User talk:Ehrenkater

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




Hello, Ehrenkater, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Positive comments[edit]

Dumnonii edits June 2009[edit]

Ehrenkater- Thanks for your edits, you've picked up some good points. I've been working on this article for a while now, and you get to a point where you begin to overlook wording and mistakes because you're so used to the article!

The only edit I am not happy about is using the word West Cornwall instead of Southwestern peninsula. Cornwall did not really exist as Cornwall until much later. I know what you mean, but isn't there a better way to word it? Let me know what you think on my talk page! Meur ras! :) Brythonek (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your help on on the town's entry. Very much appreciated.

Andy V Byers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy V Byers (talkcontribs) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Contract bridge[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater! Thank you very much for improving the text quality on the Contract bridge article. Your knowledge on the English language and grammar really makes Wiki a worthwhile encyclopedia. Once again, thank you.
Krenakarore (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sterling in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic[edit]

Ehrenkater, It's just to say thanks for your follow up edits. It was very fast on my heels, but they were good edits. I intend to beef that article up a bit, but I don't have access to the necessary documents at this point in time. David Tombe (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Saint Paulin Church <---- thank you![edit]

Rosetta Barnstar.png The Rosetta Barnstar
Thank you so much for the great work translating at Talk:Saint Paulin Church. It reads much better now than I thought it could, and you did in a couple of hours what I couldn't have achieved in ten. I'm pleased to have had your help and improvements! Maedin\talk 21:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits[edit]

Hey! Just wanted to say thanks for your useful edits here. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I want to say Thank you! for your cooperation related to Steinway D-274 . -- AxelKingg (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If interested - here we go again.. ;-) THX in advance. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelKingg (talkcontribs) 14:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of rivers of England[edit]

Thanks for jumping in so quickly and correcting the Thames tributaries which I've made special mention of in the talk page to the article. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you so much for helping to raise Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA status -- Senra (Talk) 01:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for making some corrections to the Latin and translations at Palais Saint-Georges. In particular, well done on this little improvement! I had to giggle when I realised the unintentional double entendre. Julia\talk 10:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the copyedits to Language - they really were an improvement. I am going to take a break now, so if you like I'd be very happy if you go over other parts of the article as well. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

One minor comment: My recent expansion is part of a larger effort to improve the article and make it conform to MOS standards so that it can progress towards GA or FA status. For this reason it will make my avoid stand alone sentences but rather write in full paragraphs, and finally include references to reliable sources for all claims. Thanks again! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Voivode of Transylvania[edit]

Thank you! Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Isabeau of Bavaria[edit]

Thanks for the copyedits there. I'm in the building stages and it's still very rough, so it was nice to see your edits. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thank you for helping to combat deletionism! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you[edit]

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your editorial work on Feudalism. Sometimes removing a few words makes a huge improvement in readability and clarity. Thank you for your effors. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your edits on Blackburnshire. Now I can spend more time on the facts side which was what I wanted to work on. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones[edit]

Cynwyl Elfed last month; A40 road (London) this month.

Good evening Mr Ehrenkater,

We meet again. Cynwyl Elfed in September and now the A40 in London.

Your first posting today (covering the West End) is on a section that I "inherited" and had intended working on later. Your revisions are most welcome.

My maternal grandfather was born and raised in Cynwyl Elfed.


-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 19:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for working on the Velká pardubická article, much appreciated. Jonclay (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


You were quite right, and what's more the editor has introduced factual inaccuracy.J3Mrs (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Health & Morals of Apprentices Act 1802[edit]

Thanks very much for your edits on this article. I really appreciate any help! I have reverted 2 changes as I feel it changes the meaning that was implied in Percival's report. Everything else sounds a lot better. Thank you =) Staceydolxx (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Your edit really helped on the information above the table on "Region of Italy" on Simple English Ayo99 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You're good![edit]

Wow, I saw your copyedits to Promotion (chess). Hope to see you touch more chess-related articles in future (so many have such terrible prose!). Kind regards, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyediting on English language[edit]

Hi, Ehrenkater,

I appreciate your care and attention to detail as you have been revising my recent changes to the Geographical distribution section of the English language article. I see you've been reviewing other sections of the article too. It looks like the article will be submitted for good article review soon, so I'm grateful for the second pair of eyes looking at each sentence and paragraph. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

26th Lochiel[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater

Thanks your improvements - much better. Very happy to be guided by you as to what to say where you put "fact" & hope you like what has been put so far.

This is what Tam Dalyell had to say (but it's a bit long to squeeze into this article I should think!):

[Quote deleted]

Many thanks again for your assistance. Best M Mabelina (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit on Walmer Castle...[edit]

...just to say thanks! Looks much better as a result. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)



Yes it is the comparative of the adjective dignus (dignus, digniora, dignissimum), the comparative meaning more worthy. cf. with good, better, best. If you are suggesting the usage in the Westminster School article it has been often noted and joked about as it is essentially bad latin, which translation to use is up for debate, perhaps noting the error in the latin in the article can sort it out.

The usage by the school could pssibly be to differenciate from Westminster Under School which uses both dignus and digniora.

Hope to be of assistance Tmwerty (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cwm Rhondda[edit]

Your recent edit to Cwm Rhondda (concerning there being five, rather than three, Welsh verses) looks interesting. Could you provide a source or citation for this? And for any of the other versions? (We could really do with getting a much of the article properly cited.) If you're not comfortable about formatting the citation, I'm happy to try to do it, if you can provide the information (either a website link or (for a book) title/author/publisher/isbn etc.). (Reply within your page here if you wish.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll add a bit more on this. Please feel free to improve the layout etc. Ehrenkater (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks promising. I've just done a fairly major reworking of the article to attempt to give it some better structure; compare this older version to this newer version. I haven't (I hope) changed anything within your material. I also added several references to independent and reliable sources. Do you have references for the older hymnbooks that you mentioned? If so could you add them to the article or (if you are not confident about formatting them) drop a note of them here on your talk page? Thanks again. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added various suggestions for improvements on the talk page for "Cwm Rhondda". Unfortunately the hymn book which I mentioned (although I only purchased it as new around 1995) seems to be too old to have an ISBN, proper publisher's imprint or date of publication. Ehrenkater (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • improvements: I've had a go at some.
  • book: anything would be better than nothing! Title? Any indication of publisher, church? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages[edit]

I love this article, so I hope you don't mind me going through your work every so often picking up typos and so on. Let me know if you're not happy with my (very minor) inputs, and I'll refrain from editing there. I've been thinking about how best to phrase the opening paragraph, given that, in terms of good grammar, "Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages" is not a period, it's a place (in a period). What would you say to :-

Gwynedd is an area in the north of Wales. Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages covers a period of Welsh, British, and European history spanning the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries (AD 1000–1300). The High Middle Ages were preceded by the Early Middle Ages and followed by the Late Middle Ages.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto and agree with suggestion Ehrenkater (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be very happy to have your help and input. I had placed the one sentence "Gwynedd is in the north of Wales" at the bottom of the opening paragraph, because the following paragraph gives a more detailed location of Gwynedd and it seemed to match better. However, if you feel strongly that the location is best served as the first line, I do not see it as an issue.

