User talk:Atchom

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	A big thank you for going through the lists of Fellows of the British Academy and correcting/adding links! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of James Comyn

Hello! Your submission of James Comyn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've done a full review now and have some other issues that need to be addressed. Could you respond there as soon as you're able to? Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for James Comyn

On 27 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Comyn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a woman once threw a dead cat at James Comyn while he was cross-examining her in court? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Comyn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James Comyn), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of William Finlay, 2nd Viscount Finlay

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Finlay, 2nd Viscount Finlay you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of William Finlay, 2nd Viscount Finlay

The article William Finlay, 2nd Viscount Finlay you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Finlay, 2nd Viscount Finlay for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:William Watson, Baron Thankerton.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Vincent Quénet

Hello, Atchom,

Thanks for creating Vincent Quénet! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward FitzRoy

Hi, Atchom. Would you please notice the difference between the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Hugh Macmillan, Baron Macmillan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hugh Macmillan, Baron Macmillan.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for removing junk (namely, those non-existent post-nominals) from the infoboxes of a plethora of articles. Great work! Asqueladd (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Post nominals

Hi Atchom,

I have seen that you have removed a great deal of post nominal orders in infoboxes across Spanish-related individuals' articles. May I ask under what criteria have you done so?

--Cantabrucu (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cantabrucu. Of course you may. I removed these post-nominals because none of them exist. The habit of putting letters behind one's name to indicate state honours is almost entirely peculiar to English-speaking countries influenced by the British tradition. None of the Spanish orders of knighthood give an entitlement to post-nominal letters (unlike the case in the UK, where there is secondary legislation to that effect) and there is absolutely no evidence of a Spanish custom of doing so. In fact, the Spanish Wikipedia article on post-nominals specifically refers to it as a British custom.

I realise from your message to another contributor that you disagree, and that's fine. However, unless you're going to provide evidence that people go about referring to, say Miguel Arias Cañete, as Miguel Arias Cañete, OCIII, OCM, EUC, I'm going to keep removing them (the fact that two of these putative "Spanish" post-nominals are actually abbreviations of the English name of the award/post instead of the Spanish one is rather telling.)

Finally, no, I'm not "a biased British contributor", nor indeed am I British, and I would appreciate it if you skipped the personal attacks. Hope this answers your query. Atchom (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Atchom. I may have overeacted a bit.

Thank you for your feedback, --Cantabrucu (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Vansittart, 1st Baron Vansittart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denham (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) 08:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone

The article Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone

The article Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cyril Asquith, Baron Asquith of Bishopstone for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ernest Geoffrey Weeks

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Ernest Geoffrey Weeks has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from http://www.rcsigs.ca/index.php/Weeks,_Ernest_Geoffrey. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — Diannaa (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Littler moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ralph Littler, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sam Sailor 10:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pollock (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Pollock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub pages

Hi, when creating stub pages, please be sure to use WP:FOOTNOTES. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Berkeley Gage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jean-François Lemarignier

The article Jean-François Lemarignier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BostonMensa (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jean-François Lemarignier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean-François Lemarignier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-François Lemarignier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BostonMensa (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kenneth Andrews (historian)

The article Kenneth Andrews (historian) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BostonMensa (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Rather than create a bunch of articles with only one sentence at basically the same time, I suggest you create one article at a time and make it the best article you possibly can. There is no reason, IMHO, to do it any other way. BostonMensa (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, which will be considered with the seriousness it deserves. Atchom (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Max Förster

The article Max Förster has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BostonMensa (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pio Rajna

The article Pio Rajna has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing in article suggests notability

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BostonMensa (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Alexander Williams (colonial administrator)

Alexander Williams (colonial administrator) appears to contain a paragraph copied from https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-170428, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did he marry?

Did he marry? 2600:1012:B048:B3C4:A006:20D5:C5D0:E173 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1

Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle

Announcements

After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.

Members

New Members

KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December)
PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December)
Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December)

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021

Good Article assessment

HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021
William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021
Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021
Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021

Deletion

Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021
Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021

Requested moves

Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.

Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Quality	Total
FA	142
FL	15
A	56
GA	505
B	4,573
C	11,878
Start	15,082
Stub	18,754
List	2,539
Category	11,638
Disambig	653
File	2,713
Portal	629
Project	89
Redirect	1,518
Template	2,489
NA	66
Assessed	73,339
Unassessed	1
Total	73,340
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 251,763	Ω = 4.92

New/Ongoing Discussions

Featured Article review

D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021

A-class Article assessment

Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020
List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010

Good Article assessment

Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021

Merger proposals

List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021
Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021
Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021
ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021

Splitting proposals

Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021
2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021
List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021
Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019

Deletion

List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021

Requested moves

Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021
Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021

Did you know

Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021
Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021

On The Main Page

Did you know...

... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Ingratis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, John Oakley (surveyor), and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Ingratis (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Slip of the finger - please ignore. Ingratis (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bertram Mordaunt Chambers

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bertram Mordaunt Chambers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the article and continuing to work on it. I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the article.--Slon02 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (Royal Navy officer)

Thanks for contributing to the article Thomas Jackson (Royal Navy officer). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK query

Hello! Your submission of John Harvey Rainier at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Modussiccandi (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vitaly Gerasimov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vitaly Gerasimov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitaly Gerasimov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Harvey Rainier

On 11 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Harvey Rainier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Harvey Rainier had the distinction of commanding troops from six different countries in action? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Harvey Rainier. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Harvey Rainier), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,470 views (455.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work!

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who UK and microstubs

Who's Who (UK) is a generally unreliable source, per WP:RSP. Please do not create stubs solely sourced to this entry, since Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Examples of this include Alan William Shave, Draft:Patrick Garland (judge), etc. I suggest you move all single-sourced entries to Draft space. FYI, I might nominate the single-sourced entries after a reasonable WP:BEFORE for deletion. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me toward this very recent RSP, which was barely advertised. As an experienced editor, I am sure you will keep WP:CONRED in mind before making any untoward AfD nominations. Atchom (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cyril Samuel Townsend for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cyril Samuel Townsend is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyril Samuel Townsend until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Pilaz (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan William Shave moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Alan William Shave, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pilaz (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DRAFTOBJECT to object. Pilaz (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the official rule is very simple: "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD."

There is a more practical version, which is much ore likely to keep the article: add one more good ref, and move it back. No one is likely to take it to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, just assuming you're talking about Charles Henry Godden that I draftified and that you put reviewed. Following the workflow of AFC, how does the article meet the GNG with two sources, one of which is a primary source and the other of unknown reliability? Pilaz (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the official rule is that everything should be accepted which more likely than not to survive an AfD. This has generally been interpreted not at 51%, but at 67%; many reviewers, including myself, interpret it as being reasonably sure to pass AfD, which means something like 80%. (not that the erratic nature of afd really makes it able to be to quantitated more than very approximately).

the reviewing instructions are guide to learn how to use judgment--the only actual test is afd. I follow policy according to consensus, and guidelines as I think a reasonable interpretation --but think it responsible to advise anyone who asks to follow them strictly. Workflow and similar instructions and usages I take as advice, not as requirements--but I advise others to meet them to avoid being questioned. Thus I know that an article on anyone who has a RS for CBE is at least 80% sure of passing AfD, based on my experience of the only thing that decisions rest on here, common practice at AfD. (I was involved in several extensive discussion of the significance of these UK orders, where it was decided that that MBE by itself was not sufficient and did not necessarily imply other sources would be found, that OBE, made it probable, but not certain, and that CBE and above always proved to be notable enough, and I cannot recall one having failed afd unless for other reasons that notability. I also know the GNG is merely a subguideline of the Notability guideline, and all guidelines by their nature have exceptions . And Notability is a guideline; attempts to make it policy have failed; the actual policy it is based on is NOT INDISCRIMINATE.

But you will notice that, just as I say I do, I advised the editor here to add sufficient references to meet the conventional statement. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG for the rationale behind your decision, and for being transparent about it. You raise a lot of good points and opened up a few I hadn't considered (given the prominence of the GNG at AfD, one sometimes forgets WP:N is a guideline). An additional question, since I interacted with User:Necrothesp on this specific topic, quite recently, at User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above: do you happen to remember on which noticeboard these several extensive discussion of the significance of these UK orders took place? Not looking for a specific link, just the general direction on where to look - best to incorporate them in a future discussion, if I open a new one. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually have a keyword index to these. But I found [[1]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasmin Bevan (2014)/ DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Henry Godden moved to draftspace

