User talk:Hadrianheugh

This user may have left Wikipedia. Hadrianheugh has not edited Wikipedia since 13 December 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I did not write the Westvleteren article that you fact tagged, but it is on my watchlist. Did you read past the first paragraph? Please take another look at the entire article and see whether you still think the fact tag is justified. Thanks. Mikebe 08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even thought the citation should occur in the intro, I have removed the call for citation in the intro. The article is still undersourced, but so are most articles in wikipedia. shalom. Hadrianheugh 14:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. As I said, I did not write the article, but I do agree with you that many articles are under-sourced. I am doing my best to improve that, but I am only one person. Mikebe 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, If you're going to add a link for

Fixed and thanks for the message Pam. Hadrianheugh 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your onesource tag from this article since you did not indicate on the talk page why Stiles and Skutch is inadequate for this species, nor suggest a better source. If you chose to retag, please identify a better source. Jimfbleak 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on a recent edit of yours.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mill of Ayreland, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Burn of Ayreland. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello bot. This is a separate topic and merits its own page. Two of the references and some of the history do overlap from the other article. Hadrianheugh 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya there! Just spotted your latest updates in addition to your previous additions. Thanks! I think we need a *lot* of help to get Aberdeenshire into shape.
(aside: Hopefully that new two-level navigation for areas within the 'Shire will have helped pull things together a *bit* - feedback welcome!).
Cheers, David. Harami2000 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on Kincardine and Mearns. I hope you won't disapprove that I converted your references that you added to use citation templates. Please revert if not. - Neparis 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is much neater than mine. thanks Hadrianheugh 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. I thought I'd better ask because citation formats are sometimes a source of wiki debate; I like using inline since it is more concise than Harvard style, and easier to use consistently when citing the same reference in more than one place in a text. - Neparis 10:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have been editing a diverse assortment of articles, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look.

Great work on the articles in north east Scotland by the way. --MacRusgail 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says:

Consequently links to common words such as 'village', 'coast' and 'ruin' are discouraged and, as you will have seen, are removed as being contrary to the above. As you have reverted my last delinking I guess you are not aware of the above and so am, in a helpful spirit, bringing it to your notice. Best Wishes Saga City (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit here. Please note that Cliche Online has been blocked for 24 hours for disruption, edit warring, and incivility regarding the article

Hi, I noticed you placed a wikify section tag on the Characters section of this article. I've looked at other articles that have not been given this tag in their characters sections and have looked at the links inside the tag, I can't see what needs to be done. Could you explain to me exactly what you are expecting to be done when you placed the tag there. Stephen Day (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen. I did the wikification myself just now, since that was easier than writing guidelines as to how to do same. Thanks for your interest in working together to improve Wikipedia. By the say the most important link was to spirit possession. Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please explain to me why the article about the

Thanks for your interest in this page. The archaeological literature typically uses "Gurness", but the terms are certainly interchangable. I would favour leaving the name as it is. Hadrianheugh (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for considering. -- Pepve (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, doesn't the archaeological literature tend towards Broch of Aikerness, the likely root of the modern name? I know names are used, but I was under the impression that was the archaeologically preffered name. Lianachan (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly find it both ways, but I have just done an academic search and found "Gurness" occurring 89 times where Aikerness occurs 17 times; also the Aikerness use seems to have been prevalent mostly in the 1930s era as opposed to current time Note the following more academic type works, all of which use "Gurness" as opposed to "Broch of anything":

• Anna Ritchie, Prehistoric Orkney, 1995, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 128 pages
  ISBN 0713475935
• Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales, 2005, Routledge, 741 pages

ISBN 0415347793

• Ian Armit, Beyond the Brochs: Changing Perspectives on the Later Iron Age, 1990, Edinburgh University Press, 228 pages

ISBN 074860197X

Many travel and popular texts also use "Gurness". Cheers. Hadrianheugh (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you seem to be using the terms broch and promontory fort almost interchangeably. It is best to avoid using the latter term when discussing brochs, as it is a distinct archaeological term in its own right. Many, although by no means all, promotory forts within the "broch region" are duns, which are very like a small broch. Lianachan (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in this topic. I am not aware of using the terms interchangeably. Each term clearly has its own meaning. I think it would be a mistake not to point out which brochs are also promontory forts. Regards. Hadrianheugh (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Balbridie, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balbridie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. скоморохъ ^ѧ 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a second look at this page, which is clearly quite notable. I appreciate your withdrawing the nomination swiftly and noting that all other comments suggested a Keep. cheers. Hadrianheugh (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you clik on the hospitals website in external links... you can see that it way's it's part of the Wellstar network. It may not be an inline citation... but it is sourced.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all well and good, but lack of inline sourcing makes it difficult for the reader to tell what is sourced and what isn't. In any case, I won't fight over this matter, but will leave things as you have left them. Cheers. Hadrianheugh (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please think about what I'm saying - and take it the way it is meant - as a suggestion and only 'my opinion'.

Generally - think hard before changing how other contributors 'do things' such as reference their sources. I prefer to do Watson (1975) for example, while others might prefer using a 'ref' tag. Correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't thing either way is 'right', but a stylistic preference.

Personally - I prefer to leave other contributors stuff alone unless it's REALLY wrong somehow, or REALLY needs re-arranging. Doing otherwise risks pointless 'editing wars' - WikiWriter (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for responding - carry on the good work WikiWriter (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed it is true your comment - not only that but there are actually articles that can help the eds who create these marvelous stubs identify provinces, regencies nd localities - so that there is no doubt where they are located, but...

Ro4444 (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you've spelt the title incorrectly. can you fix it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballogie (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~~~~ Marx0728 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping by the Khalidi talk page.Historicist (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input here I am (still) hoping it might get up to GA soon - although its looking like more work than I anticipated. The GA guidelines for referencing are much stricter than they used to be so I have amended your Diamond ref - I am quite happy to do so for this and any others as it can be quite fiddly. Any further input gratefully received. Ben MacDui 18:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

With the best will in the world its hard to see how Ardtalla is ever going to be more than a tiny stub - its just an estate house. Is there some significant history that could lead to an expansion? Ben MacDui 07:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there. Thanks for your interest in this page. While i don't have the time at present to develop the entire article, there is an abundance of note in this subject. I have compiled a list of 119 monographs citing Ardtalla. No, I haven't read them all yet, but the mentions span the subjects of history, literature, biology, geology and hiking. I have expanded the article a bit and added a few sources. There are also over 10,000 google hits; while most of these google hits are non-notable commercial references, many do add some spicy tidbits of information on the academic subject of the Ardtalla Estate. Since you are one of the premier editors of Scottish esoterica, I am surprised at your comment above, but I hope you will join in expanding the page. Best regards. Hadrianheugh (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 12:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you upload any more images from Geograph, please, please use Magnus' tool. This will upload them to the Commons and give them the proper licence and category. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gillybrands is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillybrands until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Reywas92^Talk 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]