Jump to content

User talk:ArbieP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, ArbieP! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source

[edit]

Hi ArbieP. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject England

[edit]
Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject England. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to England related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page!. Thank You.

Hi ArbieP. Thank you for adding notable names to Eccleshall, but Chris Eccleshall shouldn't be there. His surname has nothing to do with him ever living in the town. - Beeflin (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Beeflin; thankyou for your comment. I agree he has nothing to do with the town, apart from the fact that they share a name. I've added a comment on the Talk pages for the town saying why I've put him there. By the way, I don't know the gentleman concerned but I do know the town.

ArbieP (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kiel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Function theory. 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) 10:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people from Limburg

[edit]

Franz Kamphaus is listed, probably because he was Bishop there (born somewhere else), but so were others, - should we list them all? He was certainly the most-loved one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Gerda; thankyou for your comments. I've added another Bishop, the one who was sacked, he sounds quite controvertial, so qualifies in my mind as notable. I've no strong feelings about the others ArbieP (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdates

[edit]

Hi, just to let you know that |accessdate= in references needs to be a full date including a day. Also Sept is not a valid abbreviation for September in the Manual of Style. Keith D (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, ArbieP. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Colsa - reply

[edit]

Hello there Arbie, from Portugal,

indeed, I should have hit "undo" with an explanatory summary instead of "rollback", please accept my apologies. Now, I do explain: since we already have the "SPORTSPEOPLE FROM SANTANDER, SPAIN" category, the one you added is considered a sub-category of the former and thus not needed.

Hopefully that was explained well, sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santander, Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procurator General (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) 19:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pewsey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pastoralist (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) 12:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Erik - Deleted link for Paul Franklin

[edit]

Dear Erik

I see you have reverted an edit I made in the article for Paul Franklin. His date of birth is missing from the article and his year of birth is shown in the IMDb Database - as 1966 - so I inserted it in his article. Having a date or year of birth is very helpful when listing notable people in an article for their town - in his case, Congleton. Would you care to look again at what the IMDb link says

IMDb Database

Regards ArbieP (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Erik

I have not heard back from you, so I've made the amendment with citation. I hope you're agreeable with the outcome.

Best wishes

ArbieP (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gorleston, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Adams and William Fleming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, ArbieP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, ArbieP. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people from Gotland

[edit]

Hi the ArbieP, you have done a great job putting together that long list of people from, or with connection to, Gotland. Good job. However, since that list is now so long, it looks a little bit disproportional with regards to the rest of the article. What would you say to cropping it off into a separate list article? You can for example look at how this is done at New Jersey and List of people from New Jersey. That way the list can grow and be even more elaborate. I did the same with List of Gotland-related asteroids in the "Astronomy" section when that list became more complete. What do you say to this?

Just to add: such a thing is called a split and it's described in WP:SPLIT. It requires some technicalities and formalities that I would be happy to help with. Even if I make the split, the "trail" would ensure that you still get credit for all the work you have done on the list.

Cheers, cart-Talk 21:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:W.carter Thankyou for your kind comments and your query about Gotland#Notable_people. I take your point about the article now being quite long, but I'd make a couple of points:- (1) I broke the article up into three "parts" so that it doesn't seem so "monolithic" on the eye (2) the list isn't going to grow, I've done a good search to update (Category:People from Gotland) which I used. On balance then, I think I'm happy to for it to stay as it is. I'm quite happy for you to raise the issue in the Talk:Gotland pages to see what others say.ArbieP (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dividing it into three sections was a good move. Checking it out, the text is now 13% of the whole article (plus a lot of photos), and anything above 10% is enough to do a split. That would also make it easier to add more photos and we know how editors love to add those. The list will grow in a not so distant future since the island is a magnet for Swedish artists and writers. I think it's time for this split and I will post a notice about this on the talk page some time this weekend. Thank you again for your work on it. cart-Talk 22:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bülach, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vienna Conservatory and Karl Elsener (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of twin towns and sister cities in England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zuidplas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zevenhuizen (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) 09:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

[edit]

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit to Nick Hancock. You cited the IMDb in a biography of a living person. However, the IMDb is user-generated and thus not a reliable source. Its data should not be imported to Wikipedia, especially in biographies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited De Fryske Marren, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archdiocese of Utrecht (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Brande (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Red Bull Salzburg
Ørum (Sønderlyng) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Viborg

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates to help linking to Wikisource articles

[edit]

I am currently running through this list insource:/en.wikisource.org\/wiki\/1911/ and that is how I came to the article Geneva. Please see this edit there are a lot of custom templates for linking to articles on Wikisource. Most (all?) of them use a custom parameter |wstitle= to make a link. You will find a chaotic list of them in User:PBS/Notes#List of PD Templates. The templates also take the usual parameters |title= and |url=, so that if an article does not yet exist on Wikisource a standard url link can be made. Then when the article is ported to Wikisouce it is easy to change the template to link to the wikisource article. Behind the scenes there are maintenance categories that allow editors to monitor things like missing wikisource articles eg: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference. -- PBS (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PBS Thankyou for your note and I've looked through the links you provided a few times. I confess these issues come close to the boundary of my technical knowledge and understanding. However, I think I follow the main point - that citations to various certain old wiki sources should use a special link and not an internet link. I've looked through the list (of 300 plus) and can see that some of the of the items result from my edits. Over the next few weeks I'll use the list and make amendments to my edits. I guess the same issue applies to other old wiki sources like the Dictionary of National Biography and I'll put them right too when I find them. ArbieP (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PBS As you may have noticed, I've been working on the list at the end of your link above. I've now replaced all the links that I created and instead used the cite EB1911 link. I've also been looking at some of the others in the list. Where they are (seemingly) straightforward, I've replaced them. On the other hand where they are not simple, e.g. where a link is cited more than once, I've not felt confident in making a replacement and have left them for you. And one of my edits on this issue has already been reverted, so I'm treading quite carefully. ArbieP (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assens Municipality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assens.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trysil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunnfjord (municipality), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skei.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gjerstad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cite EB1911

[edit]

