User talk:DBD: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:00, 25 March 2015

User:Danbarnesdavies/Interwiki User talk:Danbarnesdavies/Archives

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Diocese of Norwich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reepham

Diocese of Oxford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bishop of Dorchester

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DBD. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Marie of Romania/GA1

This user helped promote Marie of Romania to good article status.

Marie of Romania, an article to which you have contributed, has been listed as a Good Article. Keep up the good work! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diocese of Oxford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| archdeacons = [[Karen Gorham]], [Archdeacon of Buckingham]]<br />[[Martin Gorick]], [[List of Archdeacons of Oxford|Archdeacon of Oxford]]<br />Hedley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Northampton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santi Marcellino e Pietro (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) 08:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DBD. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

House of Plantagenet

You added some women to the familiy tree which in itself was a good idea but you also added an error e.g. Beauforts were decendents from John rather than Edmund. If you were editing in this space and felt like it the Beaufort descent to Henry VII is probably useful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have fixed that. Whoops! Dan BD 08:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B/I topic ban

Howdy Dan. Would you & Steven Zhang, please consider lifting my B/I topic ban? I'm no longer interested in political battles on those articles. PS: I've noticed that it's been deleted from WP:Editing Restrictions (April 4, 2014), but not certain why. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I offended you, Dan? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Sorry, just been busy. This section makes me wonder a little whether lifting restrictions might not be the wrong message right now. I wonder what Steve thinks? I am tempted to say ask again in two months. Dan BD 20:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 'hidden agenda' from me, at that RM. I was rather looking for a compromise for both sides. It likely wasn't going to get traction & I had no intentions of pushing for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I accepted IIO's advice & chose to 'delete' my posts at the RM-in-queston, thus removing myself from it. In the past (before the Site Ban), I most likely would've lost my temper with IIO. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay all. I'd have to agree with Dan at this stage (I was surprised to hear your site ban was lifted, welcome back) but at this stage I wouldn't agree with lifting the topic ban. Too soon. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tad dissapointed (after 2+ yrs), but atleast I tried :) GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you & Steven are in error. According to WP:RESTRICT, my B/I topic-ban expired on April 3, 2014. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Thanks for both your help in reforming my behaviour at those articles. It feels good to have one less restriction on my head :) GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anglican Church of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archbishop of Melbourne (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) 08:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dean and Chapter of Westminster

added links pointing to Christ Church Cathedral, John Wynne, Bishop of Calcutta and Edward Willes

Sub-Dean

added a link pointing to Minister

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Dorchester. 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) 09:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albany County, New York may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| named for = Prince James, [[Duke of York]] and [[Duke of Albany|of Albany]] (later [[James II of England|King James VII of Scotland & II of England]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Herbert Croft (bishop) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of the [[New York]] colony appointed by the [[Duke of York]] and [[Duke of Albany|of Albany]] (later King [[James II of England|James II & VII]].<ref>She was also the great granddaughter of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Gauden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

his execution. In 1693 further correspondence between Gauden, Clarendon, the [[Duke of York]] (later [[James II of England|James II & VII]], and Sir [[Edward Nicholas]] was published by [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New templates

I have nominated some of your recent creations for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Single dukes. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Properties, navboxes should not be too small. Generally, templates with four links or less are deleted because typically all the articles on the navbox are already linked in the text of each article or can easily be placed in "See also". DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough. No worries. Dan BD 10:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might've let me know about the proposed Glos & Ed moves. Dan BD 10:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (father), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. 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) 09:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent royal duke moves

You recently moved the articles on the Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh on the grounds that they were both called "Prince William" rather than their full names "Prince William Henry" and "Prince William Frederick". And yet you've split off new articles on the dukedoms of York and Albany, Kent and Strathearn, Cumberland and Teviotdale, Clarence and Avondale, etc - despite the fact that their holders were called Duke of York, Kent, Cumberland, Clarence, etc, rather than by their full titles. Seems a bit of an inconsistent approach to me. Opera hat (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Along similar lines, you have moved (for example) the Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh to their own newly-created page of that name, and off the page for Duke of Edinburgh etc. You do know, don't you, that such people were never created Duke of "Gloucester and Edinburgh," but rather were simultaneously created "Duke of Gloucester" and "Duke of Edinburgh."