I greatly thank you for catching my many many spelling errors! lol. I wish we had spell checker inside or part of Wikipedia. Additionally, as an American, you will notice certin verbage that is completly American, and I would wish that to be "translated" into British English.

May I ask how you discovered the artical? Initially I had started to rewrite the Kingdom of Gwynedd page, but it did become to verbose, and I realized that this periode needs special attention. I plan on doing simular treatment for Powys and Deheubarth, and for Glamorgan and Gwent. Then pull the most important features of all of them together for an artical "Wales in the High Middle Ages".♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 14:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhondda Valley[edit]

Thanks for your updates on the Rhondda Valley. I'm trying my best to represent the area, and I will be adding more in the coming week. I understand that my turn of English is cluncky to say the least so appreciate your updates. Please keep following and improving my work. I need it. Thanks.FruitMonkey (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your work on Haslemere, but please note that the Wikipedia convention is to use SI units (metric) followed by imperial in brackets.--Charles (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for correcting my mistake on the Edith of Mercia article. I always thought ferch was verch. I shall not make the same mistake in future. Thanks again.--jeanne (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Snow NorthDowns Feb02 2009.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Snow NorthDowns Feb02 2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Million_Moments (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you own the copyright to the picture, this means you need to state under which liscence you are chosing to release it. So you can either release it comepletly with something like {{PD-self}} or you can release it under a free license such as GNU Free Documentation License or Creative Commons but it must have a liscence of some kind. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. Million_Moments (talk)


I noticed you are making some philatelic contributions and hopefully you are knowledgeable enough to continue improving the philatelic articles which is something we really need because there are so few active philatelists around. The WikiProject Philately is a project devoted entirely to philately and you may not be aware of its existence, so you can join us by adding your name and interests to the member list. It would be really great if we were able to continue improving Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain‎ and maybe even bring it up to Good Article, or even Featured Article. Currently we only have one philatelic Featured Article, Postage stamps of Ireland (incidentally, not to blow my own trumpet, I wrote most of), but with work, good reference and expansion the GB article could also become an FA. Hopefully you have the knowledge, resources and ability to achieve this. If you need any advise please drop me a line. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello! You made the article "Kiraly hida". I think this is better that you move Kiraly hida to Királyhida.

I knew this was Burgenland, and historically ruled by Hungarian nobility? (Eszterhazy? Harrach?)

Servus, schenen Tog! --Uponeeds (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Documents in the Case[edit]

It's an oddity, though, isn't it? I don't know another work of hers that depends totally on an epistolatory form, though she does use the technique to good effect elsewhere, particularly in Busman's Honeymoon. (Apparently she had been reading The Moonstone and wanted to experiment with the technique of multiple first-person narratives.) I reread it regularly and admire it, but I don't love it in the way I love the Lord Peter works (or even the Montague Egg ones, come to that). I am collecting bits and bobs on her collaborator on this novel "Robert Eustace" (Eustace Barton MD), who also collaborated with crime fiction pioneer Mrs L T Meade and wrote crime fiction on his own account. He appears to have suggested the main plot device - the muscarine-poisoned mushrooms - and also the rather metaphysical theme of Life vs the artificial construct that imitates it but cannot copy it exactly, and all that follows therefrom. I am desperately curious to know whether his influence on the novel was confined to the Big Idea, or whether it actually extended to the contribution of any content at all. I suspect not, but it would be wonderful to know. Karenjc 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


You have a point. I didn't write the bit that you quoted, and if you want to delete the word "accurate" I'd have no objection. I actually think that what the EBU is proposing to do is a bad idea. JH (talk page) 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Welsh pronunciation of Manawydan and Rhongomyniad[edit]

Thanks for your comments regarding my question! You're of course right about it not being that significant where the semi-vowel 'w' is placed. It is going to be grouped with the following vowel anyway when it is transcribed into Korean, since Korean syllables never end with [w] (one could transcribe it as the vowel 'u', but that would be unwieldy between two vowels). What matters is that I got the following vowel sound of 'y' correct, since the transcription will be different whether the 'y' is clear or obscure. I still haven't received a definitive answer on Rhongomyniad, but I'll keep looking. --Iceager (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Spring Holiday[edit]

Thank you for your recent edits to that page. I am very interested in this topic as well as the Christmas Controversy article, but you made an excellent point that is changing my mind a bit about Easter. Since Easter is not surrounded by other holidays (in the calendar) it seems odd that someone would call Easter the Spring Holiday as a way to be inclusive. That just seems like a way to rename a holiday that has been claimed by Christians. In other words, it would be hard to argue that the term Spring Holiday is anything but hostile toward Christianity. Christmas seems to be a different thing because when you say “Happy Holidays” you might be talking about any number of major holidays celebrated around the same time of the year. What I’m getting at is it seems to me that the term Spring Holiday seems more hostile toward Easter than the term “Holidays” is to Christmas. Your edits have caused me to think that I probably have no logical interest in the Spring Holiday article any longer. I’d love to get your feedback/edits on a few lingering issues in the Christmas Controversy page if you have the time/interest. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Sterling in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic"[edit]

Ehrenkater, you may be interested in having a look at this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sterling Currency in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic. David Tombe (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Atomic orbital article[edit]

Hello. I noticed today that last August 28 you added the following sentence to the article Atomic orbital. "The fifth orbital, now called g, was formerly called t, standing for thick." A few hours later DMacks requested a citation for this statement, which is not found in modern textbooks. Since no citation has been provided even six months later, I deleted the statement today as unsourced. However if you do have a source you can put it back in (with the source), since it is an interesting fact if it can be proved. Dirac66 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Life expectancy ‎[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Life expectancy . Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


I moved your comment on the pronunciation of Vatnajökull to the talk page. It would be helpful if you had any refs or links to soundfiles. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

C.F. Theodore Steinway[edit]

Hi, I see that you, AxelKingg and Textorus have been working on the article C.F. Theodore Steinway: Talk:C.F. Theodore Steinway. I see, that none of you have added the new stuff to the article. I hope one of you will do it. It would make the article better. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The new material is not my initiative, I just volunteered some help with the translation, so it's not for me to add it in to the article. Ehrenkater 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but AxelKingg asks for help at the bottom of the talk/discussion page: "Also the modified wordings of Ehrenkater look very OK for me. Please Textorus & Ehrenkater feel free to choose, according to your understanding of "good sounding english" - I cannot decide this, I regret, I only could find no errors in both versions."[1] --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wynebald de Ballon[edit]

I note you have affixed a "Refimprove" tag to the above article. I would be most willing to improve it if only you would indicate on its talk page (or in your absent edit summary) what the problem is with the article in your opinion. 21 footnotes and 3 sources are already given. As there was no obvious reason for the tag and no suggestion of areas for improvement, I have removed the tag. Reapply it if you wish, but please at the same time give some indication of areas for improvement. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC))

I did not add a "Refimprove" tag to the article. The tag was added by user Michaelmas1957 on 7 November --Ehrenkater (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

North Downs Line[edit]

Hi, what is your source for this? There are two separate assertions here, and I have trouble with both.