With only two sources - one of which is a WP:PRIMARY source, this article is not ready for mainspace because it likely does not meet the general notability guideline. Pilaz (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to this draftification, please see WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Thank you, Pilaz (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Édouard Perroy

The article Édouard Perroy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to lack notability and is unreferenced.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyril Samuel Townsend, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Henry Godden has been accepted

Charles Henry Godden, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics

Hello. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sam Wang (neuroscientist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for the John Lambert (civil servant) article. He certainly deserved an article. Happy editing! Cardofk (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very kind of you. Atchom (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Pope moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, John C. Pope, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Grosjean moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Paul Grosjean, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frederick Mitchell Hodgson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colonial Secretary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John K. Robertson

The article John K. Robertson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PianoDan (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Ribeiro, Baron Ribeiro

Dear User:Atchom. How does one get to 34,180 edits? Chapeau. Wikipedian WatermillockCommon pointed me to "your" article "Bernard Ribeiro, Baron Ribeiro" as an example in support of bolding titles of nobility (in this case "Baron Ribeiro") at their first use in the main text after the first sentence of the lead (where they usually also appear in bold). WatermillockCommon and myself had a discussion about this practice after he bolded such titles in the article Gustavus Hamilton, 1st Viscount Boyne. I was astonished by his edit because User:Peacemaker67 had requested to unbold similar bolding of titles during the A-class review of the article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty (see [2] look for MOS:BOLD). We hope that with your extraordinary experience you will be able to shed some light on this issue. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLD is very clear, bolding is generally limited to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. MOS:BOLD#OTHER allows for a situation where a reader has followed a redirect to an article or section of an article where they appear in the first couple of paras of the lead or at the beginning of a section. In this sense, they are treated as if they were an alternative article title per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to bold alternative titles in the lead (in both the article title and noble title senses) IF there is a plausible redirect from that alternative noble title (ie someone is likely to search for the subject of the article using that noble title). So, in the case of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty, if it is plausible that someone might look him up using the search term "2nd Viscount Muskerry" , then there should be a redirect at that title that points to Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty, and 2nd Viscount Muskerry can be bolded in the lead. So, perhaps a redirect at 2nd Viscount Muskerry would be appropriate. If a section of an article is dedicated to the period while the subject of the article held a particular noble title, AND the noble title is a plausible redirect to the section, then the first mention of the new noble title could be bolded in that section. Beyond those situations, I cannot see a situation where the MOS permits bolding of such titles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal article

Hi, I saw that you were active on the Priyamvada Gopal talk page last year. I've raised a couple of issues there to do with removal of material and reorganising the material there, I'd really appreciate you weighing in as you took part in the previous consensus which I think has been ignored (on inclusion of material) and which I think should be revisited (on organisation). Samuelshraga (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[ Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]] regarding Massive removal of Content. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[ Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Priyamvada_Gopal|Priyamvada_Gopal]]".The discussion is about the topic Priyamvada Gopal.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

- Samuelshraga (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care not to go beyond the sourcing

Hey. I've partially undone this edit on Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The original tweet stated that Chakrabarti was "sympathetic to the law's aims", which is different from her being "personally in favour of the reforms". Please be careful when adding text like this in the future to not go beyond the assertions made by the source supporting it please.

I'll also be changing "claimed" in a moment, per MOS:CLAIM, for the sentence relating to Colin Macfarlane. With that, using "claim" can have the implication that what Macfarlane said is untrue. It's better to stick to a non-loaded term like "said" in most cases. And for balance I probably would have changed "warned" for much the same reason. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of DEFAULTSORT

When creating Wikipedia biographies, such as an article for Cecil Syers, there should be a DEFAULTSORT template, such as DEFAULTSORT:Syers, Cecil enclosed with double {'s & double }'s — otherwise, the Wikipedia Category displays will sort on "Cecil" instead of "Syers".

