This is an archive of past discussions about User:NHSavage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for the note. Certainly any topic can be divided into its important subtopics, and conversely any subtopical stub article which has yet to be developed (or is unlikely to be developed) can be merged into a larger one. My feeling is that having articles be distinguished from each other requires that there be enough material to warrant the split, and that that material be non-redundant enough to be counted. Id have no problem with spitting it back, if you like, but I would suggest developing it further first. -St|eve 07:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll think about this some more. (I have to go to work as an atmospheric chemist).--NHSavage 07:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
OK I've thought about it and decided for now to leave it as it is but with some edits to the page--NHSavage 22:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Does not the following text, from the article on Catholic Encylopedia, permit Wikipedia users to use material from that site? This page also permits it (insofar as the content may need to be modified for style/NPOV reasons, not for copyright reasons).
Due to its public domain status, content from the 1913 edition can be incorporated into any work. While it does present information from a Catholic perspective, it often offers in-depth and accurate portrayals of historical and philosophical ideas, persons and events. The online site is copyrighted, but this doesn't apply to the 1913 text. Text from the Catholic Encyclopedia appears, sometimes in an edited form, in online reference works such as Wikipedia.
If this is not accurate, perhaps we can contact an administrator for deliberation. If necessary, I can glady modify the text in the fashion prescribed in the above link. Thanks for your help. --Dpr 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
NH, thanks for your response. As I alluded to by citing Wikipedia:Catholic_Encyclopedia_topics, you will notice on this list that there are literally thousands of Wikipedia article composed precisely in the same manner as St. Mechtilde. This method is approved, legitimated, and ecouraged by Wikipedia. --Dpr 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I have tentatively reverted your merge of content by 24.127.101.24 into The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle, since it looks suspiciously like a copyvio to me. I have contacted 24.127.101.24 and asked them to respond at the talk page, but since this is an anon IP with no other edits, I'm not terribly confident of receiving a reply. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thought it best to write here rather than spread across three discussion pages. I had been cleaning up the Sentinel page as nothing seemed to be happening with it. My main interest / knowledge is in the diesels and I had intended setting up a page for the Sentinel diesel locos separate from the steam loco/wagon page.
I would say all the overlap between Sentinel (Steam), Sentinel (diesel), Thomas Hill and Yorkshires (my main interest) is best reduced to a note on the business being transferred. Thus all the details from the TH article on the YE closure are covered on the YE page already, but a entry on the page TH concentrating on TH and the sale of Spares for YE locos and overhauls.
In reply to your question, Rolls Royce bought Sentinel, stopped steam loco production, started building diesels called 'Sentinel' then after 5 years changed the name to 'Rolls Royce'.
Hope this helps. AHEMSLTD 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - it's importantr to note that while his supporters have had allegations made against them no one has actually called George an anti-semite. Unbehagen 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for the great job you did rewriting and significantly improving the article on methane. Edgar181 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the link in your post on Talk:Global warming - apologies for altering a signed comment, but I figured you probably wouldn't mind - Guettarda 19:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I should have checked it really!.--NHSavage 19:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for the comment you left on the Talk page of Atmospheric dispersion modeling. Please read my reponse and let me know what you think. I will watch for further dialogue there.
Regards, mbeychok 17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for acting in good faith by providing a citation. Alienus 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Every time I see your signature I think you are involved with the British health system...is that a clever case of advertising?;-) --Stephan Schulz 22:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No merely one of those things. My parents claim it was totally unintentional but my mum does now (although not when I was born) work as a Health promotion Officer for the NHS!--NHSavage 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You have some nice diagrams on the ozone article. Perhaps you could also include an example of how ground-level ozone affects pollution (an aerial photo of smog in big cities shouldn't be too hard to find). -- King of♥♦♣♠ 01:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure about this. The problem is that in smog you don't actually see the ozone - you see nitrogen dioxide (brown) and the effects of particulates (haze). Like the article says ozone is colourless (which is not to say it is not important, just that a photo doesn't show it.) Again I could probably find some relevant satellite measurements of ozone. On the other hand is this not really more appropriate in the Tropospheric ozone article? --NHSavage 07:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your comments wholeheartedly.I think any such list is open to controversies as the inclusions and omissions are bound to favour some and ignore others.I can think of at least a 100 other names which I think should have merited inclusion but I accept that only 1000 could find a place.A physicist for example may not appreciate the inclusion of a biologist and vice versa.I a a biochemist and feel that people like Harper should have found a place.To consider teh article for deletion in my view would be entirely inappropriate.I feel the whole exercise was a meaningful one and to the best of my knowledge the first of its kind.I am gald you concur.(Vr 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
Hi Mr.Savage
Further to my last note,I have browsed through the book in the Roayl Society and the Royal Institution Libraries reference sections.You will find my comments on the talk page.Regards(Vr 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
Hi again
I had corrected the Altounyan link and included the bit about Ludmilla Jordanova.I am not quite sure why these were removed.Any idea?(Vr 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC))
Not sure what you mean.--NHSavage 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies!The problem lay with my computer which for some bizarre reason had refused to display the latest contributions.It mysteriously corrected itself after a few hours.My apologies once again.(Vr 06:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC))
After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you did some work on Global warming/Global warming (simplified) some time back. It's currently up for deletion as a defunct re-edit, so if you want to keep it can I suggest a transwiki to your userspace? Regards, Ziggurat 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
TOP 1000 SCIENTISTS
Hi
you may be intersted to know that the artivle has been listed for deletion.I have voted against it.(Vr 05:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC))
Insert non-formatted text here--bb52 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Can u explain in a little detail what mistake i made pls?And how did u find out that I made it?
