User talk:Camboxer

Hi, Camboxer, and welcome to Wikipedia! From the quality of your contributions, I'd guess you've probably been here awhile - if not, I hope you choose to stay. I'd particularly like to thank you for your contributions to the article on Peter Handford; I was really hoping somebody would pick it up and make a real article of it, and now - thanks to you - it's on its way. Thanks!

-- Gaurav (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this page recently, but it's now a quality piece of work—congratulations. Please check my recent edit there: I'm not familiar with the {{PERSONDATA}} template and I hope I haven't broken anything. Regards. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Camboxer! 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 11 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Barry Devlin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions, but why rewrite the section into present tense? Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What page if the date information on that you added with this edit? Please add it to the citation. I don't have my copy available to check. ww2censor (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2011 in archaeology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritofstgeorge recently edited Template:England year nav, removing the heading "Years in the Kingdom of England (927–1706)", adding redlinks to years past 1706, and going on to create new pages at 1707 in England and 1708 in England. At this edit the links from 1706 in England to 1707 in Great Britain and 1708 in Great Britain were altered to point to the new pages instead. I have reverted the changes to the template and 1706 in England and I am proposing that these new "England" pages should be merged to 1707 in Great Britain and 1708 in Great Britain, although so far as I can make out the content of both has simply been copied from those pages, so there may be nothing to merge. I am not sure where this is intended to lead and fear there could be an awful lot of disruption and duplication. Moonraker (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Came across your chronology edits to articles like 1600s in England accidentally, and was very impressed. Keep up the good work improving Wikipedia! Ruby 2010/2013 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your continued good work expanding Years in X articles. My dream is to see all of these people, works, and ideas linked together visually in a timeline, accessible from every page in the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is under review in WP:NFR#File:LewisAsTheTyro.jpg. You may join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating 1628 in Ireland, Camboxer!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 has tagged the page as having some issues to fix. In addition, they wrote this note for you:

Needs expansion and further development.

The tags on the page can be removed by you or another editor when the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Learn more about page curation.

Dear Camboxer- I suppose you probably should wait until March to post the Leo Villareal light sculpture as it will not be inaugurated until March and it is January- Hypothetically In the words of Steely Dan "California falls into the Sea" could become a reality by March.... Happy New YearMasterknighted (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Camboxer, I moved the 2011 Nazi loot discovery to 2012 in art, since it turned out that this happened in March 2012. The page itself is now at 2012 Munich artworks discovery. -- (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a note to this article on when Rhodes took his 4000th wicket; it was actually the game before the one you said. I've fixed it, but I don't know if you added the same info anywhere else. Cheers! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Camboxer, I was checking links to a page I created, (Charles R. Chickering) and noticed you linked it up with the 1970 in art page where I noticed your name, a red link -- and a Senior Editor II. Couldn't help but put the Senior Editor's star on your user page. If you prefer to remain anonymous please accept my apologies and remove the star. All the best -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your sterling work creating and editing Year in country articles, I give you this barnstar! Best, Matty.007 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your history, I'm pretty sure you were acting in good faith here [1] but unfortunately what you added is a partial hoax. (The actual sequence exists whether or not it's notable but doesn't apparently go by the name.) See WP:ANI#Alleged hoax (mathematical topic) featured on front page for details where I mentioned you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating 1838 in Scotland, Camboxer!

Wikipedia editor OccultZone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very nice!

To reply, leave a comment on OccultZone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for your edits; however, you are changing valid dates in citations to invalid ones by using |month=. That parameter has been deprecated, so where the citation shows |date=November 2012, that is correct. As an example, you changed the 1882 in the United Kingdom article from:

• {{cite journal|first=Alan|last=McEwen|title=Death and Destruction: the collapse of Newlands Mill chimney|journal=Vintage Spirit|issue=124 |pages=60–3 |date=November 2012}}

McEwen, Alan (November 2012). "Death and Destruction: the collapse of Newlands Mill chimney". Vintage Spirit (124): 60–3. to:

• {{cite journal|first=Alan|last=McEwen|title=Death and Destruction: the collapse of Newlands Mill chimney|journal=Vintage Spirit|issue=124|pages=60–3|month=November|year=2012}}

McEwen, Alan (2012). "Death and Destruction: the collapse of Newlands Mill chimney". Vintage Spirit (124): 60–3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

