User talk:Ironholds/archive 26

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

DYK for Resulting trusts in English law[edit]

Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Constructive trusts in English law[edit]

RlevseTalk 06:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stack v Dowden[edit]

You have mail, I hope. BencherliteTalk 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hale Commission[edit]

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Matthew Hale (jurist)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Matthew Hale (jurist) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Dobson[edit]

I don't appreciate the tone of your message, I don't appreciate your sarcasm and I don't appreciate the accusation of vandalism in your revert of the article. What I saw was a user who was blatantly editing an article about himself, removing content without stating in the edit summary why. Had anyone said to me "this is why" I would be only too happy to agree. I made a genuine mistake, and I have never been too proud to admit and apologise where mistakes have been made. But your message is offensive, so you won't be getting any apologies from me. -- roleplayer 00:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it simple. I made a mistake. I screwed up. I'm sorry. Please assume good faith. You're making me feel like one of the many vandals that I have worked hard for the past seven years trying to stop on this project. Lighten up, for fuck's sake. If this is the way people get treated when they make honest mistakes on this project, I don't want to be a part of it. -- roleplayer 00:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't "insert libelous material" - I have fully explained my actions and intent to you. I didn't do it "multiple" times, I did it twice. You're making me out to be the bad guy here, and I'm done talking to you because I made an honest mistake and you don't appear to be getting that. -- roleplayer 09:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This has been raised at WP:ANI WP:EAR. From what I can see, Roleplayer has admitted he made a mistake, and explained how/why he did it. Suggest that the subject is now quietly dropped and all move on and get back to improving Wikipedia, which is why we are all here, isn't it? Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Matthew Hale (jurist)[edit]

RlevseTalk 12:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Quistclose trusts in English law[edit]

RlevseTalk 12:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bartson7/Jarvis Square[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Bartson7/Jarvis Square, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for PubWatch[edit]

RlevseTalk 12:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Andrew Ellard[edit]

You were telling us that you'd verified that this user is not the Red Dwarf guy, right? That's what the OTRS bumfodder was all about? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeedy; certain evidence showing he isn't. If you don't have OTRS access, feel free to verify with a third party. Ironholds (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Ironhold. I noticed that you left a tag in good faith on a new geo stub. Some editors were curious so I have reverted it. Sometimes the fix is actually quicker than even placing the tag with Twinkle. --Kudpung (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

River Corve. Also, even if you are in a hurry, please remember to sign your posts ;) --Kudpung (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Ironholds's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Ironholds has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ironholds's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ironholds!

00:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hutton Davies GAN[edit]

Searching through the GAN backlog, I noticed that the article Richard Hutton Davies, which you are the reviewer for, has been on hold for a rather long time and not had any dialog between you and the nominator in over two weeks, and the nominator himself has not been on-wiki for over a week. Normally these would be bad signs, but it also looks like all of your issues with the article may have been addressed. Do you think you could give it a second look and conclude the review? --erachima talk 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, I hope you're enjoying the conference. Giving the people with the oldest running reviews on the list a nudge is just a thing I do occasionally. --erachima talk 18:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

List of cities that have stolpersteine[edit]

There are over 530 cities, with the number still climbing. There are currently 65 references with the article. Just how many references will be sufficient for this article? I mean, there are references for every country. All you have to do is google a city and the word "stolperstein" or "stolpersteine" or the artist's name and you generally get some sort of reference, though of course, the references are apt to be in German or the language of the particular country. I was adding references, but stopped because there were links to the artist's site (which lists every city and date he's installed them) and the main article, which has lots of information and I felt the reference list was perhaps getting too long. Marrante (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply left on my talk page. Here is my response to that.
Most of the people reading the English Wikipedia won't be able to read the references, so I think we're talking about good faith here, which I think is already established. I will continue to add references, but I really do think one per city is a bit excessive, considering the number of cities. Also, since the numbers are constantly changing, there is also the very real chance that someone will -- as just happened, after you stuck the flag on the article -- change the number because he has direct involvement in that city's project, but will not include a reference, then making the whole thing look very questionable because the reference that is cited will not pertain and may even be wildly different. Berlin was listed has having 1,400, which is what I had a reference for, but he updated it to 2,950 or so -- but left the two references up there. I tried to adjust, but there is no way I can fix this to everyone's satisfaction. You won't be happy till the numbers have references and agree with them, those actually involved with this project -- which is quite a labor of love -- will not want their numbers dwarfed, but may not realize they should or be able to provide proper back-up information. The Stolperstein Project is well-documented and authenticated, with hundreds of articles and photos on the web. Just go to commons and look for Stolpersteine. There are pages and pages with photos from various cities, but only a fraction of the over 530. Have you looked at the main article page or the artist's page? Marrante (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Most English Wikipedians can't read sources in say, German, yes, but this does not imply that we should let such things through and completely suspend the verifiability process. If that was the case, we wouldn't have a part of the verifiability policy specifically dedicated to non-English sources. If size is a problem, reorganise it as a proper list and not just a bullet-pointed article. If you look at Copley Medal or List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead you'll see large, well-referenced lists are not a problem. Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Every city on the list is verified by the Stolperstein Project, which is where I got most of the names of the cities. In a few cases, I got them from local project websites (local to a country or region). Marrante (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then use that as a bloody reference! Honestly, if you formatted it as a table properly you could cite the entire thing using that single inline citation. Ironholds (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I started doing that already. I went through all or most of the first two Bundesländer and cited every city that didn't already have a citation and will add more when I can. Other people can also do this, since understanding German is not required, since the link is already clearly indicated and all that's left to do is scroll down the list and identify the cities that are on the page (and add ones I missed, since I was using the schedule to cull, rather than this list, actually). As for formatting it as a table, you seem to understand a lot more about it than I do, so perhaps that's something you can do. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists[edit]

