Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arthur Wellesley, 4th Duke of Wellington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. 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.)
Thanks for your contributions to John Dodd (engineer). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Facebook and Youtube are not reliable sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree that it should've been a draft. Having had my first article, John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar, approved, I can now approve drafts myself. It seems to automatically approve itself, so I am unsure as to how I can create a draft. Please could you let me know for future reference? Mac Edmunds (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original article still exists, and has now been connected to the relevant WikiData page. Is there a way that it could be deleted, to avoid confusion while I work on the draft? Mac Edmunds (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, I agree that social media platforms of Facebook and YouTube ilks, are usually unreliable sources, as not peer reviewed. However, the Facebook posts have been made by children of Dodd, who I am sure are reliably informed for obvious reasons. I can accept that this does not prove notability as it is a primary source, however I maintain that it is accurate.
As for the YouTube sources, each come from reliable independent journalists, who have columns and websites outside of YouTube. Here is a list of the relevant videos and why they're reliable:
Car & Classic: This is the platform that sold "The Beast", meaning their information would be accurate, as supplied from the Dodd family themselves.
Throttle House: Two reliable independent journalists, who have formal content outside of YouTube, and whose information would be accurate as supplied by "The Beast's" current owner.
TLBS: Presented by Jonny Smith, a reliable independent journalist who has written for magazines, and formal television programmes.
The only other video(s) are from Suzanne Dodd, daughter of John Dodd, whose information would be reliable for obvious reasons, although does not prove notability.
The fact that they're journalists outside of YouTube doesn't affect their reliability, unless they're considered experts, in which case they might be reliable outside of publication in a traditional media outlet. I recommend working on the draft more and submitting it through AfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Dodd's car
Hey! I'd recommend that you make an article on "The Beast" itself, as it seems that interestingly, it has a better claim to notability than John Dodd himself. OhHaiMark (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that when I made the page, especially considering ‘The Beast’ is the main topic of the page.
However, I think Dodd gains notability from the engineering feat of building an aero-engined car, and not the other way around. Plus, his eccentric life outside of his car is also interesting.
Notability is about what sources say. If the sources primarily discuss the Beast, the article should be about that. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Hi @BlueboyLINY. Apologies for not giving a reason. When the template was added (07/12/2015), the article only had 8 citations. As it has 28, I thought that validated my removal of the template.
John Dodd (engineer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Replaceable non-free use File:Duncan Barber OBE 2024.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Duncan Barber OBE 2024.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука1306:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:John Dodd The Beast.png
Thank you for uploading File:John Dodd The Beast.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 seven 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. — Ирука1321:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I added the suggested links to improve the article, and the name change was a while ago, and I cannot see why anyone would need its relevant information anymore. Mac Edmunds (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Edmunds, you could probably remove the suggested links. However you should not remove talk sections, and never delete another editor’s comments WP:TPO, regardless of age. The only option is archiving if it is needed (such years old discussions or very long/active talk page). 3 months ago is relatively new actually in terms of most small pages and the RM has to be kept to show the current title was discussed, is the consensus, and therefore be more likely respected. DankJae00:56, 4 December 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 Bonadea 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:Tatiana Reed 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.
Hi @Bonadea. Don't quite understand your rationale? The Wikipedia notoriety criteria states that three accurate and reliable sources are required which show significant coverage. I have provided three: 1) Country Life, a full-article feature on Reed. 2) Classic Driver, a high-brow journalistic source with another full-article feature. 3) the Mail Online article, which although tabloid, provides the same information as the former two. While some may argue, it is the content that's notable (i.e., arguably Reed's Land Rover, not Reed herself), it is Reed, her personality and adventures that are being reported on, fuelled by her interest in her Land Rover.
Furthermore, while the podcast and YouTube sources are primary and not peer-reviewed, the frequency of them (plus Reed's undeniable presence throughout them), provides a guide as to her social media influence, and the scope of her out-reach.
Please could you confirm you issues with my sourcing?
Hello, Mac Edmunds!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! bonadea contributions talk20:45, 4 March 2025 (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 Miminity was:
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:Tatiana Reed 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.
Thanks for the review. Please could you point out the primary sources just so we're on the same page. That would leave seven secondary sources. How many more do you think I would need to get the article through the AFC process? TIA Mac Edmunds (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Tatiana Reed, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks for the new articles, several names of which were new to me. I was at 82MM this year (my first MM, though I am no stranger to FoS, Revival and other venues). Hope you find more to create. Best wishes, Tony. Tony Holkham(Talk)19:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I assume it was my revamp of the Goodwood House article which brought you here? I too was at 82MM. My Dad was racing our Mini in the Whitmore Cup saloon car race... our first time competing at Goodwood. We'll be at Revival this year, alas, only spectating. There are a few other articles that I would probably like to create, or at least revamp; I think a lot more could be added to the Goodwood House page, and probably the current Duke's too. But as I'm sure you know, it's a bit of a rabbit-hole researching these things! :) Mac Edmunds (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Goodwood is one of my favourite places. Rabbit hole indeed. Be cautious about using too much from the primary source (Goodwood itself), as it is always better to use secondary sources where possible. If you need any help, let me know. T. Tony Holkham(Talk)20:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have a look for some secondary sources over the next few days to back-up the new information. Thinking about it, I'm now also quite tempted to expand the current Duke's page. Mac Edmunds (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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.