As you can see, your change resulted in an error being displayed. It also dumped the page into a cleanup category with about 23,000 other pages. (So you're not alone.) Just a friendly "heads-up" to avoid these errors in the future. Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 ^VTalk 05:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@D'Ranged 1: That was perfect. For how long you have been fixing these parameters? Today, there are thouands of pages with incorrect parameters. OccultZone (Talk) 11:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone Not very long; started a few weeks ago but haven't been very diligent; I mostly do it when I have nothing else to do. It's tedious; I'm a registered AWB user and am still learning its ropes; hopefully I can get that set up to help me out.—D'Ranged 1 ^VTalk 17:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that unless you have error messages turned on in your css; you wouldn't see an error message. That's stupid, imo. Editors should be alerted to errors to avoid making them in the future. If you're not seeing an error message above, add the following to your User:OccultZone/common.css page: .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 21:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@D'Ranged 1: That's good, good use of AWB can teach a lot. I try to look at the scripts that others have made, and imply them on my editing. Hardly anyone to help out there, but when you try yourself you learn better. OccultZone (Talk) 06:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the sourcing with this edit. I am less sure why it is that you are changing the date format, though. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 1959 in science page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 1965 in Wales page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 1935 in film page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed you have changed the tense from Simple Past to Simple Present in the article "1949". It was only one word ("was" → "is"), but that means you are among the ones who understand why we use Simple Present.

In the article "1962" to describe events editors use both tenses. And I have to admit that using both tenses does not look good to me. When I corrected events so they were described in the Simple Present Tense, my edits were reverted. What do you think about that? Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski[reply]

• Present tense seems to be the accepted convention for "year" articles, and my many previous corrections in these articles have not been questioned. A few of the articles are entirely in the past tense; in those cases I leave them alone. I agree a mixture of tenses in the same article looks bad. Camboxer (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1921 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin Lover. 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) 12:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Camboxer. Just wanted to let you know that I've had to remove some images of book covers, etc. which you've been adding to various articles such as 1951 in literature because they were non-free images and thus should not be used as such per WP:NFCCE and WP:NFLISTS. For reference, it's generally only considered acceptable for non-free cover art to be used in a stand-alone article about the work itself per WP:NFC#cite note-2. Not every image found on Wikipedia is freely licensed and it's a good idea to check whether an image is non-free before adding it to any articles because each usage of non-free content must satisfy all ten non-free content criteria to comply with relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just revised the Voorspoed entry on List of shipwrecks in 1901. Unfortunately it is now self-contradictory (as is the Wrecksite source). 7 March was indeed the date of the grounding (The Times, London 8 March, on voyage Cardiff for Brazil with coal and machinery, though wrongly described as a schooner), so that cannot be the date of her later loss on another voyage. I have found that she was repaired at Falmouth, sold to Liverpool owners and renamed Titania. It was then that she went missing, but have not yet found any date (it may not have been in 1901). I think that the Voorspoed entry should be deleted, but didn't want to just do that with limited explanation. Davidships (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it now. Didn't disappear at all. Titania was wrecked 16/11/1901 at Trepassey, Newfoundland (Evening Telegram, St John's Nfld, 18/11/1901). Definitely the right ship as tonnage and owner match. I'll move it and amend. Davidships (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Transport. 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) 09:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions to Timeline of London. -- M2545 (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Timeline of London page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the George Nichols (martyr) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Camboxer. I recently discovered that the 'YYYY in science' series goes all the way back to 1500 ... and from the history you were instrumental in making that happen. These pages will be very useful to me personally, and I'd like to pay it forward by helping contribute to them. I have a few structural changes I'd like to suggest ... but want to reach consensus first. Where is the best place to have that discussion (I'm a novice at editing wiki pages, but willing to learn and contribute)? I was thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years_in_science but that appears defunct (do you know why so? could we revive it?).

A few things I'd like to do:

• The format of pages before 2007 is organized by topic, those after 2007 are organized by month, and 2007 itself is an intermediary form. Since the by-month format appears to be what is advocated by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years I was planning on converting all of the pages before 2008 to that form (I have code that automates the process if you and others agree that is the right path forward). An example of what I'm proposing (for 2006), can be found in my sandbox.
• Get some buy-in around adding an optional "branch of science" annotation to each entry (for years after 2007). My automation code for converting years before 2007 knows which "branch of science" section each entry came from, and adds a parenthetical link to each entry so that people know which branch of science the entry refers to (see my sandbox). I'd like to start adding similar annotations for 2007 onward.
• Some cleanup of the pages after 2007 around consistency of format (do we use "January 1" or "1 January", etc.

Totally open to hearing feedback, reasons why the above isn't a good idea (or why it is a good idea), other areas where I can contribute to these pages, etc.

