, where do they say on that website that the heading of the page is supposed to be a citation? Where, for example, the calendar year is not part of the short title an Act, they sometimes put it in brackets at the end.

I do not think that paragraph 9.31 of the cabinet office's guide proves anything since it does not say why they are omitting the definite article. For all I know, it might be a mistake, or the product of intellectual laziness, or someone's personal opinion, which, unlike section 7(1) of the Theft Act 1978, does not have the force of law.

If you want a source that has the definite article as part of the short title, try the Schedule of repeals at the end of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or the Courts Acts 1971.

For the avoidance of doubt, the correct citation of an Act is a question of law. It not determined by common usage.

James500 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I came here to refer Chrism to the previous discussion I had with James500 regarding this and a related issue on my talk page (specifically here, here, and here). Unfortunately an unrelated external reason forced me to pull out abruptly from that discussion before a proper conclusion. As such, I will confine myself for now to pointing out that James500 is wrong where he states above: contains errors. In particular, for example, they omit the words of enactment of certain early Acts because these were not included in The Statutes of the Realm from which Statutes In Force was compiled.

Firstly, Statutes in Force was based on the third edition of the Revised Edition of the statutes. Secondly, The Statutes of the Realm, the ultimate source for the first edition of the Revised Edition, does not omit the words of enactment. Thirdly, all these various editions (incl. have been published under the authority or superintendence of the Controller of HMSO, and are thus legally authoritative. Fourthly, I think I'm right in saying that the Statute Law Revision Act 1948 also gave express authority for the omission of words of enactment from any Revised Edition.
Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
I am unable to comment on this. I was repeating what someone else told me. James500 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have struck that passage as I think you may well be right. James500 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC) I apologise if I have made a mistake. James500 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page[edit]

Paragraph 9.31 of Guide to Making Legislation says nothing about Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It refers to Bills. [It would be an original synthesis to assume that it applies to Acts]. (words inserted at 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)) does not say that the Act can be cited as "Theft Act 1978" or that it cannot be cited as "the Theft Act 1978". James500 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC) The heading "Theft Act 1978" is not a sentence and consequently does not assert anything to be a fact. At best, it is a suggestive juxtaposition. It would be an original synthesis to draw inferences from something like that.

The references in the three Acts that you offered cannot be assumed "trump" the references in the two Acts that I offered. That would be an original synthesis.

Your suggestion that the non-capitalisation of the definite article in printed copies of section 7(1) means something is WP:OR.

The Canadian example does not mention Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It would be an original synthesis to assume that it applied to those Acts (quite apart from the fact that the Canadian legislation to which it refers is foreign, bilingual, italicises the short title in both its English and French versions, has a very different form in its French version, and is secondary legislation).

I think that answers all of your points, so I am going to revert the article back to its original state with the rationale "original synthesis". James500 (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Re.: Falklands War - linebreaks[edit]

Good call. I failed to notice that, and unfortunately I believe I did the same in some other articles. Doh! -- Mecanismo | Talk 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


Could you let me know why you have deleted the entry for thames valley police on the Police ele ctions page?

Regards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJWillicombeUK (talkcontribs) 14:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 

Category:Essex Senior Cup[edit]

Category:Essex Senior Cup, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Tim! (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Liverpool Senior Cup[edit]

Category:Liverpool Senior Cup, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Tim! (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Premier League[edit]

Thanks for tidying up (and, I think, improving) what I wrote re non-English clubs in the PL. Just one question/suggestion for the moment:

Should the section be titled 'Foreign club participation in the Premier League' (to distinguish it from foreign players and managers)? I realise it's already within the Clubs section, but this may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader, or the casual editor. I'll leave the decision up to you, as I don't want to make any more changes myself for the time being, as I'm simply exhausted by previous arguments on the subject, and fairly sick of it at present. I do have a couple of other fairly minor matters that I might want to bring up eventually, but I'll leave them until if and when I feel willing to put up a fight to defend them. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The problem with talking about "foreign clubs" is that most of the talk revolves around Welsh and, to a lesser extent, Scottish participation. It's rather inaccurate I'd argue for clubs from one part of the UK to be regarded as "foreign" in another part of the same country. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply (as above, copied by me from my Talk Page), Chris. That was why I called the section "Non-English", not "foreign". I simply assumed it was you who had changed it to "foreign" and I didn't want an argument about it. If you want to change it back to "Non-English" (with or without "club"), you would have my full support on that. (I'm posting this on both our Talk pages, to be sure you don't miss it - if you want to continue the conversation, please let me know which Talk page you prefer; I'm putting your Talk page on my watchlist, if I haven't done so already). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
If you don't like "non-English", "Celtic" might do instead, though it has its own problems (such as Cornish clubs, and because in theory the section should be available for anybody wishing to report on any future actual or hypothetical proposals to add Continental clubs, such as already happens in Rugby Union (2 Italian clubs in the Celtic League) and Rugby League (where the Catalans play in an otherwise all UK top tier league), or for any editor simply wishing to briefly point out the absence of such proposals in the PL in contrast to those other leagues). But I'm not really bothered, as, by and large, no such wording deprives the reader of any important info, nor supplies it either.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I now see you had already made the change to 'Non-English clubs'. Thanks, and please ignore the stuff about "Celtic" above as out-of-date Tlhslobus (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Intermediate dispute may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The dispute was principally led by the [[Glasgow Junior Football (GJL). The GJL was the strongest Junior league in Scotland, having provided

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Levi Leipheimer images[edit]

Saw you'd made recent edit(s) to Levi Leipheimer. Not sure what is your degree of interest in the subject, but if any, would you please check the article talk page and provide feedback on rationalizing image selection and layout for the article? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Azx2 23:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Commonwealth[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:The Commonwealth has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Instead of mark it for deletion after 2 seconds from creation, can you help me out on the article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miky765 (talkcontribs) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Miky765 has been indefinitely blocked as a blatant sockpuppet. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Serhii Bondarchuk[edit]

Hello Chrism, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Serhii Bondarchuk, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: A former member of parliament is considered notable automatically. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christian democracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • progressive]] and to some degree influenced by [[liberation theology]].<ref name=Szulc>{{cite journal |first=Tad |last=Szulc |title=Communists, Socialists and Christian Democrats |journal=[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Autoblock unblock request[edit]

Approve icon.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Chrism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2620:0:862:1:a6ba:dbff:fe38:fae1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NoahS24fgtp". The reason given for NoahS24fgtp's block is: "Spambot".

Accept reason:

Cleared the autoblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom Baker[edit]

Your edit was undone. Do NOT delete a piece of information because it was incorrectly attributed, especially when you are aware of the source. That is a dick move. Next time, simply add the attribute. Rtm135 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Local Government Act 1972, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SELNEC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

FA Cup league tier in brackets format[edit]

Just thought I'd mention that I've replied to your comment in the talk page of the 2012–13 FA Cup article. Feudonym (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Lords may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of Lords has varied greatly throughout its history. From about 50 members in the early 1700s,<ref>{{cite web |first=Darren |last=Hughes |publisher=Electoral Reform Society |title=The Supersized House

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)