I'm only marginally around, but I would have advised against this move if I had seen you consulting the community before making such sweeping changes. Did you do so? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was too WP:BOLD. Having gone back to primary sources (the Gazette), I now see that whether each had one or two dukedoms is not completely clear. I'll start a discussion (probably at Talk:Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom?) soon so we can all reach a consensus. Dan BD 13:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I very much appreciate the enthusiasm behind your WP:BOLDness, and I even more appreciate the humility in this reply. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia on this topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email received

Not strange, merely forethought for the inevitable. Thanks. Hope your studies go well. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diocese of Chichester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Portsmouth. 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) 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diocese of Winchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitchurch. 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) 09:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Talbot. 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) 09:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W H Painter - challenge to your recent move

Hi, I'm afraid I'm not a sufficiently experienced Wikipedian to know the protocols for making or, more especially, challenging page moves. I would like to disagree with the change you made today in moving William_Hunt_Painter to Hunt_Painter, and query the basis on which this was done, if I may? I'm not quite sure how best to present the evidence to you for this challenge, or whether it's best done here or on the Talk page. Perhaps you could advise. As a reknowned botanist, W.H.Painter is known by those initials, as his herbarium labels and title page to his 1889 "A contribution to The Flora of Derbyshire" by THE REV. W.H.PAINTER, 1889, both demonstrate. (His capital letters, not mine) Now, I do accept he put his name as "W.HUNT PAINTER" at the bottom of his preface to that book, but having referred to it myself continuously over the last 20 years whilst preparing to publish a brand new Flora of Derbyshire (containing quite a large biography of Painter) it's something I only actually noticed today after seeing your change! It was quite a suprise. But his is not a double-barrelled surname, and I have never seen him referred to just as Hunt Painter before. (I note that name is used within the article, but it was certainly not used by me when I first created the page on Painter) The Stirchley Church website uses Painter's full name, too (http://stirchleychurchandrectorysalop.jimdo.com/the-rectors/), as do the online herbaria websites containing his specimens (http://herbariaunited.org/wiki/William_Hunt_Painter)

Whilst Painter may well have used his middle name Hunt in preference to William, I don't feel there is sufficient evidence of him being widely known as Hunt Painter to support your change. It's akin to the page on UK botanist Arthur_Roy_Clapham being changed to Roy_Clapham when all botanists who knew him understood that he preferred to be called 'Roy'. Despite that, all references to his publications - and indeed all those of Painter, always use both initials. I believe the change you have made is misleading, and I would like to request its re-instatement. Parkywiki (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pity there is no reply. I do know that you are an expert on this guy and less expert sources like Google agree that the first word he used in his name was William. I see there is a ref to a "Hunt Painter" at Oxford Reference but he lived several thousand years earlier. I intend to revert. Victuallers (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whoa. Victualers: I am not obliged to reply immediately to any posts, thank you. Parkywiki: There is no need to request anything. If you know better – and it seems like you do – then revert the move yourself. Dan BD 19:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Colin James (bishop)

added a link pointing to Producer

William James (bishop)

added a link pointing to Durham

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Westcott

Dan, I have read the 1911 Encyclopaedia text which seems largely to have been copied across without giving it a more NPOV. If you go to my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bashereyre there is an e-mail link in a user box which you could use to be a bit more specific about exactly which parts you would like me to consider revising.Bashereyre (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally think it requires revision – it's just that it's been hatnote'd. Dan BD 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bishop of Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Dorchester. 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) 13:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George James Cholomondeley

Hi Dan,

With uncanny precision you have exposed the one large gap in my Clergy List/Crockford's access. I have a CD of all clergy ordained in 1864, 1908 and 1929 plus books for 48,52,60,68,76, 82, 88, 01 and 09. Portsmouth Central Library have Clergy Lists for 1841, 1864, 1884, 1901, 1917, 1913, 1933, 1941 and 1956: it is inscribed in each of these that someone at the library in 1960 opted to keep only every 5th one; so a lot were either dumped or sold! So the venerable gentleman was not appointed by 1884 and had died by 1908. The 1901 would have had it, which is why every so often you will see I update my lists as I keep a running list of possible gaps: it costs £3.70 return on the train from where I live. To think I used to work 2 mins from that Library (1986-91)