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

page name change[edit]

Hello Ironholds. I am creating the new page >>Iestyn Davies<< on which you have kindly commented. Couple of questions. (i) Someone has changed the name of the page to Lestyn Davies (with an L, which is wrong: it's Iestyn with an I for India) and I can't see how to correct that. The page-name is the one thing on EDIT that I cannot change, AFAICS. Can you help with that, please? (ii) Please advise: should I remove the external link to the subject's official website (that would seem to be less than helpful to professionals looking for it, wlthough of course they can Google...) Thanks for your help. maglinders 12:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mag-Linders (talkcontribs)

Verification question[edit]

Hello, I have left a note on my talk page about the 'verification/citations needed' box at the top of my contribution Iestyn Davies. I don't know how I can possibly clarify, as I note at my talk page. Please could you comment on this? My hope is to have that editor's box removed. Many thanks.--Maglinders 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mag-Linders (talkcontribs)

I have added some references. Do you think this will suffice to remove the editor's warning box? Fingers crosssed. Thank you. --Maglinders 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mag-Linders (talkcontribs)

Janet Taylor Lisle[edit]

no problem, just filling red links at Newbery Medal. it appears to be chance, whether a bio is written or not. Accotink2 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

with WP:BLP's we may be bucking the tide, there seems to be worry about "contentious material", which to me seems to be a straw man. i'm kinda turning the notability debate, by filling red links. MacArthur Fellows Program seems done, next Guggenheim Fellowship, Rome Prize. Accotink2 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jakezing requesting unblock[edit]

See your previous comment from June 2009. This case is currently sitting in CAT:RFU awaiting response from admins. Your comment as to whether this person should be unblocked would be helpful. I confess I am quite pessimistic. Except for the passage of time, I can see no reason to think this person would be a good contributor. I think they actually reverted some vandalism, back in the day, but generally they were a pain. I could be oversimplifying, so if you have some experience to add, it would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I'm not quite sure what "but, In general I've just not acted like I have before anywhere. Thats why I feel im ready to try again here." but in general I'm similarly pessimistic. His unblock message, particularly, seems like a set of excuses, vaguely worded I've-changed-although-I-can't-actually-say-when-how-or-why clauses and promises not to repeat his behaviour (except the bit where he says he'll probably repeat his behaviour, because he's just human, eh guys? eh? eh?). Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Now at WP:ANI#Jakezing requesting unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the ANI thread. I think it was just *two* indefinite blocks rather than four. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks. You're forgetting his previous account, which also had two. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Apparently, you have OTRS viewing privileges because of your edit summary on the Ache talk page, but it is not mentioned here: meta:OTRS/personnel. Is that just because you never chose to list yourself?--Jorfer (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you did that it would be helpful I am sure.--Jorfer (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon[edit]

I think that's done. Check? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

talkback concerning Rukidi III article[edit]

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

sorry this reply is late, haven't had time to check my talk page, iv'e checked the article and they're continuing their deleting behaviour, its on a stable version though now I keep a watch on it--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wards of the City of London[edit]

Hello, I remember you were interested in the Temples and their status as liberties, etc. Just to let you know I've created a Wards of the City of London article to deal with, well, the wards of the City! Have a look over it and if you can add anything, please do... I think it could become quite a neat and comprehensive article dealing with the local political geography and administration within the City boundaries. David (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds interesting. How would you send them to me? David (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've sent you my email address via your contact thing on your Userpage... the subject is quite vast, with historical and contemporary aspects and everything between! David (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2010 Attlee Spelling Campaign. Motto - "It's not major, but it's The Major"[edit]

Dear Ironholds,

Some sorries: firstly, sorry for bothering you; secondly, sorry that this is a bit of a form letter (although, actually, it has been personalized for you with a natural pine finish in at least two places); and thirdly, that I come over as a mad or maddish person suffering from some form of OCD ... which, unfortunately, is about right.

