User talk:MortimerCat

Archives

2006 talk archive. 2007 talk archive. 2008 talk archive.

Sorry about that, someone had put that banner on the main article so I assumed it had been approved but misplaced. JacobJHWard (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I knew it wasn't you! MortimerCat (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm a bit apprehensive at the moment, although a bit excited about the whole idea - I've been reading up and thought we needed to get stuff in place like a proposal and a page of good looking stuff, but if you think it can be done easily, then hell yes !

Stavros1 is the man for links and stuff, hes been putting those links in my pages for the lists of Norfolk stuff, but no Suffolk things yet.

As for the rest, I still need to learn about how the templates are done and the tags for categories etc, do you know what the next steps are ? Do we just put in a proposal or should we look at getting pages ready for ppl to look at ? and only got 5 supports so far

nice to see your still into it ! lol

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I would like to learn rather than just go ahead and get everybody else to do it, I understand the basics of the templates, and it looks fairly easy to make them if a little boring work lol.

I think it's important that I understand how the category tags relate to the project also, I know they link them all together, but how do you get the pages to collect them is one thing I would like to know for a start, so I've been looking at things like the Wik.ipedia.Prons in Norfolk and other pages to see how they back link to each other.

I can see your point about the voting, as well as the possible need for keeping them separate, but shall we assume for now that it's going to be both but concentrate on Norfolk for the meantime and worry about the Suffolk part once we get more people onboard. The big problem is the gap between editors online times. I think we should leave it for a couple of weeks to see what happens, unless we hear anything back about my proposal here

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the categories that dont seem to tally up - For example, this category, Category:Visitor_attractions_in_Norfolk, links to 62 pages, but the listing Places_of_interest_in_Norfolk only has 39 on it and the main listing at Category:Visitor_attractions_in_England_by_locality says ther's only 7, but when you expand the list there are only 2 ?!?! it's a bit strange and confusing.--Chaosdruid (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - just saw that you have rated this article, and was interested to know what you thought stopped it from being Class B? Or more to the point, what should be done to it to raise its status? Tafkam (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MortimerCat. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice that. Perhaps I should do less editing at 2am :P JacobJHWard (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the merge into Pulborough? Wouldn't Horsham be the better article to merge into? Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nutbourne is within the parish of Pulborough, nowhere near the parish of Horsham. nb Horsham in the article title refers to Horsham District, not Horsham Parish. MortimerCat (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Nutbourne and I know for a fact that it is big, busy and well-known enough for its own page and that the feel, atmosphere and environment in and around Nutbourne is completely unique and seperate from Pulborough. Thanks, (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.112.55.135 (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came out of retirement to respond at Nutbourne, Horsham (*) MortimerCat (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I fear it may appear that I'm starting to stalk you, but the Easter holidays are allowing me more time to look at things, so I'm just coming across your suggestions & edits more often. I was about to write on the Talk:North Horsham page, but wanted to raise a query with you about your interpretation of the guidelines at WP:UKTOWNS. I can't see anywhere that it says that the 'ideal' place to record small settlements is in the civil parish. I can see that it makes sense with small rural villages with single-line articles, but I'm less convinced when it comes to examples like Roffey and Littlehaven. These are very much neighbourhoods of the town of Horsham, so it strikes me that the best place for them is as a subsection of the Horsham article - perhaps as an expanded version of the current Horsham#Suburbs section. Does that differ from your interpretation of the guidance? Tafkam (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the relevant sentences to which I refer open to wide interpretation!

Hamlets that are within another parish or council ward could have their own articles, but if there is no more than a couple of paragraphs that could be said about the hamlet it may be best practice to merge the articles.

A single name may be in use for both a current or former civil parish, a church parish, a larger council ward, and an informal colloqual area, each with slightly different boundaries. The same (or similar) area may have two or three different names—that of a ward, church parish and local names with no official use. In these cases, all of the variants should be merged into a single article.

I admit I am biased towards the parish, as my line of work is at the parish level - The information I am adding to Wik.ipedia.Pro relates to the civil parishes. To me, parishes are a handy catch all for remote geographical features, such as the hamlets.

In the case of Roffey and similar, I do not disagree with you. I would say it would be mentioned in both the parish and Horsham#Suburbs. I have only tagged articles that have a single sentence, so merging them into two articles is not really duplicating anything. The only question is where to send the redirect. In reality, I am just flagging those one liners for further discussion. Locals will know best where to point to. You can see an example where locals knew best at Talk:Bramber ++ MortimerCat (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you created some redirects, such as Hankham, and tried to add them to the category Villages in East Sussex; however, to do this, you need to include the prefix "Category:" in the link, like so: [[Category:Villages in East Sussex]]. The links you added without the prefix did not work. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - I did know that, must have had a temporary lapse of concentration. Thanks for fixing MortimerCat (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're probably gone, judging from your user page. The top comment made me giggle, about your first edit!

I just wanted to say that, some people do care about the small stuff - Talk:Stumpy (album)#Spelling "Dessicated" - and it's a shame you've left because of others that don't.

Best of luck in whatever you do,  Chzz  ►  21:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great shame. Thanks for what you did for the Eastbourne article. Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I am still lurking in the background although nowadays, I am on another account. I created the account to fix a bit of vandalism. I thought I could handle the occasional revert, but it grew and grew. I jst too over my life again and I have nearly gone back to full time editing! Thanks for the comments MortimerCat (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to see you here. You did a fine job, in my estimation. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see that you are not gone entirely. Your contributions are much missed.--Charles (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still edit most days under my other account, but mainly anti-vandalism. An editing break is a good idea though, I do feel like getting back into major editing again. Unfortunately, I have just started my own business and I will not have the time for the foreseeable future. MortimerCat (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Portal:Kent/Selected picture/28 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wik.ipedia.Pro. This has been done under section P1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a portal which would be subject to speedy deletion if it were an article.

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 "Click here to 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 Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details here: Talk:Eastbourne/GA1. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DuluxTin.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wik.ipedia.Pro is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wik.ipedia.Pro page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hubble Hubble Periglio (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—East Wittering and Bracklesham—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collaborate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:WimbourneMinsterMapBug.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future use.

While all constructive contributions to Wik.ipedia.Pro are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]