Suslindisambiguator (talk) April 24, 2023

CS1 error on Norman Stone

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Norman Stone, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Gurney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District commissioner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

Thank you for your interest in today's featured article, British logistics in the Normandy campaign. I have a sequel up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1. If you could drop by with a few comments, this would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask this only once, will you please self-revert this edit? The content was removed on good faith BLP objections, and per policy (WP:BLPRESTORE) cannot be restored without a consensus for inclusion on the article talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted as a gesture of good faith. Please don't use menacing language in the future. Atchom (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for self-reverting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jolyon Maugham

This is to notify you that recent edits to Jolyon Maugham, including some that you made, are being discussed at WP:BLPN#POV editing on Jolyon Maugham --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you and replied on the BLPN. You haven't added positive reviews because there are essentially none. You also haven't explained your removal of the section about Maugham's attack on a serving High Court judge. Atchom (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hello, I'm Dormskirk. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dudley North (Royal Navy officer), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give James Stevenson (Glasgow Camlachie MP) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Eve Adams

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Eve Adams, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Weir, Lord Weir moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Bruce Weir, Lord Weir. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and Who's Who (UK) is not a reliable source, see WP:RSP. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pilaz (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bruce, Lord Marnoch moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Michael Bruce, Lord Marnoch. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and UK Who's Who is not a reliable source, per WP:RSP. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pilaz (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Caplan, Lord Caplan moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Philip Caplan, Lord Caplan. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pilaz (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Morison, Lord Morison moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Malcolm Morison, Lord Morison. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and Who's Who (UK) is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pilaz (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Bruce, Lord Marnoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home Office

Are you sure this is for the lead? "Home Office cat" is just a description. It's like saying "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, also known as the UK prime minister ...". If we have that, we also need "government cat", "government mouser", "Cabinet cat", "Cabinet mouser", "Home Office mouser", "British government cat", etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office" is like a very recent coinage (not least because the Cabinet Office is a very recent institution). The Home Office historically kept the cat, and "Home Office cat" is a well-attested usage. See the references and also https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/bureau-cats-heart-government/. Atchom (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I created the newspaper references. It's still a description. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think from the sources it is clearly a well-established common name. The current situation is misleading insofar "Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office" is a very recent title and most of these cats were never known by that title, so having Home Office cat in the lede seems more accurate to me. Atchom (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still challenge that. On Ngrams, it doesn't even register. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrams is of dubious reliability in this context where most contemporary references are in newspapers (befitting the light-hearted nature of the subject) and not in books. There are enough newspaper references to Home Office cat, a compendium BBC story from the last decade using Home Office cat, evidence from the National Archives that this was what the cat was known as, etc.

For that matter, there is no evidence that Neville Chamberlain's cat, say, was known as Chief Mouser, so the whole basis of the article becomes quite fragile if the previous title isn't acknowledged. Atchom (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Chamberlain's cat didn't live at the Home Office either. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe the whole idea of a century-long tradition of a "Chief Mouser" is wrong? Atchom (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. They were salaried at least as early as 1929, and probably since 1924 or before. They lived in different places around London, sure, but that's a bit like saying Robert Walpole wasn't a prime minister because he only governed the Kingdom of Great Britain. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "salary" was a Treasury grant to the Home Office, which rather reinforces my point. Atchom (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Of course a cat isn't going to get a salary. Sloppy wording on my part. But you get the point; it was money for their upkeep. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't want to be difficult over this and I think we both agree on the basics (that there was a long-standing tradition of giving a small grant to an official cat in the vicinity of Downing Street). I just don't want "Chief Mouser" to be anachronistically applied to previous cats, especially when the contemporaneous press regularly referred to them as the Home Office cat. Atchom (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I don't like anachronisms either. That being said though, (and I apologise for the endless comparisons to the office of the prime minister) Robert Walpole to Benjamin Disraeli being called "prime minister" is also anachronistic as the term was not in use until then. I think, given that modern sources (plus the most "scholarly" work on the chief mousers, Chris Day's book) retroactively applies the term, we should too. Maybe the "Home Office" bits would warrant a mention further down in the article, out of the lead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken re PM but I don't see why having Home Office cat in the lede is so obnoxious. It is a well-attested name for the cat and it is Wikipedia's custom to have alternative names for a subject in the lede. Atchom (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now in a note. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:British coal owners

A tag has been placed on Category:British coal owners indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan George Francis Stewart, Lord Stewart moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ewan George Francis Stewart, Lord Stewart. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources and Who's Who is unreliable per current WP:RSP consensus.. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pilaz (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back. There was a newspaper obituary (so not "it has no sources") and as a judge of the supreme court of Scotland he falls under WP:JUDGE. Please refrain from drafting articles without valid reason or I will escalate this. Atchom (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add Who's Who's (UK)

