Cavrdg

Your sterling efforts in coordinating islands in the Thames etc is much appreciated. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've done all the tagged Herefordshire articles and the Thames islands were the last few for Berkshire. It's Oxfordshire next, I think.--Cavrdg (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yup. I noticed the emptiness of Herefordshire today, after finishing pushing down articles from United_Kingdom_articles_missing_geocoordinate_data to the country level. Very well done for clearing out a couple of counties. Many thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

FYI: Number of coord missing tags per category. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for keeping an eye on Postal codes in the United Kingdom‎; I suspect the external link they are trying to add is both WP:COI and WP:SPAM. It would make blocking the user easier if you added the appropriate template from WP:WARN on the user's page when you remove the link. In the interim, I've warned them for WP:3RR; another revert and they are a candidate for blocking. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll bear that in mind, thank you TEA14 (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was not posting promotional links in wiki's "Data Recovery" page.. It's an external link to a very important read about how a lot of these fake companies (and/or misleading D.R. Software) operate.. there is way more direct promotional material on the page that has not been removed...

The link to "Epic Data Recovery" has been approved by many readers and moderators on Wikipedia for almost a year now.. A few Con artist from INDIA who have tried to remove it or spoof it before to direct people to their Bogus Software Promos (other then you).

Wiki is a public Place and I am a Professional who has help Hundreds (if not thousands) in getting there Files back FOR FREE!!!

The information i provide is crucial and realistic. If you are the only one that objects, then majority rules in this democratic country. No one else objected before, therefore its obviously helpful.

The only people who do object tend to be secretly employed by such rogue Data Recovery Companies and don't want their scheme reveled.

I would suggest you focus you energy elsewhere. Thanks for letting me know of your objection.

Regards

-JNYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.142.47 (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look at the link and it still looks like advertising to me. If you want to take it further, do raise it on the article's talk page and see if you can get a consensus to include it. --Cavrdg (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hi, I think User:RHaworth is probably the best person to speak to. Other than that User:ClemRutter but he's off-wiki until the end of the month. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice you've made an edit to Bob Ainsworth removing an addition by an anon regarding his flirtation with the IMG. We've actually got an rfc open on the talk page aboutthis. Please express your views.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed when editing you recently added the template {{Lifetime}} to an article, replacing DEFAULTSORT or categories in the process. While the template {{Lifetime}} is a useful short-cut when setting up biographies it is not generally considered wise to replace existing categories or DEFAULTSORT for a number of reasons. The chief amongst them are that the template hides information from editors and automatic processes or requires additional knowledge to understand. This is only a minor point, many thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, please keep it up!

Regards, Magioladitis (talk)

Hello, I think you commented on this issue earlier, and you may like to know that there is now an RfC under way on this question, at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cavrdg, I responded to your note on my talk page, but in addition to that, I noticed in your contributions that you do some occasional vandal-fighting, and your reverts are decent. Would you be interested in having rollback rights being granted to your account? I know this is unrelated to your note, but I thought I would ask this, and it would make vandal-fighting a bit easier for you. Best. Acalamari 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks, that does look useful. Real life is a bit too busy at present for me to do much here but I do have a biggish watch list and reverting obvious vandalism quickly would be good.--Cavrdg (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rollback granted: as the tool is for reverting vandalism, misuse of the tool (such as revert-warring or using the tool to revert edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed...and some administrators don't even warn editors who appear to be using the tool incorrectly. For practice, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck! Acalamari 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!--Cavrdg (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just a quick not to say thanks for joining the project and to welcome you aboard. There are still one or two pages to create but I'll try to get these done as quickly as I can. Cheers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for adding the article about Walterstone. If you can, please take a moment to add an infobox too. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bridstow, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.grantonline.com/dna/pugh-dna/reese-family-mtDNA/Reese-Wales.htm.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The edit warring at Hereford Cathedral School needs to stop, and preferably before someone transgresses WP:3RR and gets blocked. The accepted process is to discuss such content differences on the article talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Phil the Greek :). Cheers WhaleyTim (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Greenore sm.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file 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. 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 refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tastyhead 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/Tastyhead until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irelandfact01Hol.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:IrelandfactGreenore.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file 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. 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 refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any reason why you removed a perfectly valid reference, regardless of spelling? GiantSnowman 13:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Cavrdg My edit on "milk" was reversed. I felt the image was too revealing. I'm conservative. Would it have helped if I had added that explanation when I deleted the image? Scott Scottlovessue (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, many thanks for the UK population updates that you have done. There are other templates that need to reflect the changes so the set are kept in step as they tend to be used together on articles {{English district rank}}, {{English district density}}, {{United Kingdom district population citation}} and {{United Kingdom statistics year}}. If any of the districts have changed area since the 2011 figures then {{English district area}} and {{English district area rank}} will also need updating. I also noticed that some of the codes changed so any articles that use the old code may need to be updated to reflect the change. Keith D (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I came here to post the following for Cavrdg. Perhaps it is related?