  • First, and most difficult to believe, is that "the company was a joint venture with the GWR" - the line was built to 4 ft 8 12 in (1,435 mm) gauge, whereas the GWR at that time was entirely to 84 gauge - a difference of 50%. GWR trains would simply not have been able to run over the line. If the railway had been joint with the GWR, why did it need to go to the expense of building its own station at Reading? Surely it would have been able to share the GWR's station - providing mixed-gauge tracks at some of the platforms would have been far cheaper.
  • Second, "it was never intended as an independent railway company" - why did it then go to the bother of creating a company (Reading, Guildford and Reigate Railway) and selling shares to private investors?

Please add your reference sources to the North Downs Line article. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and I have amended the section of the article to take account of them, including adding a reference source. The answers to your second question appear to be (a) that Parliament was unwilling to grant authorisation to the SER to build the line itself, although a bill was deposited to that effect in respect of the Redhill to Dorking section, and (b) that the "independent" shareholdings were used to buy out the shareholders of two competing companies, namely the Reading and Reigate Atmospheric Company and the Reading and Reigate Company. --Ehrenkater (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've got one additional 'quibble' with the same set of edits. You've slightly altered the last sentence in the lede to read: "The line runs roughly parallel to, and below, the North Downs escarpment between Ash and Redhill." My problem comes with the term below, which could be taken to mean at a lower level than as in common usage. In a more academic geological usage though, the phrase below the escarpment is more specific and (in this case) would mean that the line was immediately to the south of the steepest slope of the Downs; for the NDL this is only strictly true between Gomshall and Reigate. (West of Gomshall until Shalford the line runs predominantly through the lower slopes of the Greensand Ridge and west of Guildford to Ash, the line is north of the Hog's Back and therefore in a geological sense actually above (ie on younger rock than) the escarpment. I'm probably being overly picky here, but my main issue is the clash(?) between a reasonably technical word like escarpment and below being used in its everyday sense. I can however see that it's worth mentioning that the line doesn't run on the top of the downs. Would you be happy if I I substituted the sentence in question for something like:
"Despite its name the line does not run along the top of the North Downs, but loosely shadows the main chalk ridge between Ash and Redhill at a lower level. Between Gomshall and Reigate the line lies at the foot of the main escarpment in the Vale of Holmesdale, but further west between Ash and Guildford the line runs to the north of the Hogs Back and tunnels under both the Downs and Greensand Ridge immediately to the south of Guildford."
Thanks again for your edit and I hope you don't think I'm being too pedantic! Mertbiol (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with most of the above, however:
(a) I think the reference to the Greensand Ridge can be deleted as the railway line runs entirely to the north of the Greensand Ridge.
(b) it is true that there is a short tunnel immediately to the south of Guildford station, but it is more important that the part of the railway which was built by/shared with the Direct Portsmouth (or LSWR) takes advantage of the gap in the North Downs carved by the river Wey.
(c) Hog's Back has an apostrophe.
I shall alter the page accordingly. ---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks. To be very pedantic, there are actually two tunnels to the south of Guildford. The northern one is longest and is unimaginatively titled "Guildford Chalk Tunnel". The southern one is considerably shorter and is properly called the "St Catherine's Hill Tunnel" but sometimes called the "Guildford Sand Tunnel". (The sand here refers to the Upper Greensand.) If you look at a map, you'll see that between Shalford and Chilworth the line is actually south of St Martha's hill, which is part of the Greensand Ridge. Apologies about missing the apostrophe in Hog's Back (although I've seen it spelt without a number of times in 'official' documents, but I agree that your version is correct). Mertbiol (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)



I see that you have made some substational changes to the Groß-Umstadt article. These changes are great, but I see that there are no references associated with these. Can you please add some references with this too? Tommycw1 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

References copied from German article, as requested --Ehrenkater (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Marek Sobieski[edit]

Hello. I'm asking about this edition [2]. If I put "graduated" instead of "finished", it would be OK? Kmicic (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How about "graduated from"? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Marek Sobieski was a graduate (alumnus) of Nowodworski College and Kraków Academy, so I think that "graduated from" sounds better then "finished". Thank you. Kmicic (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


I hope you understand why your edit got swept up in a revert of a series of vandal edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire[edit]

Thank you for your edits to Ely, Cambridgeshire. Much appreciated. I have however partially reverted two of your edits both of which changed the existing spelling of medieval to mediaeval. My reasoning is that the OED (2011) confirms that the modern spelling (Brit. & US) is medieval. For example C S LEWIS 1964 "Yet all the while she [sc. Nature] is, for the medievals, only a personification". Yes. I am aware that there is a Pamela Blakeman quotation within the article with the old, now rare, spelling --Senra (Talk) 18:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits: 1 2 are not minor edits as you have classified them. Please revise your understanding of minor edit, especially for articles currently under review and ensure you are abiding by those guidelines in future. This will considerably assist other editors such as myself --Senra (Talk) 19:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please revert all of your edits in this diff as none of them are consistent with the sources. I do value your contributions and some of them have been brilliant, but changing the meaning of prose in this manner is not useful when an article is under review. As you have made further excellent edits after this one, I shall be forced to revert all of your good edits if you do not self revert those in here. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edit you refer to, and most or all of the changes in it are merely changes in phraseology for the sake of clarity and do not alter the meaning - and thus cannot give rise to inconsistencies with the sources. If there is any particular item that you feel strongly about, please feel free to revert it, as you did for the spelling of "mediaeval". Ehrenkater (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Please discuss those edits there. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Ehrenkater - I hope you understand; I've only 'undone' and moved this chat for the sake of peaceful accord; [[WP:TIND|no deadline here, so we can happily discuss it, now, at our leisure, on the article page. Hope that's all OK with you :-) Best,  Chzz  ►  19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


Hey, checked over your edits in placing tags there. About solubility. The book I sourced mentions a solubility of 1×1033. (Good catch, though, didn't even get your original point). In other cases, I don't get your point. To make it easier, please further use {{clarifyme|reason=your reason|date=February 2012}}, which will look just like [clarification needed] (although the date may be completed by a bot). I'm waiting for your points (we're all up for a normal civil discussion, right?) Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The key to success came to be known as the Zürich model ...[edit]

Hi. You added Template:Clarifyme to the following text in Zurich trams:

The key to success came to be known as the Zürich model ...