Hello, you were informed last year (diff 1) that Who's Who (UK) is a generally unreliable source (WP:GUNREL) per current WP:RSP consensus, which was settled with an RfC that year. That RfC represents the most recent consensus on the publication. I reminded you again of this last week, when I sent Bruce Weir, Lord Weir, Michael Bruce, Lord Marnoch, and Malcolm Morison, Lord Morison to draftspace for being entirely sourced or partially sourced to Who's Who, which for obvious reasons cannot help meet the GNG. For each of these three pages, you received an individual notification on your user page indicating that Who's Who was a GUNREL. You reintroduced the draft Bruce Weir, Lord Weir into mainspace without removing the Who's Who source (diff 2), which I then had to subsequently remove (diff 3). You then re-added the same unreliable source five days later (diff 4), leaving us with the current article having Who's Who included (diff 5).

What point are you trying to make? If you are unhappy with the 2022 RfC result at WP:RSN, you are free to challenge that with another RfC there, but not to engage in disruptive editing to prove a point. Please consider this your third and final warning regarding this source, after which this matter will be brought to WP:ANI on WP:ICANTHEARYOU grounds. Pilaz (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who have moved dozens of articles to draft space without good reason. Please stop stalking me. Atchom (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:RSPUSE and what it says about context before coming and threatening me. Atchom (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, four articles is not "a dozen". Second, the four articles were not ready for mainspace, since they had fewer than two reliable sources, meaning they had "very little chance of survival at AfD" (2a-ii criterion of WP:DRAFTIFY). Third, I found your articles through this, which caught the articles you created on August 8, and which upon review I submitted back to AfC on August 10. One comes to wonder why you insist on bringing back Who's Who at Bruce Weir, Lord Weir, when the other sources already seem to cover the sentences cited: why the overkill with a source that is largely autobiographical? So, let me ask you again: what point, exactly, are you trying to make? Pilaz (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to allow newly-created articles a few days to be finished. If you are really impatient to read them, you could have improved them yourself. If you draftify lots of them when it is obvious that they would pass notability it's pretty obvious who's acting in bad faith. You've had to move one of the ones you moved to draft back even though it was obviously notable. You moved another article to draft claiming there wasn't a single source when you were clearly wrong and when that article also obviously passes notability. This is harassment, pure and simple. Maybe you can redirect your energy toward improving this website instead of conducting your pointless vendetta. Atchom (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to allow newly-created articles a few days to be finished. If an article is not acceptable for mainspace given a lack of sources, WP:AFC can give you more than a few days for you to be finished. And if time is really the issue, please consider Template:Under construction next time, so that your fellow editors may at least know that you are still working on the article. At any rate, Who's Who falls under WP:SPS, and WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy you should be concerned with. I also probably don't have to remind you that you can't source the claim that His son Robert Weir, Lord Weir has been a Senator of the College of Justice since 2020, having taken the same judicial title as his father to an unreliable source, per current consensus on this source being qualified as WP:SPS,WP:ABOUTSELF#2, and WP:BLP. Pilaz (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves." If you are suggesting he is lying about who his son is, be my guest.

