Hi Nigel PG Dale! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The article Patera Building has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section 'Innovations in Design and Manufacture' has been removed. I can live with that - the condensed article reads well enough. I have included some websites as current sources, and I have posted a single photo with added caption. If possible (DG) please remove == Proposed deletion of Patera Building ==

Thanks for your help.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article exists, and no one has submitted it to Articles for Deletion. Congrats on having created an article. I suggest you put it on your Watchlist (menu option, upper right), so that you are aware of edits going forward. But take care not to act as if you 'own' the article. I have no intention of editing the article in the future. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. This lets editors know who wrote what. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please clarify where the images on Patera Building came from? You've uploaded them marked as your 'own work', but (to my non-expert eye) the top image looks like a photograph or scan of a printed image? If that's the case, whose copyright is the original image?

Also, the building diagram looks like it might have come from some publication, given that it has the 'Fig.1' note included. The file description says "provided by Mark Whitby", but it's not clear what that means. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... it has the 'Fig.1' note included ... Yes, it was provided by Mark Whitby as it appears in the Publication Building with Steel (as referred to as a source) page 22. Whitby was the author of that article. I shall give photo credits with permissions for both of the other images. ~ ~ ~ ~

I'm no expert in what comes to copyright here, but if Mark Whitby is the copyright owner, you need to provide some evidence that he has allowed the image(s) to be placed freely in the public domain under commons licence. Just giving photo credits may not suffice. Also, I don't think you should upload images or other files as your own work, if they aren't in fact your own work. I'm going to comment out all the images in that article for now, until it has been somehow confirmed that they don't trespass on anyone's copyright; I trust you're okay with that. (PS: When you're replying on your talk page, I don't get alerted unless you 'ping' me.) Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DG, I appreciate your concerns over copyright issues. I share your alarm when I see copyrighted material flying around on line. As a published author who deals regularly with © issues and permissions, I can assure you that I have permission to use these three images. The bottom one at Albert Island was taken in October 2020 by Colin Pugh, a lecturer at Manchester University School of Architecture. He has given, in writing, his permission to use his image. The top photo is a copy of one of hundreds given out in a press-release pack to coincide with the 1981 Interbuild Exhibition at the NEC. It was produced by the Longton Industrial Holdings Plc Publicity Dept with the express intention that it should be published. Finally, the Graphic by Mark Whitby is contained within one of the quoted sources, and thus, as long as it is correctly attributed, and I have permission from MW to use it - which I have, there can be little difference between this and quoting text from an attributed source. I don't see any requirement that only the © holder can post onto Wikimedia Commons. With permission, I find nothing wrong with my carrying out the mechanics of uploading these images. I take on board your concerns over © issues, but in this case you are pushing against an open door. Thanks for your help throughout. ps Please confirm that when I repost the above, you will leave them be. ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks for your comments (and good thing I checked your talk page, since you're still not pinging me...). A few thoughts in response:

• I wasn't so much commenting on whether you do or don't have permission to use the images; I was saying that without something to substantiate that, it's just your assertion, which isn't really enough. Or if the permission stems from a commons licence or similar, again that needs to be made clear.
• Be that as it may, you shouldn't be describing things as your 'own work', when they're not; that right there is a violation of something. Saying that a piece of IP is your own work is not the same as saying that it's someone else's IP but that you have the owner's permission to use it.
• Whether or not I will "leave them be" isn't really the point; if there is a copyright violation somewhere, and even if I do ignore it, doesn't resolve the problem, it just means that I'll be ignoring it. I really think this needs to be addressed at the source level, not within the article.

Regards, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has no business in the article unless it can be completely referenced. Even if, it is about what the Patera Building is not, which is not relevant. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, point agreed, I'll fully reference this section. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patera Building, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Hunt. 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) 05:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:High Tech Building Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:High Tech Building Systems, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, British High Tech architecture, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Patera Building structure, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC) I'll continue to work on this as a draft Nigel PG Dale (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982 Hybrid Structure © Mark Whitby Graphic.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nigel PG Dale. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:High Tech Building Systems, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nigel PG Dale. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Patera Building structure".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, William Hammerton Smith, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article that can be added to by reference to reputable sources such as BBC News, national daily newspapers and specialist magazines covering the topic. Over a twenty-five year period, the subject Bill Smith went on to recover Bluebird K7 from the lakebed, rebuild it to the WSR specification and trial the craft on Loch Fad Isle of Bute in 2018. There will be no shortage of citations or links. Bluebird K7 has fourteen Wiki editors of which I am one. This article will draw on sources from many of those. Nigel PG Dale (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Mostly not about the subject; none of the sources mention them;

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Hammerton Smith and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Hammerton Smith and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Hammerton Smith. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Hammerton Smith. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]