I tweaked your revision to Giovanni Miani. The article uses the {{sfn}} style for citations, with the source listed alphabetically at the end. This makes it clearer when different pages are cited from one source. Rather than break that pattern with an inline source definition:

<ref>{{cite EB1911|wstitle=Akka |volume= 01 | pages = 451 to 452 |short=x}}</ref>

it is cleaner and more precise to use {{sfn}} to point to the entry in the sources list:

{{sfn|Akka 1911 Britannica |p=456}}
...
*{{cite EB1911|wstitle=Akka |volume= 01 | pages = 456–457 |short=x |ref={{harvid|Akka 1911 Britannica}} }}

Picky stuff... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Aymatth2

Thankyou; picky staff, indeed. Some of this gets beyond me, for example, using this search term

insource:/en.wikisource.org\/wiki\/1911/

now produces just one item - List of English words of Polish origin which contains an inappropriate link to EB1911 which needs putting right. Doing it defeats me, can you manage it?

ArbieP (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Aymatth2

Thankyou; I was wondering if you could fix the inappropriate EB1911 link (to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Britzska) in the List of English words of Polish origin. Thankyou if you can.

ArbieP (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


NB Above issue now sorted
ArbieP (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EB1911 citations in general

[edit]

Hi: I see you have changed a few references to EB1911 recently, and I thought I'd point to the history and rationale for EB1911 notations. The conventions, which were adopted over several years of consensus, and updated as Wikipedia citation conventions became more strict, are laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. I see that page is essentially 18 months old, so it's time for me to review it again!

One convention we have adopted is that an EB1911 article should only be mentioned once: there is no need for an inline reference and a poster and a "Sources" section. Also, there is a distinction that you may have seen between {{EB1911}} (the reference is to verbatim 1911 text) and {{Cite EB1911}} (the reference supports the claim in the article, but in different words). If {{Cite EB1911}} is used in footer material, it generally means "Further reading". Another is that, if the 1911 article is not yet in Wikisource or is not readable, we link to the excellent scans on archive.org.

The purpose of references to external authorities is to support Verifiability. A general reference to the Encyclopaedia as a whole is not useful, because it requires the reader to hunt through 30,000 pages for the verification. For the same reason, within a long multi-page article we like to give a specific page number for the citation. That's why, in List of English words of Polish origin, I don't find the links under "Sources" helpful without entry names or page numbers. In the particular case of Britzka, the foootnote is a great example of good practice. It might be fun to search EB1911 in Wikisource for other phrases like "from the Polish" too.

The reason for this long essay is that I noticed other changes you made. I saw Water supply, which I had recently reviewed (that is why I found my way here!) The Wikisource article was only recently created based on an unreviewed scan, and it has many errors due to mis-scan of the images, making it hard to read. That's why I would personally prefer to leave it with a |title= parameter, with a link to the archive.org source (which I admit I should have added myself) but the "readable" decision is debatable! Similar comments apply to the use of "Oil Engine" in William Dent Priestman. Also, I think the Manual of Style prefers that number ranges be separated by an n-dash.

To conclude, I'd like to thank you for other changes you found using the Wikisource URL, like Doggerland. PBS and I should have looked for those a long time ago! And I've taken the liberty of modifying your change to Temperature measurement (the archive.org version is appropriate).

Best wishes, and thanks again for contributing to these deep parts of Wikipedia. David Brooks (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing how long you've been editing, I guess I shouldn't have felt the need to explain Verifiability to you. I apologize if I seemed to be treating you as a newcomer! David Brooks (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for these comments. As I said in reply to PBS in July (see above) some of this gets beyond my level of technical understanding. What I do get is that links to EB1911 should be via the Cite EB1911 and not use an internet link. Having helped clear up the 300 or so produced by the PBS's top search term, I have used it again from time to time and found new citations that users have made that need putting right, - like Doggerland & List of English words of Polish origin. I'm happy to continue doing this occasionally. Most of the other more recent changes that you refer to above - like Oil Engine & Temperature measurement came from the second link in PBS's article above. I thought I could see what was needed in most cases and put things right; but there's no need now for me to dabble there again. No apologies are need for treating me as a newcomer - in this technical stuff, I am; but thankyou for the kind thoughts. ArbieP (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice reply. I had honestly forgotten that PBS made a list (here) of troublesome EB1911 links in the summer (I cleared a couple of them myself). Just to clarify, links to EB1911 should be via {{EB1911}} or {{Cite EB1911}}, depending on whether it's a verbatim attribution or not. The other almost-rule is that we strongly prefer links to Wikisource so long as they are readable enough to support the citation. Other than that, different styles are mostly a matter of personal preference. David Brooks (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eidsvoll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feiring.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people section

[edit]

Hello, I just reverted your addition of IMDb references in Olomouc#Notable_people. Whereas at the moment I'm going through the pages of some Danish cities a bit and this is something I clean there too, I decided to better write to you and explain. Please don't add them as they cite informations about that specific people, not about a city or municipality. Their connection to a city and their field of activity are (or should be) referenced on their pages. A wiki link is enough.

I'm also deleting images of people from Notable people sections per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE as they show random personality and are primarily decorative, not relevant to the topic (which is in this case a city); the face of some personality will not improve an encyclopedic information about a city in any way. Thank you for understanding. FromCzech (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czech; Thankyou for your courtesy in letting me know your thoughts on citations and images. Lets deal with the second one first - images. The keys to this is in the first sentence of the guidance "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". Images of people will show something about how they dress (formal / casual / outlandish} and their facial expression can say something about their attitudes (sober / restrained / lively / cheerful / smug / delighted / etc.). These are things which are useful in gaining an initial impression about about a person. I agree that images for mere decoration are unwelcome and unwanted. This issue of images is not simple, it's not black and white, and two users may differ. I hope you will exercise much restraint in deleting images which others may find significant and relevant. Turning now to the second issue - citations. I think their general purpose is to reinforce, justify and strengthen information given in an article and this can be done by quoting another, external person or source making the same point. I disagree with you that a citation must relate to the generality of the topic as a whole and I think you find on examination that many citations may have little relevance to the generality of the theme of the article. They support a specific point being made. Let me give you an example about twin towns which I see you deal with. A citation about twin towns should provide proof from the local authority website that the twinning policy with that town exists, it's not general information about the town itself. In conclusion, as in the case of images above, may I encourage you, please, towards a harmonious, co-operative and humane approach to editing other people's work even where it may fall short of your view of perfection.

