"==Galashiels== 
 I notice that you have added back citation tags to the Galashiels article after I removed them, the tags were added by a user in order to push their POV on the article and in order to have the Gaelic names removes from several articles, this is simply another step in their campaign. The user concerned has taken to using sockpuppets to further their POV, as is the case here.   
 :Thanks for the info. I certainly don't want to encourage a disruptive anonymous editor in an axe-grinding campaign. Nevertheless, as somebody with no interest in his or her campaign, I actually agree with the sentiment on this particular edit. I don't think it's valid to add Gaelic names for places which don't naturally have them, either in historic, or current social use of the language. That would be the province of the Gaelic edition of Wikipedia, not this English edition. I am in no way suggesting that Gala fits that description — I don't know if it does or doesn't — but that's the whole point of asking for a reference, isn't it? I think it would be within the spirit (and rules, I dare say) of Wikipedia to provide a reference showing that the name is really used, and not just a transliteration. Obviously, ""common sense"" sometimes is what's called for, when there is no readily available reference, but on that note I'd add that I have a relative in Gala and have been a visitor to the town on many occasions, and can't recall ever seeing the Gaelic name on any signs, or hearing it used (for what little that's worth). 
 :In short, I'm more than happy to see these names if they're genuine, but find them to be a political campaign in and of themselves if they're made up by Gaelic speakers purely for these articles. –  ('''')  

 ==Chiswick warning notice== 
 Hi, Kierant. I am puzzled by the warning notice (for lack of references) you inserted in the notable people section of Chiswick. What exactly do you expect to see here? Are you saying that the fact of local residence should be referenced, or are you asking about the notability of the people? If the second, the references should be in the individuals’ articles. If the first, some have suitable references within their own articles – for example, the article on Anthony Burgess, the first name on the list, includes a note of his Chiswick residence. But I am sure this is not the case with all the names, and I am concerned about the amount of work needed if this point is to become general within all the similar sections in all the local area articles. Do you intend to insert your notice in each and every such article? None I have looked at so far have this particular type of reference – nor has anyone else inserted a warning notice for that reason. Yes, I know that a high standard of scholarship is required, but this must vary according to the importance of the fact in question; and the residence of all those notable folk is not of major importance. Don’t you think you have gone a bit over the top in this? I would like to see the notice removed, please.   

 :Hi. This list of notables is particularly long, and provides no background information at all, being just a list. These are prone to unsubstantiated edits. It is of course preposterous to expect every sentence in an article to carry a reference, but a list like this needs backup — in every article in which it appears. That's a fundamental part of Wikipedia (please refer to WP:ATT). It's not always necessary to insert a warning/contribution request tag if the list isn't getting out of hand or the information is known by common sense; but they tend to start to be somewhat regulated when they get long, as this one now hopefully has. Please compare with the discussion at Talk:Bow, London about the same issue. A good deal of excellent work has gone in to sourcing the data in that article for another area of the same city. –  ('''')  

 ::Thank you. The Bow reference is interesting, both for the approach to the list and for the passions aroused! I think that the main points to consider for Chiswick are: 
 ::# Each name on the list should have a line to itself, with a brief note of the reason for its inclusion. This allows you or someone else to add to each line a separate request for citation if needed, rather than a single whallop of a warning; it allows vandalism to be more easily spotted; and it is much easier to read and comprehend. This has been mentioned in the Chiswick discussion already, but the Bow discussion makes