Metawade (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to your proposed changes but I've no real idea on how to get a wider consensus. Camboxer (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have added Betty Tebbs to the "Notable people" section of Bury. She was not from Bury or, at least, not that one. You might argue that she was from Metropolitan Borough of Bury but you'd be safer adding her to the relevant section of Prestwich and leaving her in the broad-brush List of people from Bury. Local folks get rather fed up of Bury subsuming its constituent towns when it comes to claiming kudos or apportioning funds etc: quick to take, slow to give. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Advice followed. Camboxer (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the claim about the Holborn Viaduct power station here does not seem to be correct as written. "the world's first coal-fired public electricity generating station" would be the Brush arc lighting systems of 1878-1880[page 177[2][3], maybe even before that depending on how the Yablochkov lamps were powered. Edison was known for building the first electric power "utilities" (selling incandescent based electric lighting for indoor domestic use - sold to the public... as in "individual customers") and I see claims Holborn Viaduct was the first Edison station in that format to come on-line.... that may be what the source is getting at. Probably needs a better source all round. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

timelines and years

Thank you for articles on places and people and Elephants to Catch Eels, but foremost for creating and maintaining all these timelines, such as Timeline of York, and "year in ..." articles, such as 1848 in philosophy and 1709 in Scotland, with their categories, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1756 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember always to give the source for content you add to the encyclopedia - you must have been looking at a list of the shortlisted Costa Book Award titles on a website or in a printed publication, so it would have been appropriate to add it while you updated the authors' articles, to save other editors from having to find the source to improve the articles. I've fixed Helen Dunmore, also including a link to the awards, but I see you made similar unsourced edits to several other authors. Thanks. PamD 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For about a year, I have been adding a comment whenever I'm altering your formatting of entries with brackets (parentheses) in them, but you seem not to notice. Where the whole content of a pair of brackets is in italics, then the bracket signs should also be in italics. Where the content is mixed, the bracket signs can stay upright. Here are two examples from 1900 in literature:

• Octave Mirbeau – The Diary of a Chambermaid (Le Journal d'une femme de chambre) – here the brackets round the French title are italic.
• Arthur Schnitzler – La Ronde (German: Reigen; privately printed) – here the content is mixed and the brackets can stay upright.

rasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]] ^{(or here)} 01:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've removed your addition "16 January – First BBC regional radio broadcast from Stoke-on-Trent in England (Paul Brittain playing the piano)" because (1) the Stoke-on-Trent station (6ST) was not on the air on that date (it operated separately only between 1924 and 1928; its wavelength then being used to relay the Manchester, later Northern Regional, Programme until May 1931) and (2) I can find no evidence of the pianist Paul Brittain broadcasting from any station on that date. -- Picapica (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I have therefore deleted the event from 1934 in the United Kingdom (which is where it came from). Camboxer (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on this. With the outbreak of war and especially with the suicide of Virginia Woolf only about 18 months away. I'm fearful that this may have been the last series. It's given me enormous pleasure, and I've become surprisingly fond of the characters, especially the rather splendid Vera. JH (talk page) 18:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Camboxer. It looks like you copied some content from 1938 to 1938 in France. When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary that the material was copied, and where you got it. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article 1957 in poetry#Poetry Magazine awards, V.R. Lang was awarded the 1957 Vachel Lindsay Prize — however, according to the book by Patricia Albers the year of the award was 1955. See Patricia Albers (3 May 2011). Joan Mitchell: Lady Painter. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 460. ISBN 978-0-307-59598-0. Which is correct? Who won the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Vachel Lindsay Prizes and in what years? — Suslindisambiguator (talk)

Can someone you edit 1272 and add Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar for me please? 75.170.36.185 (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that would be a mistake because the Gregorian calendar was established in 1582. Further, all edits by Special:Contributions/75.170.36.185 make the same mistake and ought to be rolled back. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No action taken. Camboxer (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your continued excellent work to expand the years in British radio series of articles. Rillington (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Year in Literature and Year in Fiction are two different things. Including fictional events in Year in Literature could lead to confusion, especially as Years in Literature already have a "Fiction" section. Please move the fictional events you re-inserted and create the relevant Year in Fiction article if you feel it's worth while. Deb (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. It is perfectly clear from publication dates given that the works are set in and not published in the year in question.Camboxer (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are not published in the year in question and have no real-life connection with that year, they should not be listed in that year. Deb (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 1957, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a convention to provide sources for Births and Deaths in [year] articles.

1560 in Scotland, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Camboxer,

Thank you for creating 1679 in Scotland.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for the article. The article needs more citations and references, see MOS:CITE

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Camboxer,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, British Rail Class 33, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]