ArbieP (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reaction. Ad 1) Images – when you write about what images of people show, you basically supports why images of people should stay on pages of people and on the municipal's pages are unwelcome. Take an example: if you want to know how Albert Einstein looked like, you will visit his page, not page of Ulm, his hometown. And if you will browse the Notable people section of Ulm, you will not need his image because you will know that you can just click on his link. You will also not give an Ulm image to Einstein's page as it is senseless in the same way. Images of people in city's pages are objectively "primarily decorative" and it is often another thing which makes the oversized Notable people sections ever bigger. If you really need to add a picture in the section, an image of a sculpture of a personality in the town is reasonable; however me personally, I prefer to give the people to columns to even more reduce the space the section takes up.
Ad 2) Citations – you are right that citation does not have to relate to the generality of the topic as a whole. However giving citations to Notable people sections, if a person has a wiki link, is pretty pointless. It is like to give a Google Maps citation to every twin town to prove it is from the county it is. Look at some Notable people section on how they standardly look like, you will not meet many citations. Btw comparing citations of twin towns and people (the way you do it) is like to compare apples and pears, as we say here in the Czech Republic. Twin towns actually IS a general information about the town itself, citation gives the time frame to a information and verrifies its completeness.
Please be aware that there is nothing personal about redoing your work. Denmark is not the first country I'm improving. I understand it's uncomfortable for you when you've probably put a lot of time into it. This is why I wrote to you, to stop any continuation of efforts that, although in good faith, do not help to improve wiki as you hoped.FromCzech (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Czech; we agree on a number of things, but not on others. We agree that a picture of Ulm on Albert Einstein's article is not needed; I would not want to see Google Map links with twin-town sections and you are right that deleting my work makes me feel very uncomfortable.
We disagree about interpreting the words "significant, relevant and primarily decorative" and I think your use of Ulm can be very helpful example to explore. Imagine a casual reader coming to the Ulm article, perhaps following a link from a twin-town to see what the towns have in common. I would certainly like to see an image in the notable people's section for Einstein, as his birth in Ulm significantly contributes to the town and an image would highlight that:- it would be both significant and relevant for Ulm. As it stands, without a photo, the casual reader might miss this significant point about the town.
Contrast this with the Picture of a Tram in Ulm in the Transportation section. For me this picture adds very little, it is insignificant and is probably there just for illustrative purposes only. For me it fits the phrase "primarily decorative". On the other hand, and this is my important point, I would not dream of deleting it.
We are encouraged on Wiki to try and settle our disagreements rationally and I think we've tried to do this. We are asked not to make edits "to make a point". I note your view about images and citations. It does not follow that if you find an image "decorative" you should "clean it up." We should respect each others opinions and deleting my work does not do that.ArbieP (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I have to agree with you a little bit. That example with Einstein convinced me that if a personality is very important and known worldwide, his/her picture in the section may make sense. But the vast majority of people's images really is only decorative and selection of people you decided to highlight completely random.
That tram image – it may be decorative or not, there is always grey zone of interpretation. It may give an information of which type of tram is used, but it should have proper description. If I'm not sure, I'm not deleting it.
We've tried to solve it rationally and I thank you for cultivated discussion. But if you wrote that "we should respect each others opinions", you obviously still think it is my subjective opinion and not an objective thing, and I'm losing the strength to further discuss. It would probably welcome an unbiased opinion. FromCzech (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Czech; thankyou for your view; two concluding thoughts: (1) I've updated Ulm and (2) a friend of mine once said to me "My opinion is objective, yours is subjective" ArbieP (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you cited from WP:WHYCITE that "citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons" is meant for pages with people's biographies. In Wikipedia:Teahouse#What_to_cite_and_what_not I asked a question about your references and here is the answer: "WP:IMDb is not a reliable source. Generally citations are good - but for these lists, the articles existing and verifying the information tends to be de facto sufficient." I hope that you with your plain common sense realize, that even if it IMDb would be a reliable source or you cited some encyclopedia, and all the wiki policies allow adding of such citation, even so it would be unnecessary work and you could use your time on the wiki more usefully. FromCzech (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the answer on second part of our discussion: "Choose images of direct relevance to both the person and the city, i.e. a statue of the person in the city, a portrait of the person holding a map or architectural plan of the city, a photograph of the person next to a landmark in the city, and so on. Otherwise, the relevance is arguable at best." I don't expect that you will go and redo all these your edits, but now, when you could hear some unbiased opinions, I hope that you at least stop adding new pointless images and references. FromCzech (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beja, Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estado Novo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estêvão da Gama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coimbra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferdinand I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of Ormond

[edit]

Dear ArbieP. Thank you for your attention to the article Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of Ormond. You are a very experienced user with 18000 edits, which I am not. I am sure you mean good, but I do not understand what your purpose is. Your edit looks destructive to me. You changed a long source description from {{Cite book}} to {{EB}} thereby breaking the citation, which now shows a "Harv" link error. Your EB long description does not match any more the short citation, which is:

{{|Sfn|Barron|1910|p=[https://archive.org/details/encyclopdiabri04chisrich/page/880/ 880, right column, line 2]|ps=: "Thomas the Black Earl, his son and heir, was brought up at the English court, professing the reformed religion."}}