Also, the way you conducted the Who's Who call for comments was disgraceful. You did not inform any of the editors who regularly work on UK topics. You cherry-picked two adverse articles and ignored the dozens of sources saying Who's Who is reliable. Many editors objected at the time, and it will get overturned in due course. Atchom (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you can start a RfC at WP:RSN whenever you'd like. Locally contesting the outcome of that consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE - you should take it at the same level of consensus where the consensus on the source was last reached, which is not here. Pilaz (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't addressed the context-sensitive nature of the guidelines. It is not disruptive if there is a good reason. Atchom (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who may be used as long as it complies with all 5 criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF, per the RfC designating it as a WP:SPS. In the particular sentence I highlighted above, the claim is about a third party, so it contextually can't be used. I personally don't see a problem with birth dates (although WW has a track record of incorrect information), but it certainly can't be used for a claim about a third party. Pilaz (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, the Who's Who entry about Robert Weir says his father is Bruce Weir! Is he lying too? Are Scottish judges that bored? Atchom (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't think I have an issue with His son Robert Weir, Lord Weir. What I take issue with is has been a Senator of the College of Justice since 2020, having taken the same judicial title as his father.^{[citation needed]}. And, technically, the "context matters" comes from an information page, which hasn't been vetted by the community like WP:RS has. So let's keep the discussion around WP:RS guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you are welcome to add the citation yourself. It would seem like a more productive use of your time, and for that matter my time, than to shout at me here and to drafify pages you know are notable, would it not? Atchom (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such requirement on Wikipedia, but there is a requirement to remove Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. (WP:BLPRS) Which I did, which you improperly removed. Also, fyi, opening a discussion here is the D part of WP:BRD. It is not my job to find a source for a claim you improperly sourced, though. Pilaz (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why do something yourself which would take 10 seconds why you can waste three people's time? Atchom (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BURDEN. It's your responsibility. Pilaz (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a bit obtuse: "I ain't going to look for a reference because that's not policy" is wikiLawyering at best. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix the issues yourself. It's that simple. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from this edit (diff), Tim O'Doherty I tried. This was manually reverted by Atchom without discussion soon after (diff). Any other suggestions on how to fix the issues myself are most welcome. Pilaz (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the second part of that claim, about his being a senator in the CoJ, is backed up by the Society of Solicitor Advocates, and then reinforced by sources two and three. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, and those would be perfectly acceptable. Which was what Atchom should have done instead of digging in with Who's Who to prove a point (?), because the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability with citations lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Pilaz (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But this discussion you've brought here is excessive, and definitely trying to prove a point, more so that Atchom. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you think this is excessive, but Talk pages are meant to try to resolve disputes like this. I removed a generally unreliable source for a third-party claim as legitimized by a widely-attended 2022 RfC in compliance with all policies and guidelines, and I can't point out that Atchom puts the same source back after this without any rationale, ignoring parts of policies and guidelines he should be familiar with, such as WP:BLP, WP:BURDEN, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RS. What else am I supposed to do, if not to mention the problem on his talk page? Pilaz (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's not ignore that this is at least the third time he's become aware of Who's Who being problematic. Ultimately, this does approach WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Pilaz (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, starting a discussion in which three editors are involved and has dragged out for over an hour when it's a fact which can be verified in ten seconds by Googling "Robert Weir, Lord Weir" is excessive. Atchom used a bad source: so what? We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to build acrimony. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using a community-determined bad source when perfectly good sources exist shows a lack of commitment to the quality aspect of building an encyclopedia, IMO. Readers deserve verifiable information from community-vetted sources. Then again, I haven't created nearly a thousand articles on en-wiki, most of which are still stubs, so I have to concede I can only discuss the quality aspect of the project. Pilaz (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud of the articles I created, which overwhelmingly cover subjects who deserve to be covered and are not covered elsewhere. You have nothing to show except harassing other editors on here. Atchom (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a dig there, but no matter. One of four mainspace pages you created, United Nations in popular culture, is orange-tagged. I don't think you can claim to "only discuss the quality aspect of the project" with that albatross. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilaz, I'm watching Atchom's talk page due to a disagreement we had a few days ago, and I'd forgotten to take it off my watchlist, so I've happened upon this discussion much by accident. However, as a neutral observer, I think you should lay it off. I'm afraid it's no accident draftifying five articles by the same editor in a short period of time. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim. I am afraid Pilaz has had a grudge ever since he tried to get a new article of mine deleted and lost the AfD badly (after I disagreed with him on some random AfDs). According to his own count, he's draftified 11 articles of mine since then. Atchom (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message for User:Pilaz. The Who's Who RfC of 2022 was tainted by cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources, evidence and facts. The content at WP:RSP is tainted for the same reason. The claim that Who's Who is "generally unreliable" is a fringe theory. James500 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, WP:RSP presently claims Who's Who's "content is supplied primarily by its subjects". In reality, none of the content of the pre-1897 editions of Who's Who was supplied by its subjects. Accordingly WP:RSP cherrypicks the post-1896 editions and erroneously attempts to equate them with the pre-1897 editions. The whole RfC was a massive catalogue of mistakes like that. James500 (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the famous cherrypicking of the last 126 years of said publication, as opposed to the earlier 46 years. Speaking of the 1897 edition, Philip Waller wrote this about Douglas Sladen, the editor: "This was how Sladen behaved: if celebrities did not deliver, he invented a CV for them. It usually brought them into line.". Truly the epitome of accuracy, well ahead of its time. Pilaz (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Pilaz (1) The relative duration of old Who's Who and A & Black's Who's Who's is not relevant.