• {{Infobox English county}}
• {{English district area}}
• {{English district density}}
• {{English district rank}}

I noticed that Northumberland is showing an error in the infobox: "Area ^{[convert: needs a number]}". Perhaps that is something to do with your recent edits? I think I once fixed a similar problem, but it is outside my area and I'm hoping you can work out what the problem is. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Odd one! I've loaded the data as provided on the ONS website. Some of the codes are different from the previous ones. Northumberland came as E06000057 in place of E06000048. I looked for a reference for the change but instead found http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/snpp/sub-national-population-projections/2012-based-projections/rft-projected-coc.xls which has

Table 5: 2012-based Subnational Population Projections with Components of Change (Births, Deaths and Migration) for Regions and Local Authorities in England

Since publication on 29 May 2014, an error in five geography codes has been identified and corrected in the data tabs for males, females and persons. The areas affected are Northumberland, Gateshead, East Hertfordshire, Stevenage and Tyne and Wear (Met County)

Corrections applied:

Northumberland - 'E06000057' corrected to 'E06000048'
Gateshead - 'E08000037' corrected to 'E08000020'
East Hertfordshire - 'E07000242' corrected to 'E07000097'
Stevenage - 'E07000243' to 'E07000101'
Tyne and Wear (Met County) - 'E11000007' corrected to 'E11000004'

It looks like similar errors have happened again. So I think I'll change the codes in the data rather than in the article(s) though I'm not quite comfortable with that. -- Cavrdg (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

But two have actually changed! http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/internal-migration-by-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/year-ending-june-2012/rft-la-region-lookup.xls ...

In particular, users should note two local authority code changes since the release for the year ending June 2011:

Local authority....June 2011....June 2012
St Albans..........E07000100....E07000240
Welwyn Hatfield....E07000104....E07000241

-- Cavrdg (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of maps of the UK and Ireland 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/List of maps of the UK and Ireland until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I note that you have been going around 'fixing' the inflation templates in vartious articles that display a NaN instead of the inflated amount. There is a temporary bug in the script code that is causing this which should get fixed in a day or three. Unfortunately, your 'fix' is using a faulty script. "{{inflation-year|UK}}" is an old script that is depracated as it has an error in it which causes it to return the figure for the previous year due to an interaction with the newer "Formatprice" (but does not call the faulty code so it does at least return a value). The correct script is "{{CURRENTYEAR}})". Unfortunately, this version calls the code that has the temporary bug due to a recent change to the template code. All articles calling the script are displaying NaN at present. I have put the right wiki markup in St Paul's Cathedral (even though it does not work at present) but time constraints prevent me from adressing the others. --Elektrik Fanne 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was working on the basis of the documentation at Template:Inflation which says Do not use {{CURRENTYEAR}}. I'm more than happy not to do any more. If there is a fix coming, perhaps the template doc should be updated. -- Cavrdg (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed. The script code has indeed been changed (less than a month ago) and, as you have discovered, {{CURRENTYEAR}} no longer necessarily works. It is not because {{CURRENTYEAR}} returns the wrong value or anything that should not work. It is because the inflation databases are out of date. {{CURRENTYEAR}} returns (at present) 2016 as a return value. The code used to just substitute the latest available data, but that no longer happens. There has been a lot of discussion on the point and opinions are divided as to whether the behaviour is right or not.

Changes like this should not be made to script codes because, as you had discovered, it breaks any article that uses it - and there are a lot of them. We have been forced back to using {{Inflation-year|UK}} which does not return the current year but a manually updated value (which is why it was deprecated) which should match the last year's data available in the database (which for the UK is currently 2015). I note: that the database for Germany has not been updated since 2009 (though since 2002 this should be the inflation of the euro, though there is no euro option).