The main reason is that you changed the date from 1910 to 1911. However when you look at the printed book it says 1910, not 1911. Of course it now points to Wikisource instead of Internet Archive. And then why do all this, where is the improvement in the information presented in the article or the improvement in the conformity with Wikipedia's MoS or guidelines? Sorry to bother you, I might well be wrong. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes. Thankyou for your query. The problem was that I dealt with the wikilink in the list of sources, but I missed citation 16. I think I've now put things right. On the Encyclopædia Britannica dates, the content and page numbers of the 1910 and 1911 versions are the same; latter is now digitised, so readability and accessibility are much improved using Wikisource and Template:Cite EB1911. That's the purpose of this exercise. Ich wuensche Dir einen schoenen guten Tag.ArbieP (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ArbieP. Thank you for the best wishes in the "Muttersprache" ("eine angenehme Überraschung"). But "zur Sache". Thanks for fixing the Harv link error. Besides, there are no 1910 and 1911 versions. The first couple of (15?) volumes of the 11th edition appeared in 1910 the others followed in 1911. However, your fix lost the click-through link to the page in the source. Your edit summary reads "Notes, citations, and sources: replaced EB1911 citation with Wikisource link; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica & Template:Cite EB1911" (besides, felicitations for your always explicit and careful edit summaries, mine are not up to that high standard). I have had similar problems some years back with users DivermanAU and DavidBrooks from that WikiProject, concerning the articles Antoine Hamilton, Claude de Mesmes, comte d'Avaux, and some others. But they seemed finally to accept that I prefer Internet Archive over Wikisource. Nowhere can an instruction be found in the guidelines that says that Wikisource must be preferred over external providers. I believe that the WikiProject EB1911 is a waste of time. Why go on putting EB1911 on Wikisource if Internet Archive provides a full scan? But perhaps I do not understand what they try to achieve. Sorry to insist. I would like to understand. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Johannes. The following link includes a "conversation" (starting on 9 August) on the general issue you raise above - Internet Archives and Wikisource templates. It may not persuade you, but I hope it informs you. I'm copying in User:DavidBrooks for information. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica#Citation_to_articles_using_other_methods ArbieP (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ArbieP. Thank for your patience and the interesting link. I shows in what state citing is in Wikipedia. If David Brooks cannot find that bit about preference for Wikisource over other provider of citable sources then it does not exist. Why should editors be refused freedom of choice with regard to source providers? Mit freundlichen Gr"u
@Johannes Schade: I do remember a conversation, I guess with you, where references to EB were tagged in a detailed academic style with the source line number and quoted text, in which case I see the logic of linking to a facsimile. But, as I said at the time, that style is really not scalable to the tens of thousands of articles that contain EB1911 citations.
As to the use of Wikisource: it is well established by usage, with over 21,000 articles placed by many editors in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference (and, as recently discussed, a handful that reference WS without using the conventional templates). And the fact that I can't find a policy or guideline is no proof it doesn't exist. The editors I know who were conveying general guidelines from RFCs back into this project seem to dormant. But, all that said, there are bigger nuts to crack, here and to a lesser extent here, and I intend to focus back on them. David Brooks (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DavidBrooks. Of course you are right and I do not doubt it: the use of Wikipedia is well-established, and I have not proven the a guideline imposing its use does not exist. I meant: if a Wikipedian of your calibre cannot find it, it is unlikely to exist. I am trying to do the right thing: make Wikipedia better. I want also to respect the rules in the MOS and the guidelines: they have been made for good reasons. However, why impose the use of EB1911 Wikisource and forbid the use of EB1911 from Internet Archive, hunting down people who do not conform with lists and categories and searches. Does this improve Wikipedia? I feel that if you want to go that far, then you should be able to point to that guideline. I do not impose the use of my "detailed academic" citation style on anybody and are well aware that WP:CITEVAR forbids me to do that. You are the expert, please show me the passage in the guideline and I will apologise and conform. Sorry to have wasted your time. With thanks and good regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johannes Schade: I wasn't clear; I didn't try to (and I can't) forbid anything; I was just pointing to a well-established practice and advocating for consistency. Best wishes, and most importantly, thanks for carrying on the important task of sourcing the encyclopedia. I also wanted to mention one thing: {{EB1911}} and {{Cite EB1911}} accept a |year= parameter, although if my regular expression search is right, nobody has used it with a 1910 argument. David Brooks (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon

[edit]