(2) Sladen was editor for three years from 1897 to 1899. Waller's comments about Sladen prove absolutely nothing about the period before 1897 or the period from 1900 onwards.

(3) The sources you have invoked in previous discussions appear to relate to actual or alleged errors in editions from the years 1972 to 2004. That is not 126 years, even if you include Sladen's three years. It is no more than 35 years.

(4) Waller does not say that the "invented CV" was not factually accurate. W S Gilbert did in fact write verses and did in fact write the libretti to the said comic operas. Gilbert's stated objection to the biography was to the omission of his 70 original dramas from the book, not to the accuracy of what was included. Waller does not say that any other "invented CV" (if there was any other) was not factually accurate.

(5) Waller does not offer any example of an "invented CV" actually being published in Who's Who other than Gilbert's. Waller's stated source "Twenty Years" does not offer any example of an "invented CV" actually being published other than Gilbert's. In fact, "Twenty Years" says that the one other "invented CV" was not published (if it existed). Neither Waller nor "Twenty Years" actually claim that Sladen ever actually published an "invented CV" for anyone other than Gilbert. You have not found any historical evidence that Sladen ever actually published an "invented CV" for anyone other than Gilbert.

(6) If Sladen did publish an an "invented CV" for anyone other than Gilbert, it would be easy to detect that by comparing the same biography in consecutive editions, particularly those of 1899 and 1900.

(7) Waller says that the actual facts are the addition and removal of a single line in that Gilbert's biography.

(8) Waller does not say or suggest or imply that the "invented CV" means that the book is "generally unreliable" or anything like that, or that it should not be used as a source. Waller is not writing about whether the book should be considered a reliable source or used as a source.

(9) Waller cites and quotes Sladen's autobiography extensively, which proves Waller does not consider autobiography to be inherently unreliable.

(10) You have cherrypicked a sentence from a single source and quoted it out of context in a way that is misleading. James500 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is, since you brought up pre-1897 and post-1897 as "cherrypicking". To quote you, the fact that none of the content of the pre-1897 editions of Who's Who was supplied by its subjects makes Who's Who a weaker version of Burke's Peerage or Debrett's Peerage, which was the criticism that Sladen raised against the pre-1897 publication in Twenty Years. If anything, it seems odd to me that you come asking for a moratorium for pre-1897 content when post-1897 is much more significant, by virtue of being submitted by the people themselves, being more inclusive and being more recent.

(2) Post-Sladen, Who's Who became an even less transparent publication by hiding the name of its editor(s). In more recent years, this has been claimed as being a "shield" against solicitation (one has to assume this must have happened at some point, otherwise why take these measures), but shrouding the editorial board of a publication like this in secrecy doesn't quite create the transparency of a RS as described in WP:RS. To my knowledge, there were no corrections, apologies or acknowledgement of Sladen's behavior when Sladen's contract was not renewed in 1899, which is likely symptomatic of the attitude of A & C Black towards his craft. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence in their reputation for accuracy.

(3) I'm sure if we look into other printed primary sources, we'll find plenty of inaccuracies complaining about Who's Who entries. This seems a constant in Who's Who history: it is impossible for a directory of thousands of entries to be free of mistake, even genuine.

(4) Then why does Waller confirm, in footnote 94 of the same page: Sladen did not always allow accuracy to get in the way of a good story?

(5) Funnily enough, the page you link to confirms that Sladen invented (at best, guessed) the age of a prominent authoress, making her ten years older. So yes, Sladen himself admits to doing this more than once, and I choose to believe his transparency. Sladen and the new publisher were trying to sell books, and to do that he needed as many entries as possible.

(6) Honestly, since more convincing and hand-wringing seems to have been needed to fill the forms of the older editions, you could just run a 1897-1899 comparison and see what sticks out. Maybe you are right, and there are only one or two cases where Sladen knowingly sent inaccurate information to print. Or maybe you'll uncover more...