In my edits to this article, I've several times pondered what to do about this text. I've read the article Zürich model, but it really doesn't explain what the Zürich model is, or indeed what the key to Zurich's success was. Unfortunately the text is quite old, and a search of the history shows it is by an editor who hasn't edited for four years (although I suspect from the username that he is the owner of a rather good website on Zurich trams, and something of an expert on the subject).

I've rewritten the text to remove the key to success bit, but retained the link to Zürich model. If only I could work out how to improve that.

I hope that resolves your issue. Oh and by the way, thanks for spotting and fixing some of the grammatical errors I introduced in my recent rewrites. Too much haste, etc. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


Are you sure about your changes to Windermere? You changed it from "The lake has a very high percentage of its drainage area under cultivation (29.4%), and a relatively low percentage of lake bed above 9 metres (30 ft) in depth which is rocky (28%)." to "A high percentage (29.4%) of the lake's drainage area under cultivation. The lake bed is rocky and only 28% of it is more than 9 metres (30 ft) deep." I'm not convinced that only 28% is deeper than 9m, and I think that what it may have been trying to say was that of that part of the lake bed which is deeper than 9m, only 28% is rocky. The statement was unsourced, but the depth can be checked on an OS map and it looks as if a fairly large proportion is deeper than the 10m contour. Terminology such as the old wording of "above n metres in depth" is something which I try to avoid as it can be interpreted ambiguously; I prefer to use "deeeper than", as you have done. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Arctic[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater, thanks for the info re: Iceland and its being included in the arctic. I have just recently been working on the article, Arctic policy of Canada, and am pleased you have added some insight. Perhaps you can help further. Iceland is part of the Arctic Council I think. How does the Arctic Council define the "arctic"? I am also intrigued with the populations of the Scandinavian countries. Do these populations include subarctic populations? How about Canada? Is the 120,000 inclusive of subarctic populations? Thanks again for your input on the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

In this edit summary comment of your, you may wish to refer to previous WikiProject Eurovision discussions via numerous article pages, in which dialects are not being mentioned in the columns, only the term 'language' Deferring away from a previous built consensus may be deemed disruptive if continued. If you would like to discuss the matter further, then please feel free to open a new discussion via the project talk page. WesleyMouse 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A further note to this is that the project used [3] a reliable source that is used to verify languages for Eurovision articles. WesleyMouse 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Endangered languages[edit]

Hi, thanks for your attention to the article on endangered languages. However, do you think you could wait a little with working on the article. I've lost several edits already to edit conflicts. I'll be done shortly. Thanks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I lost the edits because I was stupidly editing in several windows at the time and therefore didn't notice your intermediate edits. I'll take a break in a little while and come back to the article tomorrow. Thanks for responding. best regards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Welsh people[edit]

Good to see you making some edits to List of Welsh people - plenty more work to be done there, thats for sure. One of those changes was to entries' order; from the English alphabet to the Welsh alphabet. The purpose of arranging lists in alphabetical order is that entries may be found by the reader. The vast majority of users (almost everyone, I would guess) would expect to find items on the English Wikipedia to be ordered in the English alphabet. Consequently, ordering entries using another language's alphabet would be likely to cause frustration and/or confusion. The Organisation section in WP:LEAD allows for different ordering criteria to be used, but it needs to be agreed (please use the talk page to gain consensus first) and it needs to be explicit to a casual user i.e. noted in the introduction. Please revert edits made in the alphabetical ordering system and please don't make any further such edits until consensus has been reached for those changes on the talkpage. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater,

I have added a picture to the article to answer your questions regarding the "sale of loose goods or goods from bulk". Woudl you be happy if I removed your example about the cheese in the lede paragraph. Maybe we could change the wording of the picture caption. Martinvl (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Astronomical Unit[edit]

Why removing the specification that the AU is a precise metric distance? It's essentially unique in astronomical measures in being a specific metric distance rather than an indirect approximation, and it's worth (in my ever so humble opinion) highlighting. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind, just realized what happened - two uses of the same word in the same sentence. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ehrenkater, please could you improve the content of Palmes family article? (Hancock blogger (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)).

help please![edit]

Ehrenkater, please could you improve the content of Palmes family article? (Hancock blogger (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Have tidied this up a bit as requested.- Ehrenkater (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello Ehrenkater. Thanks for your help with this article and your rapid reactions to my latest edits. I am trying to put some order into the older Bornholm articles in my coverage of the island. In particular, still quite a bit to do on Rønne and especially Nexø. You are welcome to help! -- Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit baffled by your removal of "idyllic" from the Bornholm box caption and your explanation "you can't say idyllic". I don't really mind about your removing the word but I would like to know why you think it was out of place. --Ipigott (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

See - Ehrenkater (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand your reasoning but I don't really think it was a peacock word in this context. Simply using "Bornholm's coastline" would have been misleading as a caption as it was intended to present an idea of the picturesque nature of some of the smaller settlements on the west and north coasts. "Idyllic" (Danish idyllisk) is a term frequently used in the literature to convey this impression. Anyway, I see you did not remove "picturesque", so let's leave it at that. I had replaced "a typical village..." as the photo did not represent a village and in any case a photo of Allinge, Gudhjem or Svaneke would have been more representative of "a typical village". --Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Faresaver buses[edit]

Hi, you have missed the point with rcspinter whatever his name is. We are not squabbling, he is writing information which is incorrect and will not accept correction. He is in Liverpool or wherever and has no connection with Faresaver Buses and will not accept that he is wrong. This is why no-one will take Wikipedia seriously, because it is so inaccurate. relying on out of date information gleaned from the web, when those that know the truth are ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing the subscripts.

I will explain the coordination a little more (also am getting a diagram done).

The red link to EuF3 is intentional. That's what I want linked (and eventually an article written). Also, the MOS forbids blue next to blue WLs.TCO (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1st Czechoslovak Partisan Brigade of Jan Žižka: Relevance of Jan Žižka in lead section[edit]


thank you for your interest and input into the 1st partisan brigade article! You have claimed that having Jan Žižka in the lead section is not relevant. I don't agree for the following reasons:

  • there were two other partisan units operating under his name in the WW2
  • the brigade in Yugoslavia is probably more internationally recognized
  • it is a simple single sentence which explains why the name was used, and why actually three different partisan units were using it

I took the sentence about being one of 6 from Jan Žižka article. It is a common claim in Czech sources, however when it comes to this I would also like to have a source from abroad.