Dear ArbieP. This concerns your recent edit in the article Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon. You again changed a source for an EB1911 citation from Internet Archive to Wikisource. We have discussed this before. This is not an improvement and nobody seems to be able to find a corresponding prescription or even recommendation in the guidelines. Have you not better to do? Could you not rather help to add new citations than to transform existing ones that are correct and functioning? or add content or push a chosen article some way up on its way to Feature Article level? Or help review articles? Or become an administrator in Wikipedia? Or as you like Wikisource add new texts in Wikisource? I do not understand why you insist on wasting your time on this task. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes. We see things differently, our opinions do not match up, we disagree. In my wiki alerts today is a Thankyou from another editor for another, similar replacement of an Internet Archive ref with an EB1911 citation. It's one of four I've had in recent days for the same sort of amendment. Also in my wiki notices today is the message alerting me to your comments above. The contrast between my alerts and notices rather underlines the different opinions.
If done properly and with care, an EB1911 Wikisource citation can beat an archive source on (1) better readability, (2) on ease of accessibilty and in particular on (3) precision in pointing to not just the relevant page, but the relevant paragraph. You will have noticed that the my amendment for Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon points not just to p. 392, but to p. 392, para: Robert Sidney, 2nd earl of Leicester. I see this as an improvement on access to the details in the Wikisource to that of the Archive source.
Apropos your comment that I'm wasting [my] time on this task, I wonder, in return, whether your view of Archive sources is a perhaps a smidgeon sentimentalised. Immerhin, mit schönen Gruß von mir. ArbieP (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ArbieP. Thanks for still talking to me. As you have probably seen, I have put the question to the Help Desk where Talk:Trappist the monk (THE expert on citation) and User:Chuntuk replied and both ruled in your favour. Their main argument being that the texts are easier to read in Wikisource. So I will comply. In addition to EB1911, Wikisource seems to have the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) and the Diary of Samuel Pepys, which I sometimes cite; and perhaps others. The corresponding citations in the 150 articles of my watchlist must be converted.—Now I wanted to make sure with you that I do the conversions right. Your pair for the Wikisource EB1911 citation in Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon is:
—in line:
{{Sfn|McNeill|1911|ps=: "... in 1643 he was compelled to resign the office without having set foot in Ireland."}}
—in the source list:
{{cite EB1911|wstitle= Leicester, Robert Sidney, Earl of |volume= 16 | page = 392, para: Robert Sidney, 2nd earl of Leicester |last1= McNeill |first1= Ronald John |author-link= Ronald John McNeill }}
I would have expected:
—in line:
{{Sfn|McNeill|1911|p=[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Leicester,_Robert_Sidney,_Earl_of 392]|ps=: "... in 1643 he [Leicester] was compelled to resign the office without having set foot in Ireland."}}
—and in the source list:
{{Cite EB1911|last=McNeill |first=Ronald John |author-link=Ronald John McNeill |date=1911 |wstitle=Leicester, Robert Sidney, Earl of |volume=16 |page=392}}
Comments on the inline citation:
I feel that the reader should be able to click through and inspect the text in Wikisource, directly from the inline citation without having to visit the source list. The missing NBSP was my fault.
Comments on the source list entry:
I start all template names with an uppercase letter. I add the |volume= and |page= that I think the reader would expect as they are given in Cite book.
I implemented this in Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon. Please have a look and tell me whether I should convert like this everywhere. Mit Dank und freundlichen Grüßen, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Johannes. I am, of course, pleased to converse with you on the issue and I'm happy that you're thinking of making quite a few amendments in favour of cite EB1911. I don't have such a wealth of technical expertise as you may imagine, but I think someone who does is User:DavidBrooks with whom you conversed in the section above concerning Thomas Butler, 10th Earl of Ormond. I followed the conversation in Wikipedia:Help_desk#EB1911 with interest.
Three points strike me immediately - (1) there now seems to be a duplication of links to EB1911 and as it stands, the "in-line" one doesn't use the preferred EB1911 template (2) you may (or may not) find Thomas Linley the elder a useful place to look at as a possible model - it uses both what it calls citations (see 28 & 31) and bibliography and (3) whilst I'm pleased there will be a technical conversation, I wonder if you and User:DavidBrooks might now find it more convenient to use a new page in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. I wish you both very well, I shall be pleased to monitor progress.ArbieP (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see this moving to a resolution, and I approve of capitalizing the template. The combination of sfn and a general reference seems to be correct. Yes, it does normally require three clicks to find the cited text, but that is understood as a consequence of the Footnote feature when using general refs. My comments:
  1. I see you have tried to cut out one of those clicks by hyperlinking the page number in the short footnote. That is... unusual, but I don't think it's objectionable. Most people don't even include the page number in a {{sfn}} when the source is, as in this case, all on one page.
  2. But I would request that you spell that link as [[:s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Leicester, Robert Sidney, Earl of|392]], making it clearer to editors that we are still within the Wiki universe.
  3. As discussed, |date=1911 is superfluous.
  4. Not relevant in this case, but I trust you know the difference between {{Cite EB1911}} (correctly used here) and {{EB1911}}, which acknowledges a verbatim reproduction, and should be used with |inline=x when in an inline citation (with a named ref where appropriate). This distinction does introduce ambiguity when an article sometimes quotes its source directly, and sometimes just uses the source as a verification. I generally finesse that in different ways; for example using an inline {{EB1911}} for the former and {{sfn}} for instances of the latter.
I'm not sure what needs to be added to the project page though. And, ArbieP, you may want to suppress the footnotes on this page at some stage. David Brooks (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear AbrieP, dear David Brooks. I continue the discussion with David on his talk page under the heading Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount"."Besides I fixed the problem that I cause by entering citations that I wanted not to be executed by adding the missing NOWIKI tags. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Linley the elder

[edit]

Dear ArbieP. I wanted to discuss ~here your three points above and especially your remarks (1) You say: there now seems to be a duplication of links to EB1911 and as it stands, the "in-line" one doesn't use the preferred EB1911 template. I must say I do not really understand what you mean. You seem to object to an duplication. Which one?

(2) You say: you may (or may not) find Thomas Linley the elder a useful place to look at as a possible model - it uses both what it calls citations (see 28 & 31) and bibliography. I agree that a model article would be a very good thing. The article "Thomas Linley the elder" is well written and illustrated, but the citations are very inconsistent. Some use List-defined references (see WP:LDR), which is a little-used variant of REF-surrounded citations. Other citations use Sfn and a source list in a style similar to how I did in Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount. I do not think it a good example. Also the article is (perhaps for this reason) only rates Start Class. Your edit (in the source list) in this article is an eye-sore because of its spacing that differs from the rest of the list.

(3) You say: whilst I'm pleased there will be a technical conversation, I wonder if you and User:DavidBrooks might now find it more convenient to use a new page in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica I followed your good advice.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,Johannes Schade (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes. You've now made your amendments to Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon, and got the "nod" from User:DavidBrooks on his talk page. What I was trying to say in my point one, was that when a reader holds their cursor over ref number 50 (after on Irish soil.) they can access EB1911 by (1) clicking on "392" or by (2) clicking on "McNeil 1911" and then on the (longer) link in sources. From the subsequent exchanges I gather this "duplication" (or choice) is deliberate. My second point, about Thomas Linley the elder was to offer you something to look at which showed two refs in one article to two different subjects in EB1911. I was not saying anything about the contents or the mixture of types of refs. You've covered my point three on DavidBrooks' talk page. Like David, I wish you well with your future editing. Tschau for now. ArbieP (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tabuaço, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naturalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethrough markup

[edit]

I see you've used <del> on each line for strikethrough. In general you're not supposed to use an unclosed HTML tag, although my browser seems to make up for it. Just a suggestion: I use <s>...</s> because it works across multiple lines (put the first tag after the first "#"). I tried {{strikethroughdiv}} but it seems to reset the item numbering. David Brooks (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC) ... ETA, I changed the 1910 list as an example. David Brooks (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David Brooks I am pleased to advise that I have now completed a review of the work on your three lists to apply wikilinks to articles quoting EB1911 and used "strike through" on the lists. I have reviewed what I have done from letters "Z" to "O" and in particular looked at quotations and page numbers, which I wasn't too hot on in the early days. As you will see the three lists exclude "strike-through" (1) on items yet to be done; (2) on lines to articles where the need for an EB1911 wikisource link is not obvious (3) on lines to articles where a link would lead to an unpublished article on EB1911 (or EB1922) and (4) the lengthy lists of "Timeline of..." articles which, in my view, merit lower priority. I will now return to the main task in hand and work back from "N" towards "A". ArbieP (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for taking this on. David Brooks (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Derry