Boughrood Castle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
'Fraid not. The photos were actually in December. I finally got around to going down there to improve on the old infobox photo, taken from the entrance gates. The lady who answered the door kindly let me take some, so an improvement I hope. I also went to Plas Machen, but no answer on the door. I spotted a man inside doing spreadsheets on a computer, so I suspect the not-answering was intentional! Managed to get a fairly good photo of Plas Machen, however, when I was walking back to the car though Lower Machen. Just spotted it across the trees. Mac Edmunds (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also went to Ruperra Castle on Saturday for the first time. Very secluded place, but a sad sight given how beautiful it once was. Pictures of that property uploaded to Commons too. Mac Edmunds (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Ruperra is a sorry wreck. It's over 30 years since I saw it, it was bad then and it looks worse now. It's the kind of building that you hope such as the Landmark Trust could take on, but the rebuild costs will be astronomical. I fear it will never happen now.
You can never predict owners' reactions but my experience has been overwhelmingly positive. In photographing dozens for Monmouthshire's Grade Is and II*s, I only had one negative response. At Hygga House Dovecote, Trellech, I was even offered tea! KJP1 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a worry that nothing will happen to Ruperra. There were conversations that the NT would take it on in 1949, at the same time they were looking at Tredegar House. James Lees-Milne said that he "saw no point in [the proposals] at all". Considering in those days, the park was simply overgrown and the castle still all together, I'm sure the Trust would make quite a different decision if given the same opportunity to take it on now, in the condition it was in then. A few surveys have been commissioned by the owner, but whether anything will come of it... The stables and service buildings are still in use. A lady (with two viciously yappy dogs; I'm glad there was fencing between us) told me over the fence that she keeps her horses there, but said no work was being undertaken to the castle itself. On a brighter note, tea!... Well that is a result, then! Mac Edmunds (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article on the dovecote. "Ivy, that most dangerous foe of masonry", as Arthur Owens Cooke is quoted in the article, has thankfully been removed at Ruperra in recent years; not long ago, it engulfed most of the towers. Mac Edmunds (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gattonside - will accept after redirect dealt with
Thanks very much for that quick review. Yes, I noticed that there was a redirect one submission. Thanks for you comments on my research! It took quite some hours to collate the sources. From there, the write-up was pretty straightforward. My reason for writing was that John Morgan appears to have occupied the house for a short time 1952–1953. I've done a lot of research on John Morgan, and created his page, so Gattonside cropped up during my work. As you live nearby, I wonder if you'd be able to advise me on an apparent conflict of information. The Historic Environment Scotland listing report for the property states that it was owned by the Brothers of Charity and used as a care home from 1921. However, newspapers contradict this, with photographic evidence, that the Hon. Mr and Mrs Montgomerie lived there from c.1923 to 1951. Similarly, the report lists the chapel connected to the house as being built "almost single-handedly" by one of the Brothers of Charity from 1921 to 1972. But again, photos exist from 1930, clearly showing that no such work had yet been carried out. Perhaps the single Brother building the chapel from 1921 is a generalisation, based on the supposed fact that the Brothers owned the property from then onwards. Even so, the assertion that they owned and used the property from 1921 seems to have no grounds? Perhaps something as simple as a member of staff informing the reporters during their inspection in 1971 that this was in fact the case? Mac Edmunds (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think there is someone I know who may know the answer, whether this is going to lead to a reliable source is another matter - he used to work there. My first reaction, uncluttered by sourcing, is that the chapel was a bit later than 1930, it's the sort of thing that happened in the late 1930s when there was a lot more pessimism around. However the photos that I've seen of the chapel suggest something more modern, 1960s even. But I'll do some digging around.
Having hit this problem a number of times, I tend to just write the article over the redirect page, which has worked previously. Whether it is the right approach, and how it fits with AFC, I know not. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are templated in AfC, so we press a button and on of the higher unpaid helps usually steps in within a day or so. Writing over the redirect page will cause problems in terms of categorisations, patrols and what-not. It's a bit of a delay, I grant, so the ever eager ranks of Wikipedia readers will just have to hold on for a bit. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gattonside House, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
B!... well thanks very much – most generous. Look forward to hearing any developments you find relating to the chapel, or from your friend. Out of interest, when did he work there? Thanks again. Mac Edmunds (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He was a Catholic electrician, contracting to work there, and I think he did some voluntary stuff too with the residents. This would have been around 2000. I also know one of the brothers who still works for the Order. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lord Berners, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar and Talk:John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
; see Talk:John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar for comments about the article, and Talk:John Morgan, 6th Baron Tredegar/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