Also, for your consideration: Badass of the Week: Jan Zizka ;)

Have a nice weekend! Regards! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I did not say that having Žižka in the article is not relevant, I said that the dubious claim about him being one of only six successful generals in the history of the world was likely to be false and was in any case not directly important enough to feature in the lead section of an article about a resistance unit named after him. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I agree with that. On the other point - being successful and being never defeated are different categories. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Repairing the Latitude/Longitude Pages[edit]

Please note that I am NOT vandalizing the "Cities by Latitude" page. Accordingly I would appreciate if you do not undo my edits. If you think a second of latitude/longitude is too precise, please round to the nearest minute. I am only posting the coordinate values as presented on the pages for the respective cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That would take quite a long time, and would produce a result that was almost exactly the same as what was already there --Ehrenkater (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi there. I didn't realize you were also editing Tjörnin. I'll move on to something else now in case you want to give it more attention. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your help. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful edits.--Nvvchar. 02:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tjörnin[edit]

Orlady (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Structure and organisation of Interregnum articles[edit]

As you were active editing Interregnum (British Isles) after a large addition to the article was made and before it was reverted, this is a heads-up for a possible reorganisation of the Commonwealth and Interregnum articles, please see Talk:Commonwealth of England#Structure and organisation of Interregnum articles -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Walla Brook[edit]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Ehrenkater, thanks for creating Walla Brook!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 4

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Accidental gap[edit]

Hello, Ehrenkater. You recently edited Accidental gap and left the edit summary, "needs more explanation, why not sausage ---> sausagal?" As the article states, "In English a noun may be formed by adding the suffix -al to a verb." The suffix does not attach to nouns such as "sausage". The internal links explain the terms noun, verb, and suffix; is this not sufficient to understand the process?

I have removed your additions to the article, since they did not cite any reliable sources. Whenever adding significant information to an article, it is best to cite published sources to verify the information. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your request for clarification[edit]

Hello, Ehrenkater. Last month you added a {{clarify}} tag to the page Accidental gap, and suggested on Talk:Accidental gap that the article 'implies that these "gaps" are a few unfilled places in a field that is mostly filled'. The page was edited shortly thereafter, but no one else has commented on the talk page. If you have time, would you mind either commenting at the talk page about remaining problems, or else removing the maintenance tag? Thanks, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Bottesford Preceptory[edit]

The mention of Bottesford to the west of Lincoln Cliff might be a little confusing to some. South of Lincoln the Cliff is a discernably narrow sharp escarpment; north, it fans out – as a named geographical area – and appears to include Bottesford see: [4]. I know that the steep escarpment exists beyond Kirton. It might be better to say something like - It was on low-lying land about 3 miles (5 km) to the west of the escarpment of the Lincoln Cliff limestone upland. This might forestall nit-picking edits by the initiated :) I've taken the distance from the geo-coords to Ermine Street which runs on the ridge. Acabashi (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

[Scilly Isles, Surrey]][edit]

Do you agree with me that we should delete this article as non-notable? - Adam37 Talk 16:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'll abstain on that one. It is an official place name and it is maybe very nearly as notable as some of the small villages that have their own article. This site describes it as "famous", and it is clearly a useful landmark.----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Compare also e.g. Magic Roundabout (Swindon)----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide[edit]

The whole point of the article is that "well known facts" are not in fact as "well known" as one would think. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course the hoaxes play on people's ignorance. Arguably this implies that it is even more important than usual that our article is 100% accurate scientifically, so as not to introduce any more fallacies. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

London Heathrow Airport[edit]

Many thanks for reverting the inaccurate edit on London Heathrow Airport. Your reversion was the fourth time that the unregistered IP editor has made the same edit. I have warned them twice within the last two days to stop and if they persist they could be banned from editing. I have limited time in the next few days and would be grateful if you could keep an eye on the article? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian names[edit]

I see you've been editing Indonesian names and you seem to know the subject matter. I just wondered if you had seen the comment I just posted on the talk page of the article regarding the section on "Arabic names". CorinneSD (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am definitely not an expert on the subject matter; I was mainly trying to make the English easier to understand. I have now looked at your comment, and then altered the word order of the sentence you referred to which lists the Islamic ethnic groups; this should hopefully address your question.----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The entire paragraph now makes sense and is clear. Good edits! CorinneSD (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your edits on article Bosnian language. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you, albeit copyediting in the midst of a revert war involving a bunch of socks was... unfortunate. I'll try to reconcile your edits after the dust settles. No such user (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Test Match Special may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
  • a fit of giggles, which was quickly followed by Johnston's giggly chastening, "Aggers, do stop it!") This clip has become a broadcasting classic and is frequently replayed. In 2005, [[Radio 5 Live]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


I see you were making edits on Bosnian language. Looks like you are better at English than me, so I would ask you to check spelling/grammar on that article. I would appreciate your help. --Lumi (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Dartford Crossing[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing Footpath[edit]

It looks like we were involved in some kind of editing conflict on this page. I was trying to simplify the wording and remove pointless links. Reference to the American disability legislation, for example, seemed unnecessary as the article is about paths, and especially because it isn't just about US footpaths. Rwood128 (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


I don't really get the thing about Stallingborough village is the only settlement of any note in the parish, apart from industrial buildings - surely "industrial buildings" aren't a settlement - in the same way a chemical plant isn't a settlement - because nobody actually lives there - so it shouldn't be mentioned in section?

I mean they are not actually "settled there" - in any real sense - simply - nobody regards it as home.

?Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


I debated taking that whole section out as its weasel words. Awkward as I suspect the implication might be right but the evidence is against this - 300yrs of no remotely successful claimantsGarlicplanting (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits and corrections, i will answer/improve references etc later after your improvements etc -- BOD -- 16:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

i am very grateful for your edits and hope you are able to do more which def help improve the article. I seem to have got your clarification requests temporarily confused for citation requests. I will be more able to make corrections after xmas (currently i am on to me a very frustrating and limiting ipad). I was wondering whether to put the 'associations with the town on a seperate page' but i have never started a new page.
Sorry about my confusions regards spaces after all numbers and the writing dates out in full - both made recently due my misunderstanding the auto peer review suggestions. Apologies too regards my bad English. -- BOD -- 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The things you mention are really minor and there's no need to apologise :)

I think the main issue with the article at the moment is that it is rather on the long side for a town of this size, and so if you could move some of the material to (a) separate page(s), that would be great.