All the best,

Basher

Bashereyre (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey. Dan BD 17:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Rochester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochester. 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) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHH

Please see my note at Talk:William Holden Hutton. Please use WP:RM to move the article in future. Thanks. Solomon 7968 15:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of bishops in the Church of England

Hi Danbarnesdavies. You reverted in the List of bishops regarding Nicholas Baines. I think its not true what you are saying. There is no reason why the seniority of Baines as Bishop of Bradford should not count. I am of this opinion since he retired as Bishop of Bradford but did not do any changes because I had no source for it. But now it seems that the House of Lords is of the same opinion then I am:[1] There are other examples too, when seniority continues as the diocese changes. Kind Regards --Dangermouse600 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I did not see that source. It has rather surprised me, though, since Lords Spiritual are reckoned on seniority of continuous service in mainland diocesan sees and Baines was not in any see from 20 April til 8 June and thereby went to the back of the queue. (Something his new diocese were keen should happen, so that they would not 'lose him' to Lords duties soon.) I am rather inclined to think that whoever updates parliament.uk has made a mistake and overlooked this, but I'm not 100%. I guess I'll be convinced when I see Hansard record his Introduction to that Chamber. Dan BD 00:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, House of Lord often isn't easy to understand. But parliament.uk was always correct when something was published. Nicholas Baines seemed to be aware of what was coming since July:[2] You mention Hansard. Do you know where to get Hansard-records newer than 2005 online? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Hansard is here: [3] I'm less convinced Baines 'went to the back of the queue' now, since the most authoritative source for 'how it works', the Bishoprics Act 1878, $5 could certainly be interpreted several ways. I'll un-revert on the strength of the parliament.uk source. Sorry about that. Dan BD 10:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Stoke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop articles

Please stop redirecting these articles in ways which are contrary to the Manual of Style. You already know what it says on this matter so respect it. Afterwriting (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - M Mabelina (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you to question these facts ? Bowdon is where the Bishop's Lodge is & qv. Crockfords..

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Leftwich

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jim Leftwich requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:04 PM • 01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete declined. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis and Clement

User talk:Bashereyre#Frederick Halliwell

Brother Michael

Hi. I've noticed you've moved Reginald Fisher (bishop) to Brother Michael, but I think it may be better to move the page to Michael Fisher (bishop). If you take a look at Basil Hume's page, you'll see he was born as George Haliburton Hume, but when he joined Order of Saint Benedict he took the religious name Basil. When Hume was created a cardinal, he was commonly known as Cardinal Hume, but his Wikipedia page is titled "Basil Hume" not "Cardinal Hume". So it is with Michael Fisher, who was born as Reginald Lindsay Fisher, but when he joined the Society of Saint Francis he took the religious name Michael. So although Fisher was commonly known "Brother Michael", his Wikipedia page should include his religious name and his surname. Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a funny sort of mash-up though, since Franciscans are generally called "Brother John" with no surname. I'm just wondering whether Michael was ever (let alone commonly) called "Michael Fisher". If not, then we could be straying into synthesis... Dan BD 18:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He published his memoirs in 1993, titled For the Time Being, and as the author his is called Michael Fisher, S.S.F. I don't think we can be any more clear than that for his common-name. Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice one. We certainly can't. I'll 'action' that then. Dan BD 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thing. If you're cool with it as it is (just take a look at my contribs), then great; if not, please do have a fiddle. Dan BD 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DBD. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

@@ Line 260: / Line 260: @@
 :::Oh, nice one. We certainly can't. I'll 'action' that then. '''''[[User talk:Danbarnesdavies|Dan BD]]''''' 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 :::I did a thing. If you're cool with it as it is (just take a look at my contribs), then great; if not, please do have a fiddle. '''''[[User talk:Danbarnesdavies|Dan BD]]''''' 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
+== Talkback ==
+{{Talkback|Scrivener-uki|Area sees of Ripon and of Wakefield}}