And how did u contact me?--bb52 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Brainblaster52
I'll answer your last question first as it is the easiest - "how did u contact me?". All registered wikipedians have a User page (yours is User:Brainblaster52 - which is a red link as you have not put anything on it) and a talk page - User talk:Brainblaster52. I left a message on your talk page.
"how did u find out that I made it?". When you are logged in all pages have a tab at the top with the word "watch" on. If you click this then the page is added to your watchlist. Then when you click on "my watchlist" it shows all changes to any article on your watchlist. Below is an example of what the top of my watchlist looks like at the moment. You can see that Global Warming has just been edited by Bikeable and I have just edited Wildfire. You can click on diff to see what differences the last edit made or history to see all the edits to the article and compare different versions. I have ozone in my watchlist.
"Can u explain in a little detail what mistake i made pls?".
Your first edit said that ozone is produced by lightning. The mechanism you gave (splitting of oxygen molecules into 2 atoms) is not at all important. The ozone produced by lightning is due to the production of NO (Nitric oxide) which can then produce ozone via reactions with light and hydrocarbons (see tropospheric ozone).
Second edit. There were a few reasons why I did not agree with your edits. First of all the natural production and destruction you added all happen in the atmosphere so this information belongs in the Ozone in Earth's atmosphere section. Also the production mechanism you mentioned (oxygen photolysis) is correct but only important for the ozone layer and not low level ozone. The destruction section is again focussed on stratospheric ozone. I also felt that this level of detail was too much for this article (the Ozone layer article has much more detail). However this is where Wikipedia gets interesting. I am not right just because I know more about wikipedia and have been around longer. You are free to add back in the extra detail. However when things get controversial (very common!) it is a good idea to post a message about why you are making changes on the articles talk page.
You might also like to know that to add your signature you can just type --~~~~ or press the button with a signature on. If you want to see your edit before you post it (always a good idea!) press "Show preview" before "Save page".
Hope that helps.--NHSavage 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My watchlist
You have 271 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages); you can display and edit the complete list.
Below are the last 62 changes, as of 19:00, 17 October 2006.
Show last 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 hours 1 | 3 | 7 days all
Hide bot edits | Hide my edits
17 October 2006
* (diff) (hist) Global warming; 18:59 . . Bikeable (Talk | contribs) (rv: "overdramatized"?)
* (diff) (hist) m Wildfire; 18:47 . . NHSavage (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 198.148.217.30 (talk) to version 81956051 by Chobot using VP)
* (diff) (hist) Talk:Global warming; 18:42 . . William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (→Quote from Larry Sanger - ;-))
Thank you for uploading Image:Logo egu.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I added a section about history to this article and nominated it for the Did you know? section on the Main Page here. It looks like it's got a good chance! bsrboy (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
On 31 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Nicholas Priory, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ch4rug multicolor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Skier Dude (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello NHSavage! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 696 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Cullompton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Painter (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) 11:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Doh! Fixed. --NHSavage (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I would mention I am reviewing Cullompton. Cheers. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both for reviewing the article and letting me know! --NHSavage (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
On the basis of your recent edits to hadcm3 and the like, and your cambridge-ness, I say Hello! William M. Connolley 21:03:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"Eh? What?" - it's an article you had doubts about in 2005. (The mills of Wikipedia grind slow, but...) It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillery after a history of doubts and some dubious edits. And two editors who currently can only find mirrors... Peridon (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know - sorry I didn't reply earlier! That's one from a period when I was doing wikification of articles, possibly I should have pursued my doubts more!--NHSavage (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
As you are the author of Origins of acid rain.svg I was hoping you would be happy to alter the graphic so as to include Hydrofluoric Acid, HF, as an air pollutant. It is certainly a pollutant of the same degree as Sulphuric Acid and is even more hazardous and corrosive. It is of increasing relevance as almost all oil refining is now using HF as a catalyst rather than H2SO4. as well as breaking hydrocarbons into shorter more useful lengths cracking results in substitution of Hydrofluoric acid for hydrogen in hydrocarbon which produces HF after combustion, this HF is then present in the exhaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.95.33 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid I did not create this graphic, I merely uploaded it from an EPA website (see the description page for the original URL). I am not really able to change it. Some other wikipedian may be able to do this but before you request this change, I would encourage you to find some references for the importance of HF as an important source of acid rain. I have not come across this being described as a significant part of acid rain so I would be interested to know more. Please also remember to sign your posts on talk pages. You might also want to create an account to make it easier to edit pages and discuss things. To sign a post simply click the symbol that looks like a pen writing something at the top of the box you type into. --NHSavage (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamborghini Madura until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings on this - I came across it on a page of Orphaned articles and tried to de-orphan it. It seems that this sparked the deletetion - so be it.--NHSavage (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure that Chagford is within the Culm Measures area? I don't have sources to hand, but my memory of Devon's geography is that the Culm Measures cover the area north of Dartmoor - the Hatherleigh / Holsworthy area, and probably further east - rather than the area immediately adjoining the moor itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Boggy moorland near Hatherleigh
Would this do? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but it's certainly the right location. I think I'll add it with the existing caption - it doesn't define it either as part of, or not part of, the Grassland itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culm (plant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Culm (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) 09:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Randomly got nosy and checked your contribs - noticed your interest in all matters Culm. I'd imagine you can figure out what this map shows?:)
I could easily integrate that data as an overlay onto a political/relief base map, but I'm not entirely sure best way to do that. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated as there's hundreds of similar files I could make. One irritating thing is I can estimate the area, but that's classic OR.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I can even work out where my house is from that...