[edit]

Dear ArbieP. Greetings. I see you improved on 10 September the entry for the EB11 article on Londonderry (city) in the List of Further Reading in the article Siege of Derry. It was me who put EB Londonderry there on 14 March 2019. In retrospective, I think I should have thought better. The passage about the siege is very short (three sentences). I see you now added a more precise location of this passage on the page ("seven lines from end") and a quote to help the reader find the passage without having to read the entire article. It is very unusual to give such a location and quote in a Further Reading list. I do not know of any similar case. It is not a footquote as it does not appear in a footnote. It is therefore not covered by WP:FOOTQUOTE. I do not think any guideline mentions such use of a quote. Your intention is certainly laudable but I wonder whether the reader will understand.

However, I think you are certainly wrong in removing the |ref=none parameter of the {{Cite EB1911}} template. The |ref=none is needed to suppress the citation error that is thrown because the template is used on its own without a corresponding short citation. I feel it would be best to remove the entire reference to EB from the article. What do you think? With best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes My main purpose here was to make a wikilink out of the SFN link to the EB1911 Puaux article on the Huguenots. I have no strong feelings about the inclusion of a link to the EB 1911 article on Londonderry (city) itself. On the one hand I think it's mildly helpful, but on the other, as you point out, the page direction and quote are not in a familiar place. So, I've no real issue, either way, but thankyou for asking. Mit freundlichem Gruß ArbieP (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Parsons, 1st Baronet of Bellamont

[edit]

Dear ArbieP. Greetings. Your modification of the SFN is formally correct, but your modification of the long citation (Cite book -> Cite EB1911) is not. First of all, according to WP:LISTGAP, you must not insert blank lines into a list; then, please, align your formatting of the Cite EB1911 template with that of the other entries in the article's source list. In the given case that means:

*{{cite EB1911|wstitle= Rosse, Earl of |volume= 23 | pages = 744–745; see page 744, first para |quote= Sir William Parsons (c. 1570–1650), one of the lords justices of Ireland...}}

-> *{{Cite EB1911|editor-last=Chisholm |editor-first=Hugh |wstitle=Rosse, Earl of |volume=23 |pages=744–745}}.

Note that all the template names in the article are capitalised for consistency; that template parameters do not use spaces before or after the equal sign etc. The name of the author or editor is needed so that the editor can order the list alphabetically and should therefore be the first parameter. Please try to make your edits in a way that no clean-up is needed after your intervention, but thank you very much for correcting the volume number with I had as 20 in error. The |quote= parameter should be used to cite a passage in support of a statement in the text. I feel you abuse it here. It should IMO never be used in a source list, only in inline citations when the template is used between <ref> and </ref> in the REF citation style, which obviously is not the case here. Ceterum censeo: your edits are a nuisance and do not improve Wikipedia. With my thanks and freundlichen Grüßen, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes I have made the amendment to the source ref for Sir William Parsons, 1st Baronet of Bellamont as you request - and deleted the quotation. My aim in promoting (cite EB1911) is to improve simple access to what it says for the ordinary reader. I think you are more probably meticulous than me in the precise detail of exactly how that it done but "meinetwegen, es macht nichts". Auf wiedersehen.ArbieP (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volume numbers

[edit]

First, thanks again for taking on the EB editorial work with such efficiency. I do have a trivial request though. Lookg at your recent change to Kilravock Castle, you put a leading zero on the volume number. Over the years, PBS and I have not used leading zeroes, and although the rule is not specifically called out, the examples in WP:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica, {{Cite EB1911}}, and {{Cite encyclopedia}} do not use it. Of course neither does the printed edition, but we're also well past using roman numerals as a norm.

In the same diff you erased my s.v.. I habitually use that to tell the reader to look for a sub-head within the source article when there is a significant change of subject, most often when a biographical article has additional mentions of the main topic's family members. In this case I was lazy and didn't spell out the sub-head, which is actually "Kilravock (pronounced Kilrawk) Castle", but that's accepted practice I think. It's just a minor detail in this case though. David Brooks (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David. 1) OK on EB volume numbers. 2) I don't think I know how to handle links to articles on EB1911 (or more commonly EB1922) which haven't been published and stand in the EB index in red, (which I marked (*) in earlier lists). If it's likely to need doing in the lists you're now preparing, please point me to an article with a link I can use as a model; meanwhile, have you seen what's now popped up in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference. Best wishes ArbieP (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The normal accompaniment to |title= is |url=, linking to an EB1911 page scan on archive.org. There were a lot of these in the past, but there was a big effort to move them to wikisource. Generally the last examples were slow to produce because they have many illustrations that need to be uploaded and integrated, or oddly formatted tables. The example you highlighted is one of these cases; see my reversion for the standard treatment. This is all described in the wikiproject page. Best wishes. David Brooks (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me yesterday that we don't need to rely on archive.org, and haven't had to do so for years. In keeping with my preference for "keeping it in the family", we could refer to the "Mouldings" original image either by using this URL, or the wikilink s:Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/964. But the first is problematic for a multi-page article because there's no simple way to go to the next page; the second may confuse readers because it's not clear whether they should consult the imperfect scan on the left or the reduced-size image on the right. As that's currently the only example, I'd vote to just leave it as is. David Brooks (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress on [EB1911]

[edit]

Dear David.

You will see from the three [EBCites] that I've been making good progress in November. With one more session I shall have completed work on [EBCites/1911-cites]. I've also finished work on the main parts of the other two lists [EBCites/1910-cites] & [EBCites/1911-archive]. There are a few items marked (*) & (?) which you might like to review.

What then remains are several hundred articles headed [Timeline of ...] of which I've now done letter "A" as an experiment to see how amenable they are to do. My preliminary view is they are not very exciting but they are OK in small doses as part of a mix and match with other items.