In the circumstances, I can only applaud your efforts to make the articles work. I am only left to wonder, at this point, whether the {{CURRENTYEAR}} issue may resolve itself if the original code functionality is restored as some people want. --Elektrik Fanne 13:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. There's never going to be a final index figure for CURRENTYEAR because the monthly figures are published in arrears. For the UK, the OBR does publish forecast figures at each budget and autumn statement. The latest are in table 1.7 of the Economic and fiscal outlook supplementary economy tables linked from here. I see CPI has been rebased to 2015 = 100. After updating all the previous figures to the new base, we could use the OBR forecast value for 2016 of 100.7 as the best estimate of current values. -- Cavrdg (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that some automated process could update the 2016 figure on a month by month basis so at least any article would show the curent value of the historical amount (obviously out of date by not more than a month or so which would not be a significant error). Unfortunately, the inflation databases and the linked variables are updated entirely manually, so it currently is a major task to update all the data monthly. It is a pity, because it leaves all articles that use it with an obviously out of date 'current' value, even if it is not very out of date at the point it is read. --Elektrik Fanne 15:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Arthur. 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) 10:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the extra refs about Douglas Self. I have recreated the article with a note on the talk page that speedy del is not appropriate. I've also complained on ANI as the earlier deletions were against policy. I was wondering if you'd like to add some of the refs to the article yourself, in the interests of co-operation? At least some of them would count as reliable sources to establish notability and hopefully prevent any more problems. If you'd rather not, I'm happy to do it myself - just let me know. I really appreciate your help. SmilingFace (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks for adding one, I've done the rest myself now. SmilingFace (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IrelandfactGreenore.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RH tiny.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Ward (band) 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 "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. Bluedeck 00:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Additionally, it is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ward_(band). Bluedeck 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message about these. I have taken the opportunity of the annual population figures release, to add new options for areas which I hope will cover what you want. There is an option for true integer rounding of sq km, which I have now used in List of districts in Northern Ireland by area:

{{NI district population|ARE=N09000003|RND=0}}

and also an option to give consistent, and properly rounded, 2 decimal places of sq km (although I don't have a use for this at present!):

{{NI district population|ARE=N09000003|RND=2}}

The default continues to give a variable number of decimal places, properly rounded, to make 4 significant figures:

{{NI district population|ARE=N09000003}}

These template calls can simply be used wherever an Infobox template expects a number. See for example the Infobox in Ards and North Down. I have now inserted the areas and populations for all 11 Northern Irish districts in their respective Infoboxes.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

While I agree with your comment about the importance of edit summaries, they are not "a guideline". You might want to consider rephrasing your comment. - ^theWOLFchild 11:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Thewolfchild: Hi, It wasn't my phrasing of the comment. It came from Template:Summary2 though I now see Template:Uw-editsummary is described as a single-level template. There was a Tfd in 2016 with result Keep but perhaps it needs editing. Regards, Cavrdg (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does need editing as it's incorrect. I'll post something. - ^theWOLFchild 14:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re you edit changing the precision of milages, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 43, which was a RFC which decided that conversion of kilometres to two decimal places was appropriate. Please will you revert your edit? Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mjroots: If we had the imperial measurements in miles and chains, I'd agree we could do the conversion to the nearest 20 metres but in this part of the article we seem to be working in quarter miles so I'd think 2 miles was between 1+7⁄8 miles (3.02 km) and 2+1⁄8 miles (3.42 km) and just over one mile as something like 1+1⁄32 miles (1.66 km) to 1+1⁄8 miles (1.81 km). So even the first decimal place of kilometres is not fully supported, let alone the second. --Cavrdg (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gordon (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarence Gordon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henllys, Torfaen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gwent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I am aware of the policies. While it is true that some statements may fall on WP:PUFFERY, I am still trying to find reliable sources. Not that much promotional, see the recent edits, just added back sourced contents (controversies) that were removed before by the same ip. Thank you.--86.188.201.215 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding references to those named trains. I just wanted to make two suggestions for you;

1. MOS:ALLCAPS requires that titles and quotes in citations that are given in all capital letters be reduced to either title case or sentence case, as appropriate, and;
2. Rather than using {{subscription required | via = britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk}} you may wish to use the |url-access= parameter built into citation templates. Setting |url-access=subscription would generate this: ^[1] You could also append |via=the British Newspaper Archive should you wish (I don't, personally), for this: ^[2]

Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help with editing Julian Barratt's age to the correct age! I wasn't sure how to format it correctly so I kept getting it wrong and was hoping someone would fix it lol, really appreciate it :) Partyro23 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Cavrdg (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

hi 217.165.104.105 (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just for information, the IP editor DuncanHill was reverting is a blocked long-term abuser known as Harry the house. Would you mind looking over the discussion here? Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reinstating unnecessary edits by a block evader? DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Resorts in Thailand has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply