This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trident13.
PLEASE NOTE: Like many, I have a day job. So if I don't answer your question or point as quickly as you may request, please forgive me: Thank You!
Even in a little place like Hanwell there is more than one cemetery so you need to give your articles more formal names so that people wont have to guess which ones you writing about. There are three cemeteries in Hanwell. Two inner London boughs have one each and they both refer to them as “their” Hanwell Cemetery just to add to the confusion.
Also, I have had a look at your link to the Westminster cemetery website and I think they meant to say that the cemetery was originally owned by St George, Hanover Square, before being taken over by City of Westminster and thus having its name changed (from St George's) to become the new “City of Westminster Cemetery
There is a brief bit of history that might make things clearer, and that you may want to include in you article:
[1]
This composite image will show how much confusion the present article could create with the current title .
Think that a new title “City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell” fits in well with the WP naming convention. Don't forget to go back and check any articles you may have updated in error.--Aspro (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note - I hope this finds you well! I came at this from wanting to write an article on the Not Forgotten Association (on a personal stub presently, in development), which lead to me writing the article stub on its founder Marta Cunningham, which lead to me writing the article on Hanwell Cemetery, where she is buried! I notice that Mill Hill Cemetery, which is also a City of Westminster location, is far more interesting (lots of war grave stuff, so lots of refs), but again doesn't presently have an article. Not being a local I defer to your greater knowledge, and happy that you move it to the suggested title of "City of Westminster Cemetery, Hanwell." What would be your suggestion on the naming of any article on Mill Hill Cemetery, and equally should the article on East Finchley Cemetery be named in the same convention? Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
I just noticed how many new articles that you have created and thought wow! So I award you the original barnstar for your contributions, keep up the good work! :) Jdrewitt (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Digging
Hi, I noticed from my watchlist you had removed loads of external links to Digitaldigging. Is there a particular problem with this site (has it been added to a blacklist or something) which would prevent it being used as a reference or is it just its inclusion as an external list which you are changing?— Rodtalk12:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message - I hope this finds you well! I wrote the stub-article Marden Henge and had it on my watchlist, and noticed that Frogbit had added a link to that article, and placed it above the official English Heritage link. Looking at that users edit record, I noticed a similar pattern to the entirety of their edits: place a link to digitaldigging, and placed above any official/main website. I looked at digitaldigging which seems highly adwords powered, and as Frogbit broke the rules on WP:LINKSPAM, reverted his edit path. I placed a note on Frogbit talkpage, and thought I would watch further before deciding on next actions. If you think that any of the digitaldigging links do add value to the various articles, then happy to support their addition - but its just the clear WP:LINKSPAM I was reacting to. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've looked through and used some of the digital digging pages as references - particularly where no other references were included in the articles or where they include information wp didn't have (eg Scheduled Ancient Monument status). I also noticed User:Richerman had reverted your deletion on Sweet Track. Frogbit may have added loads of these links so I can see why you applied WP:LINKSPAM but many of them are useful.— Rodtalk10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wales
I have put the Wales article forward for GA status. It just needs tweaking, and maybe a heavy-handed swipe from outside to get it in place. I am writing to those who are constant contributors and defenders of Wales and Welsh articles, to not scream at me for doing this, but to help get the article through. If we fail, we fail, there is nothing wrong with that; but Wales should be a Good Article at least and if it takes good intentioned amateurs to reach that then so be it. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you edited the Dwell retail page, to downgrade the company's status from 20 stores to 19. Please do not make further libelous edits to the Dwell (retailer). Dwell is a company and you must not make false edits to it's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message, but can I please refer you to the rules of wikipedia, WP:AGF. I edited the article down from a piece of spam, to something which could pass for a suitable entry to an encyclopedia. The number of stores at that point according to teh companies website was 19 - hence the downgrade. The article still lacks inline references (the tag for which I note that you removed), and without such could therefore be subject to removal. As I assume you are associated with the company, please note your association on the articles talkpage under WP:BIAS, and add suitable inline references which back up the claims you have added. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Catherine McQueen, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outcasts (TV series)
Hi. I've noticed you've reverted my edits at Outcasts (TV series). Sorry if my edit summaries were not detailed enough. Firstly, the name Outcasts in the first line should be italic per WP:ITALIC so it should be Outcasts not Outcasts. Secondly, there is no need to add the {{Italic title}} template as it has now been incorporated within the code of {{Infobox television}} (see here), which means now it is not necessary to add the {{Italic title}} template to individual television show articles, instead they are automatically italicised when the infobox is added. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jsecure/81.100.64.222
Please stop tracing all articles edited by myself and adding derogatory tags to them. I will now speak with the police within the UK and my lawyers to see if a harassment action can be brought against you with the assistance of the Crown Prosecution Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. The tags I apply are inline with wikipedia ruoles which I suggest you start to follow. I note that your edit record and that of the Jsecure are similar, and also both have given other editors "legal" threats. Please note rules on using multiple ID's. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not tag the UltraStream article as 'not noteworthy'. UltraStream is a large streaming radio provider with stations in the UK, the USA, Europe, Australia and the UAE. It is quite notable. Continuing to claim it is not noteworthy is spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article UltraStream, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
Hello and thank you very much for your message. I am very pleased to see the excellent edit you did on my piece on Stella von Musulin and I am just about to insert the references you request. She is such an important figure in the area of Austrian letters and her friendship with Auden would make her notable in its own right but there is so much else to he that is worthy.
I have now provided the citations requested but am lacking only the date of her death, which I am trying to find in Austrian obits, and also it will be impossible to prove that she worked for British Intelligence as this was 'hush, hush work' and no citations are available readily. Thanks again for your help and I very much hope that this article becomes a permanent on Wikipedia.All the very best. Natsyw (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
South Wales Railway
Hi, when you added the route diagram to South Wales Railway with this edit, you marked some stations with the letters "Req". Several of these stations are still shown like this on Template:South Wales Railway RDT. What is the purpose of these letters, and can they be removed? At first I thought that "Req" meant that the station article was required, ie not yet created, but you created the diagram on 21 April 2007 at a time that several of these station articles already existed; for example, Johnston railway station was created on 17 December 2005. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yess... although puzzlingly, it was shown against Neyland, a terminus. Accordingly, I've removed it from that particular row; and I've also explained the term on its first use, the row for Clunderwen.
Hello, Trident13. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
COI: Engel & Völkers
Hello, I hope this finds you well as well! To answer your questions/suggestions about the Engel & Völkers page. You are indeed correct I am a franchisee at E&V and almost all of my edits are about the facts. I will definitely follow your advice and read the guidance notes on WP:COI with regards WP:NPOV and conflicts of interest. Just a quick question, so if I understand you correctly I always have to place a summary about the edit that was made? Sounds very logical. But the real question is you mention something about: "please note all further edit request/additions on the articles talkpage". What does that mean that I can't edit anymore? or that i can edit and then have the mention my edit on my talk page? I want talk you in advance for the offered help and when needed I will send you a message. Sincerely, Nick De Clercq (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