This leads me to wondering if the time is now approaching to re-run the three lists soon and see what turns up. Any thoughts? ArbieP (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work (and for the incidental corrections of a few mistakes of mine). Certainly I can re-run the lists. That wouldn't automatically re-apply your ?, *, or n flags, but I think they could be put back by hand. Look for an update in a couple of days. David Brooks (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, and the results (outside Timelines) are gratifyingly short. I restored your tags by hand. A few that had been struck through have reappeared; I didn't look into why yet. David Brooks (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David. Interesting. I'm pleasantly surprised with so few (27) re-appearing and I'm happy to look at them again as a mix and match with doing the Timelines. I'll re-mark them all in the same way as before. As regards the Timelines there are lot of duplications between the lists, so I'll do the same letter in both lists almost concurrently, but then jump around the letters for the sake of a bit of variety. ArbieP (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David. I've been reverted twice by [Johnbod] quoting [WP:CITEVAR]; see Funerary art. Is there a wiki policy conflict here? ArbieP (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pursue it, you should engage on his talk page or the article's talk page to avoid 3RR, and feel free to ping me at the time. For the record I believe he is wrong when citing WP:CITEVAR. For me the key guideline is "The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate a source without retrieving it.". The plain text ref makes it nearly impossible to find the archive.org link from footnote 114, and is inconsistent with the other refs that identify author and page. The EB1911 project says that replacing an archive reference by a wikisource reference is a forward goal (admittedly although the project page strongly hints at it, we never made it a guideline) and you aren't changing citation styles. But he may be referring to this part: "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently", which would mitigate against ever providing a {{Cite book}}, which provides the useful forward link from the shortened footnote and COinS metadata, which is important to some. That does seem inconsistent with the general move towards use of the Footnotes feature - in other words, the fault of the article is that it doesn't have enough {{Cite book}} templates, and CITEVAR is currently inconsistent with a wide practice. That said, this may not be worth the mental effort for the sake of one article. David Brooks (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Transitioning from plain text to CSx templates for expert input. Trappist's advice is good: try linking to the wikisource transcription using its URL in single brackets. David Brooks (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David. Your sentence "this may not be worth the mental effort for the sake of one article" sums this up best for me. [Johnbod] seems to be an experienced user and the idea of a protracted technical/policy discussion/argument on the issue does not appeal. I've added an [EB1911 Poster] to the Further reading section of the article and updated the outcome on [EBCites/1911-archive]. That's it; I shall now get back to the charms of "Timeline of..." ArbieP (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David.

As you may have noticed, I've completed work on [User:DavidBrooks/EBCites/1911-archive] and there are about 20 to do on [User:DavidBrooks/EBCites/1910-cites], which will take a week or so. I will advise. Then you can re-run the lists and we can see what's left over.

ArbieP (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I noticed you plugging away, and it's all in the name of improvement. I'll be ready to recalculate as soon as you are. David Brooks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David.
All done!

ArbieP (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I re-ran the query and there are still a few on each list; I want to spot-check and won't get to that until Monday. However I did notice Sculpture; see my edit today. The standard way of referencing an article with no WS entry is to use {{Cite EB1911}} with a |title= instead of |wstitle=. David Brooks (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC) ETA: Well, that was dumb. DivermanAU created the WS article just yesterday! Should have checked earlier. David Brooks (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the "archive.org" test finds links to EB9 as well. They seem to be distinguished by having "newyrich" in the URL rather than "chisrich", which is apparently standard (I don't know if it's universal) for EB1911. I'll work on verifying that guess eliminate them later, maybe today. David Brooks (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. First, please note that the archive.org list only includes articles that have "1911" as a separate word somewhere in the source. That's a necessary filter to stop the search timing out; I should note that in the header text. Of the latest list, 25 have "chisrich" and 18 have "newyrich" in the URL. Based on some spot checks, the first indicates an EB1911 page, and the second either EB9 or 1922. So I may indicate this difference in the lists, but I need to think some more. BTW, we old hands have established that it's better to indicate a 1922 reference using {{Cite EB1922}} with |title= and |url= like with the 1911 templates. Apart from being more compact, it adds to an appropriate category. Anyway I've refreshed the other two. David Brooks (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. there's a pair of EB9 templates that also accept |title=, but I've never used them. David Brooks (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David.(1) I've looked at the (new) [1911-cites] list and I've dealt with 9 out of 12 items tonight. One (?) has a red entry in EB1911 and the other two have the full EB words in their narrative by way of attributing a quote. (2) I'll look at the (new) [1910-cites] list tomorrow, but I suspect I recognise some as red entries in EB1911, but we'll see. (3) Do I take it that our work on the [1911-archive] list has gone as far as its going? ArbieP (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David. As you will see, on point (2) above, the (new) [1910-cites], they turn out as three dealt with satifactorily, five with "red entries" - (*) and one which is a bit of a mystery. Is our work on this aspect of Wiki now done? ArbieP (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thank you for your sterling work! I think I see some changes I can make to parts of the archive list, but I'll get going on those in due course. This has been a fantastic piece of citation modernization. Now back to our regular projects. David Brooks (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news, I'm afraid. I figured out I could replace the "contains the word 1911" filter on the archive.org query with something less restrictive, and a few dozen more popped up (a pre-filter is necessary to prevent the regular expression search timing out). But, really, don't feel obliged to keep at it! I looked at a few and there are definitely some false positives: people using raw references to odd editions (13th, 14th?) held by Google Docs for example. Still, there it is if you are so bored that you want to continue. David Brooks (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David. I don't quite see it as "bad news" or as "boring". Over the past few months we've succeeded in searching out and putting right, (where possible), quite a few poor links to EB1911. In that I've learned how to use [sfn] links. I can see some familiar items in the new list that can't be fixed, but I'll work through them all and put right what can be put right. Then we can put this piece of work to bed. ArbieP (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for getting my colloquialisms get the better of me. Thanks. David Brooks (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David. All done. ArbieP (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray! What are we going to do now? David Brooks (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Birmingham history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chartist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potocki family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stefan Potocki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lutsk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Svetlana Zakharova.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Halle (Saale), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from Breslau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Wolff.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EB1911