  • I'm writing to ask if you would please consider correcting the spelling of Clement Attlee on your page here:
  • where it is currently misspelt Clement Atlee twice. Please?

Since I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this, I see it often - probably more often than is healthy - in searches and so on. Your correcting it would not only very slightly improve the sum of correct human knowledge, but would also lessen the chances of my suddenly attacking someone on the Tube for snoring, pushing, spitting, sniffing, reading the wrong novel, or whatever - so really it is a double benefit to personkind. I could also attempt to bribe you with Linzertorte, though it would have to be virtual unless you can easily make it to London, EC1 in order to be bribed in person.

I can't tell me how happy it would make me if you would please correct this small but (I think) important matter.

Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. "You appreciate that's a userspace draft, right? :P." Ermmmmm - well, to be honest, I can see that, sure, it is a different sort of beast from a public article so yes, if you say so, then that's what it is. (I am a wp editor of tediously long standing but I am still surprisingly and shamefully ignorant about exactly 98.46% of everything to do with the project.) Trouble is, I don't really know what that means - you could be saying that it doesn't matter that it's misspelt there, because it's just a userspace draft, or why don't I just fix it myself, because it's a userspace draft, or that a crack team of Wikipedia Rouge Admin Police are at this very moment preparing to break my door down, also because it's a userspace draft and I have misspoke concerning it ... should I know the import of that fact, and if so would you please help me out? Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. When you said " (in line with one of your ideas)" I panicked a bit, thinking you meant the police and door one, but it's still quite quiet here, so I'm guessing you meant one of the others. Good luck with using the Firefox spelling checker for that - mine thinks that both spellings are correct. As I'm clearly failing to persuade you of what I feel are the obvious benefits of correcting them now, it's probably time for me to wish you a pleasant afternoon, or other time-zone adjusted comment, and bid you farewell. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

gdank for Gdansk[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Dear Ironholds, humongous thanks for your last minute participation in the panel I convened in Gdansk. I don't agree with much of what you said, bit I'm very grateful that we could find someone to say it. ϢereSpielChequers 18:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
PS if we'd known that Firefox spellcheck recommends Murmansk for Gdansk we could have had a completely different resolution to the Danzig/Gdansk conflict. ϢereSpielChequers 18:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Wait until next year, when I completely extinguish your argument and assumptions :). Kim and I are doing a full, 2-hour BLP panel; want to be involved? Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I probably won't be at Wikimania next year, but if I am or can join in by skype I'd happily join you. In the meantime I have no problem in you challenging my assumptions. Here are three for you to start on.
  1. Prioritising the old unreferenced BLPs distracts attention from other BLP areas that should be a higher priority because you can find more problems per hour when working there.
  2. Whilst OTRS complaints are disproportionately BLP related, as we established in this years first BLP RFC there is a weak to non-existent correlation between BLPs tagged as unreferenced, and BLPs that result in OTRS complaints.
  3. When it comes to understanding wikipedias's vandalism problems; The deletionist model of it being a boundary problem that lends itself to deleting lots of articles and thereby reducing the boundary, doesn't fit the data as well as the inclusionist argument that its a process flow of x million edits to check versus y thousand volunteers to check them. ϢereSpielChequers 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Number 1 I can definitely kill :D.
OK I like a challenge. Do you agree that all I have to do to prove number 1 to you is to give you a BLP project where if you spend an hour on it you find more problems than spending an hour referencing old articles that have been tagged as uBLPs? ϢereSpielChequers 19:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be doing a set of surveys of 300 uBLPs, pre- and post sticky-prod, a survey of uBLP problems versus referenced BLPs, and an analysis of OTRS data to see what proportion of concerns come from which. Note, however, that my concern has always been about unreferenced information in BLPs, not just unreferenced BLPs (hence my objection to the sticky-prod). Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well we have a point of agreement there. One of my assumptions about articles tagged as uBLPs is that though between them they contain a large amount of unreferenced BLP information, its only a small proportion of our unreferenced BLP information. Which begs the question, is the information tagged as uBLP not just more contentious than the average unreferenced BLP information but more contentious than any other readily identifiable subset of that information? Obviously I think the answer to that is no, so to challenge my first assumption, in referencing your 300 random uBLPs can you find more problems in a typical 30 minute stretch than I did between 8.30 and 9 tonight? ϢereSpielChequers 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did my first survey of 300. How many did you find tonight? Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you survey them or reference them - referencing takes longer, but referencing them is what it usually takes to remove a uBLP. During the cleanup exercise this year I've surveyed at least a thousand uBLPs that I've project tagged or categorised, its much quicker than referencing them and I hope and believe that it screens out the really nasty stuff. But it won't spot the BLP that claims someone won silver at the Olympics when the truth is they won gold. Incidentally I'm not sure I follow your objection to the sticky prod. In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people you supported it and even wanted to broaden it from totally unsourced new BLPs to new BLPs that didn't have one RS, though I don't think you supported my more modest proposal of broadening it to articles only sourced from Utube, Facebook, Myspace and Linkedin. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Surveyed, so far. How many did you find tonight out of how many BLPs? I supported sticky-prods because they're better than what we have now, but I think we need a far stricter system. Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
In 30 minutes tonight I found one G10 and removed 6 other personal attacks. I wasn't measuring how many pages I checked, just how much nastiness I removed. In my experience of going through articles tagged as uBLPs that was a lot more than I could find in 30 minutes, even project tagging old uBLPs with redlinked talkpages I didn't find nearly as many problems - or such serious ones. Incidentally I don't have a problem with moving to a stricter system if we can also make it less bitey for newbies. Newbies start articles here expecting that if someone disputes what they've said a citation needed tag will appear and they'll need to reference it. The reality is very different, I'm less concerned as to whether we change the reality or the newbies expectations than I am that we align the two. ϢereSpielChequers 21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
In a survey of 300 (took me maybe 40 minutes tops) I found 39 problematic ones, along with another 36 with quibbles (spam and the like). I did not, unfortunately, work out a list of the articles (a problem since "libelous" is rather subjective). I'm going to be doing two further 300-article surveys for the presentation next year, which should be good (and listed). Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, were these newly created uBLPs, or part of the backlog? I suspect you've got faster kit and reactions than me, I couldn't flick through 300 articles and deal with 75 problems in 40 minutes. Can you tell me what time period you went through them so I can look at the edits you made and compare seriousness? While I agree that we should remove spam, I doubt if anyone would sue us for leaving a puff from their publicist rather than having a neutrally written referenced article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Part of the backlog; I removed the ones that sounded evil (for example, assertions that a man was singlehandedly responsible for murder, kidnap and genocide) while leaving the plausible ones (I was low on time and had to go out). Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Was it fun, Ironholds :D? AGK 00:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Did I not tell you what happened at the BLP panel? Also, come on IRC more! Ironholds (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I've been away! And no, but it sounds interesting. I'll be on this week for you to tell me all about Gdansk and this panel thing (what have you went and done now…?). AGK 00:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Amongst other things I think I indirectly called inclusionists weed-smoking sandal-wearing hippies :S. Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