I think for the River Culm article at least, just what you have overlaid on a relief base map would illustrate the river much more nicely that what I have on there so far. I think that we do not really want it too cluttered. If it has no text at all on it, then the caption can do the explanation and be translated if people want it in other languages. I sympathise about the original research. For Cullompton's history, I am trying to do some research myself. The long term plan is to see if I can get it published in the Devon Historian and then I can cite it.:-) --NHSavage (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I should have a reasonable go at this tonight. For what its worth, this 2011 document should be of interest to you as well.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
And to the right.... Showing both the Exe and the Culm would be somewhat more tricky. Interested in any feedback. For what its worth I'm wondering if relief or plain background is more suitable (these maps are typically on plain backgrounds).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I had in mind. I guess whether you want relief or not depends a bit why you want a map in the first place. For me, it is nice to be able to see the relationship between the topography and the course of the river. However, if you want to put additional information on it, then an unclutter background is probably better. I'll have a think.--NHSavage (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess you can contrast it with this map (which could be better...) This is very focussed on the human geography, not the physical. It shows some of the major settlements, but none of the tributories or the watershed. If you took your map, and removed the topography and then added say Cullompton it would probably a better human geography map. Horses for courses I guess, decide what your course is.--NHSavage (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
This is another example of the human geography approach: . For my money it is a bit cluttered.--NHSavage (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand the River Parrett map is not too bad. Perhaps some combination of the two approaches? --NHSavage (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The Parrett map doesn't appeal to my mind - roads aren't really a natural combination with rivers (and there's a clash in UK cartography between rivers and motorways). Its the settlements that have a stronger relationship to the rivers. The Severn is way too cluttered, while the Thames works well.
I sense there's two options here: One on the drainage basin and tributaries, the other on the main stream and settlements. Both are viable and represent the main two concepts associated with rivers. There are a couple concepts that doesn't quite match with, eg the Tamar as a boundary but that is best described anyway.
I'm inclined towards physical geography for the mass-production I've got lined up - it produces the plain base map other can build on, and is something beyond the capability of most editors. In contrast, most editors could get a plain map of southern England and add some dots to show London, Oxford etc:) The outstanding question really is the inset, as colours between the main relief map and political insert clash somewhat.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia 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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NHSavage. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello, NHSavage. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doddiscombsleigh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry III (check to confirm|fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NHSavage, I never got around to thanking you for the splendid job you did of improving the Cornubian batholith article, with assistance from user:Smalljim. You managed to retain the bulk of my original text, while making it more accessible. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I learnt a lot doing it!--NHSavage (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Your long series of valuable edits to many Devon articles shows that you still care about this county's place in Wikipedia. I'm pleased to award you this barnstar as some small recognition for all the careful and painstaking work that you've put in over the past several years. —SMALLJIM 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to NHSavage by —SMALLJIM on 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks!--NHSavage (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, NHSavage. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The file File:NickSavage.JPG has been proposed for deletionbecause of the following concern:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
In reply to your question about the relationship of the two towns on the Little Compton page -
As yet unpublished, but here's the evidence:
-As you note, Tiverton is adjacent to both towns.
-There is a Colebrook Woods between Cullompton and Tiverton in England, and Little Compton and Tiverton in the US.
-Several Little Compton families, including Rogers who was the Town Clerk when the town was named, came from within a few miles of Collompton.
And I'm told that Cullompton is pronounced "Compton" - is that true?
thanks for the information. I wouldn't say the town in the UK is pronounced Compton. The closest phonetically now would probably be Cul-ump-tun now but the old spelling was Columpton which if you prouncounced it more phonetically, could shift to Compton especially as the "l" is not really stressed. If you have more details of the families then depending on when the emigrated, I might be able to find them in the UK census. However, this is becoming original research and so not suitable for Wikipedia really. NHSavage (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
Hello NHSavage! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 696 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