Hope you get a better computer for Christmas :) ----Ehrenkater (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks ;) i will try to resist editing until then. I have not started a new page, but will look into it. Apart from a 'list of people associated with town' page, i guess I or someone could put the 'buildings and sites of interest on another page. I did get carried away on the demography section, would you suggest reducing it. I am resistant to removing the history of the town on a separate page, the conquest, castle and 13th century heyday (and 17th events) etc are to me essential parts of the town's make up. -- BOD -- 19:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Meister des Maréchal de Boucicaut 004.jpg Constructive Article improvement
For much appreciated help on the Berkhamsted article Bodney (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the further edits you did today, hope I satisfied the clarifications requestedBodney (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fee tail[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hainault tube station - Services and connections[edit]

Hey there, I've noticed that you have added a reference to it, congrats![1] However, you need to uncover the bare references added since it made the page ugly and also shrunk it which make readers hard to hover around the article.[2] This should be done to future edits as well. Oh and also try to add notable subjects and not like these information which is unneccessary since it deviates from the topic.[3] Thanks. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] No need to be sarcastic.

[2] Go ahead and do it.

[3] The catchment area of the station is definitely on topic.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic, okay?! I am just trying to give some encouragement. Is there a problem with me being nice? Also, you are the one who added all these contents and I don't have time to resolve it right now. I'm schooling and I have another article to attend to since I have nominated the article it has been Goh through the review process. Vincent60030 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I expect an editor of seven years probably doesn't feel in the need of so-called "encouragement" from one fifteen months Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
LOL ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your comment on my translations, but you should be aware of variations in spelling which used to be far more common. I have taken liberties which are small compared with, for example, the spelling of "choir" in Durham Cathedral as "quire"!!! If you look at sources even in the nineteenth century you will find considerable variations in the spellings of place names, this has continued much later into the 20th century with Welsh placenames (e.g. Penmachno/Pennant Machno/Pen Machno and Llansantffraid/Llansaintffraid/Llansaintffraed). Emerald (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course there are spelling variations, but you have not produced any evidence to support your suggested translations, which are prima facie implausible.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

One letter difference is "prima facie implausible"? You are being ridiculous now and you are annoying me! Well I have at least one reference for the Cynllaith translation and just need to find it - then you need to apologise. Emerald (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If and when I see the relevant page of the book you have cited, and it confirms what you say, I shall be happy to apologise.----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Good news, the relevant page (bottom of 105) can be seen via Google books - Link. Emerald (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Idiomelon[edit]

Dear Ehrenkater

Thanks for your very helpful suggestions and corrections. You are a very precise reader and corrector and you asked very good questions which helped me during the revision. I could shorten the text (turning like a carrousel around the same subject), but I prolonged it again with some additional explanations and notes.

I am sorry that your corrections and tags interfered with my last revisions of the text. I hope that I did not messed them up. I also changed now the leading section (all the languages should be transcribed here, but the Slavonic one I found in the last section). Also the sentence "Unlike..." was not really helpful, so I rewrote it.

Now my revision is finished. You can trust me that I do know what I am writing about, but it would be enough to know, if the text has now become comprehensible for a very understanding reader like you. Of course, you are always welcome to improve my English, if you still find time for it.

In any case, if you do not find time for a second look, many thanks for the splendid work you have done so far. Platonykiss (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Please read the wp:mos regarding the use of & nbsp ; . It was correctly used as it states. However, thanks for the other ce, it really helped! Thanks, TheMagikCow (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually change the method of showing spaces in this article. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Florent Du Bois de Villerabel[edit]

Hello. I see you edited Florent Du Bois de Villerabel. I was wondering if you would consider helping me find some good references to in-line them. The content is very controversial and it may be deleted. I have contacted the page creator and thought you might want to help, too. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mean range on Bristol climate[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Bristol. You added a clarify tag for "mean annual temperature range" and I didn't quite know where/how to explain it. I've added an archiveurl to the Met Office graphic which uses this terminology here but I have changed the text to say approximately 10.5 degrees C supported by the up to date Met office site.— Rod talk 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rod Thanks for the link. If we accept for the moment that Bristol lies in an area of the temperature map in the darkest shade of red, then one could say "the mean temperature, over the year, lies within the range (or band) of 10.2 C to 12 C (or if one wanted to be really fussy then 10.15 C to 12 C, as the previous band ends at 10.1). It is not really clear, as it is such a small scale map, but there is at least one dot of a lighter shade of red which could include part of South Bristol. "Approximately 10.5" is fine.----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Bromley London Borough Council[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know I'm starting a discussion at the article talk page, which is where it should be discussed rather than in edit summaries and across various user talk pages. I'll give you a link as soon as I've submitted it. 823510731 (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

St Helens[edit]

Thank you for your recent edits. Koncorde (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Dutch Public Broadcasting[edit]

What are you doing? It was correct. I don't understand why some people confuse the organisation with the whole public broadcasting system. See the corresponding articles in the Dutch Wikipedia. Please let me revert everything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The disambiguation page had two links, both of which linked to the same article. It therefore wasn't doing any disambiguating. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see. Sorry, I didn't notice. User:C0re1980 performed a copy-paste move from "Dutch public broadcasting system" to "Nederlandse Publieke Omroep", that's why the page wasn't doing any disambiguating. Look: [5], [6]. Can I revert you now? --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Also see "User talk:C0re1980#Nederlandse Publieke Omroep". Now I'm reverting the disambiguation page if you don't mind. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The whole Dutch public broadcasting system is the NPO. The corresponding Dutch wikipedia articles are far from complete. It seems very illogical and confusing to maintain two separate articles. The NPO organization article is also too small to be of any significance.--C0re1980 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I think you are the one who wants to make it confusing. :-)
        Just look in the article's edit history:
        1. A discussion in 2005–2006: ″Talk:Dutch public broadcasting system#Untitled". It was proposed to move it from "Publieke Omroep" to "Public broadcasting in the Netherlands", and no one disagreed.
        2. In 2006–2007 it had already been at more or less the same title where it is now: [7].
        3. Then it was moved again: [8], this time to "Netherlands Public Broadcasting".
        4. And remember, until 2009 the system was administered not by NPO, but by NOS.
        5. And this: User talk:C0re1980#NPO. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
for applying continuous Mr Sheen to significant articles on Wikipedia Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crowborough may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
  • lives on in Ashdown and we are embracing the challenge of moving forward as one school.}}</ref>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Some of your edits are OK but you introduced too many problematic ones to accept your recent edits. Please don't remove mention of hotels for starters, and don't add a silly "clarify" on church hearings tag.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a tourist guide: the list of hotels constitutes advertising. And what does "church hearings" mean?----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, as "some of the edits are OK", why revert them ?----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. I have many high quality articles at GA or FA which document hotels. Too many editors dismiss mentioning hotels as travel guidey. If you write it as if you're advertising them then its problematic but for comprehension sake briefly mentioning a few of the most notable ones is fine. You also moved the part about gravestones being vandalised from the church and underneath the lighthouse. Makes no sense. The source doesn't explain what a church hearing is, any attempt to do so would be OR. Your other minor edits looked OK though. I reverted (as I said) because you made too many problematic edits. Find a way to deal with my concerns and make your other edits stick and we'll be fine! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
First, will copy this to the article's talk page so that other editors can actually read it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Occupational Pensions Board[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Occupational Pensions Board requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. — Diannaa (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Island on river Cefni?[edit]