William Biggs[edit]

An IP pointed out at the UK politics project that this article's title and content do not match. A slip? Fences&Windows 19:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, my fuckup. Thanks for telling me. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Warwick[edit]

Hah, only a year or so too late to see me! Try and see the castle if you get time, it's great. Skinny87 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Postmaster[edit]

Hi thanks for doing the review. It was one of those stories when I read the book I just had to do the article. They were really old time larger than life characters, you may be interested in Operation Aquatint one of their later missions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They go round and round, you know.[edit]

If you pick the names that the world already uses, and the scopes that it gives, for these things, three things will happen:

  • You won't face accusations of original research.
  • Instead of these things being obscure articles for a niche group of bus enthusiasts, they become important articles in human geography, dealing with the local transport geography of a major conurbation.
  • As a consequence, you can probably rope in the railway article writers, cycling article writers, and human geographers from other WikiProjects to turn the articles from things that people dismiss as "just those bus geeks writing timetables" into what you could probably make, as long as you incorporated all of the human geography aspects, into GA or FA class articles on these various transport corridors.

Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Okinawa rape[edit]

ARe you going to check back into the FAR? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for delition created by User: Hamish Griffin[edit]

I have created the following articles and I would like them to be put through the speedy delition process.

Walton Summit, Rivenhall, Cliburn, Hardendale, Oddendale, Flakebridge, Steward's Green, Sunbiggin, Budds, Sheet Hill, Keisley, Cathkin, Lanarkshire, Ellenborough, Cumbria, Cotman's Ash, Maplescombe, Ewanrigg, Ivy Chimneys, Mount End, High Park Corner, Bures Green, Waldringfield Heath, Beggarington Hill, Flockton Green, Bournebridge, Great Stoke, Blackwell, Cumbria, Thundridge, Great Crosthwaite, Sleagill, Warwick Bridge, Ivegill, Workhouse Green, Fox Royd, Heybridge, Brentwood, Highwood, Essex, Reagill, Portsmouth, West Yorkshire.

If you are unsure places see my talk page.

thankyou for your time Hamish Griffin (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mahinda Pathegama[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mahinda Pathegama, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahinda Pathegama. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)