[edit]

Hi Arbia, I see that you have been adding Britannica listings to many articles. I would caution that in most instances, links to a 1911 encyclopedia is not very useful for the WP article - as further reading or as a citation. Unless there is no other source, a piece written in 1911 isn't going to have a great deal to offer and is likely to be out dated. Please don't drop in citations - as with John Keats for the sake of mentioning EB1911. The priority with articles is making them as useful as possible to the reader. They are not a collection of links. Please see WP:NOT Anna (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anna Thankyou for addressing the issue of deleting links to Encyclopaedia Britannica. My view of the two articles is somewhat different from yours; they are detailed, informative, generous, kindly and not uncritical of John Keats. They provide a contemporary (19th C) view - i.e. how he was seen a century later, which is not the same as saying they are out-of-date. Their author Algernon Charles Swinburne knew what he was talking about. Most importantly, however, is the purpose of providing links - they extend and expand access to information that a curious reader might want to follow. That is a purpose of Wikipedia and making it inclusive by closing off useful and relevant links is not helpful. I would be grateful if you would (1) read the two EB articles and then (2) think again about restoring the links. Yours in hope.... ArbieP (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that. But you are routinely adding dozens of links to WP articles as a matter of course. Please have a look at WP:NOT. The articles are not a for collection of links, not a directory of resources and not a database of related reources. The resources are added to the article have to be carefully assessed to see if they are going to add significantly to listings not already given. I really don't think encyclopdedia entries from 1911 or 18xx are that pressingly unique. In Keats' case, there are a number of exhaustive biographies. You will see from many biographies that some have editors say that their link should be there - archives, Librivox, Who's Who, BBC.... the list is long. We really don't want an article to become a WP:LINKFARM. Please, please do not drop in random cites because it is mentioned in an EB article, as you did with Keats. It's not at all clear what the citation is referencing. A dropped in citation can split the body of text previously referenced. Lead detail does not need referencing. Adding cites to articles, as you did with Keats, gives the impression that you want EB to be mentioned. Editors are working only to improve and support the WP article - nothing else. Anna (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anna I fear you are ascribing or attributing to me views and actions which do not belong with me. I go along with the summary of these issues in the guidance provided at WP:NOTMIRROR: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. I add EB1911 wikilinks where they are relevant, not at random as you suggest. May I gently enquire whether you've yet read either of the EB articles about John Keats referred to? Are not the links to them useful content-relevant links?ArbieP (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anna As you may have noticed, I've replaced the existing ref to EB9 in the text of the article (I hadn't seen it before) with a clickable EB9 wikilink. This means that an EB9 link is not needed in Further reading. This link my help you judge the merits of the EB1911 article: Swinburne, Algernon Charles; Bryant, Margaret Bryant (1911). "Keats, John" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 15 (11th ed.). pp. 708–710. which I hope you will agree is generous, lucid and fairly concise, and so worth a link in External links. Yours in continuing hope... ArbieP (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

[edit]

Please do not use IMDb as a source as you did at Victoria Derbyshire, it is not considered to be reliable as it is user-generated. Please see WP:IMDB. Also, while you cited IMDb as the source in the edit summary you did not provide a reference in your edit, please see WP:REFBEGIN for help on referencing. Suonii180 (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Venice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sebastian Cabot.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anna (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Llandudno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gwynedd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bangor and Penygroes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddo Gaddi etc

[edit]

Please don't just dump undigested lumps of EB 1911 onto articles. They always need wikifying and clean-up. And frankly there are always better sources easily available online. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He just ignores the point of WP andf keeps on dumping. Anna (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harborne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Cox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brecon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nia Roberts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James FitzMaurice FitzGerald

[edit]

Dear ArbieP. Thanks for your attention to the article James FitzMaurice FitzGerald. This article has a "shortened footnotes" citation style that was agreed on in a change of citation style in May 2022 (please see the article's talk page). According to WP:CITEVAR you should not change it back to use "direct (cite DNB)" as your edit summary calls it. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Johannes Schade Thankyou for your kind note. I am on the edge of my comprehension of some of these technical details but I think take the general point about citation styles. I'm not quite sure your amendments worked fully, so I've tried again; I trust they're OK now. Feel free to amend again, if needed. Best wishes. ArbieP (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AbieP. You are right, my amendment did not work. I have never understood this notation ":s:". It looks a bit like "https:" but what should it mean when a URL starts with a colon (:)? Thanks for your fixes, which unlike mine work very well. The parameter "short=1" of the Cite DNB template seems to be undocumented. Is this a new thing? Did you write this addition? The "shortened footnotes" citation style luckily is one of the better defined ones. There is now a template "Use shortened footnotes" and a "Help:Shortened footnotes" text. With many thanks for taking my intervention so well. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Greetings. I reverted your recent edit on Springfield, Massachusetts because it is already present in Wikisource which is included in this article. With this note I'd like to suggest that you not add Encyclopedia Britannica links to external links that already exist within Wikisource. Instead I would suggest that you add the Wikisource template to pages where it does not exist already, or alternatively you could add the Sister projects link template. Thanks. FFM784 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:FFM784
Thankyou for your note. I've now looked at sister project links and wikisource template links and I confess I find them hard to follow. I will look at them again, but in the meanwhile I will watch out for them in articles I'm about to edit to avoid duplication. ArbieP (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Ogilby

[edit]

Thank you for your edit at John Ogilby. I'm hoping to get it up to GA standard, so any help (including criticism) will be most welcome. The most obvious weakness that I'm aware of right now is that Ereira's book is being cited via reviews so I'm waiting for an inter-library loan to get the book itself and can cite it properly. That may help resolve the mystery over his early years. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JMF
I know nothing about the individual. But I've added two wikisource links which may help your researches by showing more wikisource stuff; when you've finished with the links, you might delete them. ArbieP (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Osnabrück, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

[edit]

Hello ArbieP!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krems an der Donau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ava.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArbieP&oldid=1216043050"