I removed your bit about Llangefni being in an island on the river, because I could not see any evidence for it on the map. It looks like you rephrased existing content based on a misreading (the town is near the centre of Anglesey, and also on the river). --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Langley School, Loddon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TJH2018talk 16:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

    • LOL, not a disruptive edit.----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the above user subsequently thanked me for my edit(s) to that article. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Problems with "Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain" Article[edit]

Dear Ehrenkater, I have brought up several problems in the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain article, an article of which you added content. These problems I have discussed in the Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain section of this article, but the problems have not been properly recognized nor attended to by anyone. I would much appreciate it if you would take a look at my thoughts for revision. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Gordon410 Gordon410 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't feel I have the necessary expertise on the subject to support you on this.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

West Perthshire constituency[edit]

I have reverted your edit to the West Perthshire constituency page. On a review of F. W. S. Craig's British Parliamentary Election Results 1885-1918, the definitive work on the matter, the candidate's name was Omond not Ormond. This is borne out by the Liberal Year Book 1908, the Constitutional Year Book 1919 (a Conservative publication), and McCalmont's Parliamentary Poll Book (7th ed). The two Year Books are available online. Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem — I just queried it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Culture of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Menai
Proctor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Examination
Ulverston Canal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Culm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for your comments on our class project; the translation of "Flüchtlingspolitik". We have tried to clarify from the source the first comment you have made. Many Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franslation21 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why microwaves?[edit]

Hi, thanks for helping out. I've added a source to answer your question. It might be worth adding a whole section on "The Water Hole", which is a key part of the search, though it seems to have fallen out of favour among researchers lately. It comes up in the historical sections, in any case, so that may be enough coverage of the question.--Thomas B (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the "water hole" is referred to later in the article, maybe we could have a brief cross-reference to that in the lead?----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant about integrating it too much for the moment. There's been some dissatisfaction with my new section (see talk). If it lasts another 24 hours, I'm going to see if I can summarize it in the lead, and make the connections to the later sections clearer.--Thomas B (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
As you've been informed below, getting this material (or at least the fact that I'm the one trying to add it) is going to be very contentious. I'm withdrawing from the effort; I didn't come back to fight. Maybe you'll have better luck with it on your own if you think there's something worth keeping. Happy editing.--Thomas B (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User Thomas Basboll[edit]

User Thoas Basboll seems to have a long history of contentious editing. This phrase sumarises it as: "Thomas Basboll has been very problematic in understanding that fringe views in articles not dedicated to fringe views is a violation of these clauses...that has been the biggest issue with him overall." ([9].) I'd advice a team effort at his latest campaigh at Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk)

2016 British political crisis article[edit]

Please will you help me to get the British political crisis, 2016 up and going? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

I would imagine that it duplicates loads of other articles.----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily it would help to bring the various pages together is my idea that is kind of like an umbrella page (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC))

Reverting bad edits today of the Winterton On Sea article[edit]

1) Why does the History section need the title "19th. century" put in bold put half way down it, when the section ranges over many centuries? 2) Why change "In 1864 the novelist Wilkie Collins visited the village while preparing Armadale...." to "In 1864 the novelist Wilkie Collins visited the village while preparing his novel Armadale...." ? 3) Why delete the short paragraph about Hermanus Holidays, when the "huts" are clearly visible from the dunes and form part of the character of the village? Have you ever been to the village? They had been on that web-page for years. I have no connection with them. 4) Why change "In 1956 when he was seventy-eight years old, the fisherman Sam Larner..." to "In 1956, at 78 years old, the fisherman Sam Larner...". They all make the article worse, I will have to revert them. (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

1 Simply to break up a long paragraph. 2 To make it clearer what "Armadale" is. 3 Advertising 4 Numbers are more concise than text.

Ehrenkater (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I do object to your borderline vandalism edits, which spoil a good article. They add nothing, only make the existing content worse. You are behaving like a bully or a troll. (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Another user, who reverted your edit, appears to hold a different opinion. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Exeter racecourse[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater. Thanks a lot for your copy edit on Exeter racecourse. Would you mind holding off for a couple more hours, I'm just in the middle of a rebuild of the article. WormTT(talk) 15:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs you![edit]

Hello Ehrenkater,

English is not my first language, so I can't estimate how bad/good is my (still unpublished) work Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly. I would like to know:

  1. Can you understand every sentence of the article?
  2. Can you understand every paragraph of the article?
  3. Can you understand the article?
  4. Do you think that more than 50% of the reader with 12 years school or more can (linguisticaly) understand the article?
  5. is there a strong foreign accent? too many latin words?, too many wrong prepositions? too many "we-don't-say-it-so"?
  6. is the article complete, balanced and uses the adequate language? (you probably don't know the issue, but try an answer)

It would be great if you can help me to improve it.

--Keysanger (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keysanger

I have had a (very) quick look at your draft. I can understand say 95% of the article, and the 5% which I cannot understand is not necessarily because of bad English but because in some places more explanation is needed.

Nevertheless, as one would expect as English is not your first language, quite a lot of editing would be needed to bring the English up to the standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia article — mainly simple things like the correct use of articles and punctuation.

I can't comment on whether the article is complete and balanced as I don't know enough about the subject.----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Every long journey begins with a first step". Can you do it? --Keysanger (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ehrenkater, great. Now is the article in the main space under Peruvian Salpeter Monopoly. you and @Gerda Arendt: have worked at (I put it in the summary of the first edition) and @Brianboulton: asked me to move it to the mainspace. Further comments can be written in the talk page of the article. And we hope the best. --Keysanger (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ehrenkater,

I resolved the "clarify" as far as I could. Regarding

Ronald Bruce St John put it in the following words:[1]
"Although persuasive evidence linking Peru to either the ten centavos tax or Bolivia's decision to confiscate Chilean holdings in Antofagasta never surfaced, it must be recognized[recognised if he was British] that Peruvian interests had deep-seated economical and political reasons for going to war."

What did you mean with the fix?

