User talk:Fishmoyne

Greetings...

Hello, Fishmoyne, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too!) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! DDStretch (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carden, Cheshire

Thanks for the message, though it would have been better placed on the article's discussion page. I wonder if I can suggest how the problem has arisen: First, if one looks at the 1:25000 OS Survey maps, which have the boundaries of civil parishes marked in, then Carden is represented as a separate civil parish. This is also supported by the official website which OS Survey maintain that shows the various Westminster Parliamentary boundaries: if you go there, and search for Eddisbury County Constituency, then, when the map shows, choose the "layers" tab on the left hand box, and get it to show parish boundaries, Carden is also shown as a separate civil parish. That is why it is given on wikipedia as a separate civil parish. However, for small civil parishes, they can be grouped. This happens a lot in the Chester District where there are many small civil parishes. What grouping means is that, although the civil parishes that make up a group maintain their separate civil parish status, the parish council or parish meeting that would administer it administers also a number of other civil parishes in a group, with the separate civil parishes operating like parish wards. It may well be that this happens here, with the abutting civil parish of Tilston being the major player in the grouping, and Carden being placed in with it: the civil parishes remain distinct, but the authority that administers them is common between them. I have found it very difficult to get any information from Chester District about this, and so it is difficult to know what to say, and I put it to one side, but we may be able to resolve it if we write to the parish clerks for the various parish councils and ask about their area of administration and the status of what the OS Survey mark as separate civil parishes. If you have some definite and verifiable information in reliable sources that can resolve this specific issue for all to see and accept, that would be really good. In the meantime, I will make a slight adjustment to the article pending confirmation, and I will also try to contact the parish clerk to clear up the matter. I hope that is acceptable. Best wishes. DDStretch (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I now have confirmation of the fact that Carden is still a civil parish. Its parish council, however, is a shared one, but not with Tilston, which you thought, but with a number of others of which Tilston does not figure. The parish council goes under the name of Coddington & District Parish Council. I've edited the article appropriately and included a reference which confirms these arrangements.

On another matter, you created an article entitled "Carden Hall, Carden, Cheshire", when there is already an article in existence for the same place called Lower Carden Hall. I've transferred the content you added to Talk:Lower Carden Hall, and then redirected Carden Hall, Carden, Cheshire to Lower Carden Hall. In fact, because there is no need to disambiguate so much, Carden Hall would have sufficed for the title of the article you created, and so that further change to the redirection has also been made. If you are able to integrate what you wrote into the article, then that would be really good. DDStretch (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Villeneuvette-gateway.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Villeneuvette-gateway.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Villeneuvette-gateway.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Villeneuvette-gateway.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upload your free media to Commons, please!

It is better if your free images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as opposed to Wikipedia. Freely licensed or public domain media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons. Thank you: Jay8g (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to River Brent 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:

Section 8: Osterley Lock to Greenford | Transport for London]</ref>Transport for London]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]