BTW, I resolved most of the clarify-tags, but you should review the article again. --Keysanger (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Forced migration[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater,

I am preparing the Expulsion of Chileans from Bolivia and Peru in 1879 (still in my userspace) and it would be great if you can review it. --Keysanger (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

published under Expulsion of Chileans from Bolivia and Peru in 1879. --Keysanger (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Doncaster Lakeside[edit]

Hi Ehrenkater Thank you for your edits. I see you have removed the weebly(their only site) and facebook links. As it turns out, I emailed the group to offer a sponsorship of a domain and hosting. I'll update in the weeks to come after the commitee has approved it. Tommy animator (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I removed these because they are not reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. I also note that you are connected with the subject.

I shall copy this to the article's talk page.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your careful edits. I constructed the present version without the history section. I will probably suggest the creation of a separate page but I'd be interested in your opinion first. Peter Mercator (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter Mercator. I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Please clarify. In the meantime I might have another look through the article.---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


You're quite determined to avoid use of the word "latter". Is that because you didn't know what it means or because you initially misread the article? ;)

Misha An interested observer of this and that 18:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL, of course I know what it means, I'm just trying to make the article a little clearer :) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I think you made a splendid job of it; I'm sure that particular sentence can't be any clearer than your latest edit makes it. Well done!

Misha An interested observer of this and that 12:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany[edit]

I note you have edited this article, which has been moved to the title "Grundgesetz for the Federal Republic of Germany" without discussion on the talk page. As it stands, the proposed title, and counterpart English translation, look a lot like original research. I have asked editor Hornsignal to put the article back and discuss the move on the article talk page; otherwise will assume that you are happy for me to revert all your changes. See Wikipedia:Requested moves Cheers. TomHennell (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I realise that elements of this article are controversial. However most of my edits are straightforward non-controversial copy-editing and therefore I am not happy for you to revert my changes.

I disagree that changing "Basic Law" to "Grundgesetz" is original research, as that is quite evidently the German name for it. That does not mean I agree with moving the article, as article titles should generally be in English.---Ehrenkater (talk)

Thanks for your comments Ehernkater. I may not have expressed myself fully, my reference to 'original research' was to the edits to the beginning of the article discussing the best translation of "Grundgesetz" into English. So far as I can tell, the formulation proposed by editor Hornsignal "Fundamental Law Code" is his own invention as applied to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic. TomHennell (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Was war das für eine Aktion? Nach "TomHennell" ist es "Original Research", auf ein Wort in einem Wörterbuch zu verweisen, und "Diskussion" besteht für ihn anscheinend aus "Sch...egal wie genau Du begründest, ich reverte sowieso" zu bestehen. Gibts noch mehr solche Gestalten "keine Ahnung, aber Hauptsache eine Meinung" hier??? Gruß Hornsignal (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bank of England note issues[edit]

Just a quick note from me to say thank you very much for sorting the table our on that article! I was having trouble with that! Much appreciated. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome :) ---Ehrenkater (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for sorting my error. I should have checked grid refs as well as names.— Rod talk 18:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW I just found some other Walla Brook photos that I took a few years ago (GR669785).---Ehrenkater (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dungeness Nuclear Power Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Annulus
List of French words of Gaulish origin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Substrate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Northern England[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for copyediting the article - you've really made the wording tighter and clearer. Cheers! Smurrayinchester 09:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to check this edit. Defining the Watford Gap - the pass between Northampton and Leicester - as the entry-point to the North does seem to be sometimes meant seriously (for instance it's useful in linguistics as it's more or less the location where the features of Northern accents, like the short a, begin). It's defining the North as starting at Watford (the town on the outskirts of London) that's always a joke. Smurrayinchester 19:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plutarch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacedaemonia (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) 10:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Llanidloes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgess (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) 10:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sutton, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Half crown (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) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hungarian presidential election, 2017[edit]

Hello! I would like to thank your previous contributions to improve the quality of the article. I finished writing the article in the past days. Unfortunately my English knowledge is not so good, so, may I ask you to continue copyedit to fix typos and errors etc. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of countries by westernmost point, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belleek (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) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auger (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) 10:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Black Forest gateau shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeni (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Abermule with Llandyssil[edit]

Thank you for some background on the community's history. Unfortunately, one paragraph is a copyright violation of content from this site. I paraphrased the content and asked for the revisions with the copyright violations to be hidden.

Please see WP:Close paraphrasing for information about rewording content to avoid copyright violations. If you are familiar with the background and have a chance to verify if the content is reworded accurately, that would be wonderful. For instance, I took the original content to mean that Abermule was formed with the 1986 Review, but I see that Abermule railway station has an earlier history... assuming 1986 Review refers to the year 1986.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The village of Abermule was clearly in existence long before 1986, but apparently the Community started 1n 1986.----Ehrenkater (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for your edit about that. I made a tweak to return it as a component of the community, but not mentioning anything about it being "new" - perhaps relative to Llandyssil being "historic" (i.e., the source could have been clearer about the degree to which it was recent).
Regarding treatment of citations that are now deadlinks, the proper procedure is to add {{deadlink|date= }} with the month and year that the tag was added. That way, there is still an idea of where the information came from. Otherwise, it could theoretically be removed as uncited content or original research.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Neville-Neville feud[edit]

Earl is not capitalized in the majority of sources (as you can see the article is very well sourced. I have capitalized it where it is capitalized in quotation marks in one instance from an older source, but have followed the convention in the modern sources which is not capitalized. Please don't run a search and replace without checking the sources. I will address some of the issues raised in the tags. Another note, do not arbitrarily change spellings to British English, I don't know all the rules of British English and as the major recent contributor who has worked on this to bring it to GA, I have written the article in American English. Also do not tag bomb the article, it is pretty inappropriate to stalk my edits and tag bomb an article and arbitrarily change the spelling to British English after reverting my copy edit on another article. Seraphim System (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

1 Currently it is full of issues and obviously nowhere near GA status. I have just gone through a little of it, and gave up after a bit, hence the "etc".

2 As I am sure you are aware, there is no need to follow the wording of a source word for word, let alone letter for letter. In the case of quotations one would of course follow the original closely, but not when the quotation has already been translated from the original Latin.

3 As the subject is English history, it is not appropriate for it to be in American English, just because a major contributor is American.

Ehrenkater 11:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

4 Please feel free to remove the tags once you have fixed the issues.----Ehrenkater (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on fixes from a very thorough GA review from Peacemaker67 so I think that is well in hand. I'm gotten in touch with the article creator to ask about whether the American English is ok. Pinging here Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I will leave the tags in place until other editors who have worked on the article and review have a chance to take a look. I don't know of any rule that American English is not appropriate for British history articles. I've worked very hard creating the maps and doing the copy editing Peacemaker67 asked for, so whatever consensus is I will do my best to follow it, but my understanding of the English guideline is that it is not appropriate to unilaterally change the consistent style on any page without discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Ealdgyth linked me to the policy. For future reference, it helps to point these policies out, not ever editor knows them. I haven't been editing that long (under a year.)Seraphim System (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)