As for (7), (8), (9) and (10), Waller was writing a history book, not trying to evaluate the publication's accuracy for the purpose of using it on thousands of biographies on a free internet encyclopedia. Waller seems to believe Sladen's autobiography, where the latter admits to these shortcuts, and I think it tracks with Sladen's motivations. Waller was not concerned with evaluating the entire history of a publication or whether Who's Who would fit nicely into the WP:RS guidelines of Wikipedia. What can be said about this publication, surely, is that it is autobiographical with a track record of at least some entries being incorrect, either due to editors spreading unconfirmed information (to be charitable to Sladen; others would call some of his gimmicks outright lies) or, most of the time, due to the temptation of entrants to embellish their autobiographies. Here's what we can say for sure, then, with respect to WP:REPUTABLE: (I) Post-1896, the publication's entries are not independent from the subject (II) Due to the entries being autobiographical, their application to Wikipedia is limited to WP:ABOUTSELF (III) There is a poor history of factchecking or corrections being issued, due to the power nature of the publications. Biographies are only corrected by mutual accord (Crick and Rosenbaum 2004), which tells us that the power lays with the biographee. So should we just hope that the subjects tell the truth about themselves and slap a RS tag on the publication?. If it were a reliable source, we should at least expect at minimum someone to exercise oversight on what is published, but A & C Black doesn't have a track record of doing that or standing up to errors. You can try your hand at another RfC, but with these basic facts, the guidelines and policies will remain on the side of this being a generally unreliable source - and certainly not one you can use to determine a biographee's notability, because the GNG demands independent secondary sources. Pilaz (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Pilaz: I have asked you to stop engaging in cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources, evidence and facts. You have responded, twice, by engaging in even more cherrypicking and misrepresentation. If you do not stop engaging in cherrypicking and misrepresentation, then it is inevitable that your cherrypicking and misrepresentation will eventually become the subject of a conduct dispute, inasmuch as sooner or later another editor (and I do not want to be that editor) will eventually accuse you of a blockable level of incompetence. And they will not need to start another RfC in order to ask for your account to be blocked. If someone thought that you were going to seriously disrupt another RfC with more cherrypicking and misrepresentation, they might decide that they cannot start an RfC without asking for your account to be blocked before the start of the RfC, to prevent you from disrupting the RfC in the first place.

Returning to the matter at hand: It is totally unacceptable for WP:RSP to continue to falsely claim that the pre-1897 Who's Who's "content is supplied primarily by its subjects" as knowingly making such false claims is prohibited by WP:HOAX which says that hoaxes are forbidden everywhere "on Wikipedia" including the project namespace. I should also point out that, while you were cherrypicking, you ignored the fact that the content of the Who's Who Year Book, and content of the tables in the pre-1904 annual volumes of Who's Who, was not "supplied primarily by its subjects" either. I should further point out that, while you were cherrypicking, you ignored the fact that Who Was Who is fact checked and corrected before publication, even if the deceased biographee objected to the correction during their lifetime (Cable-Alexander, The Financial Times, 1990). I should further point out that, while you were cherrypicking, you ignored the fact that biographees in the post-1896 annual volumes are not permitted to include libellous statements in their biographies (BBC News, 2001), the implication being that Who's Who must employ either "libel readers", or similar persons, to check the biographies, and remove any potentially libellous statements, before publication. In each of these five cases the power certainly does not lie with the biographees. I should further point out that, while you were cherrypicking, you ignored the fact that the annual volumes of the post-1896 Who's Who have been extensively fact checked by a massive number of book reviewers, journalists, library scientists, historians and etc, and that those fact checkers generally say that the reliability and accuracy is somewhere between acceptable and excellent. I should further point out that, while you were cherrypicking, you ignored the fact that there are studies that say that autobiographees in the leading Who's Who publications generally do tell the truth about themselves: such as the study by Kiser and Schacter, and the other studies, discussed in Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment. (At page 394 of "Demographic Characteristics of Women in Who's Who" (1949) 27 Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 392, Kiser and Schacter say that, from fact checking of biographies, from a sample of 2,409 articles in the 1948 to 1949 edition, it appears that the number of errors in the American Marquis publication is "virtually negligible", notwithstanding the use of questionaires and practices similar to the A & C Black publication.) I should further point out that, while you were cherrypicking, you ignored the fact that a high proportion of the small number of allegations of errors in Who's Who originated in propaganda and negative advertising from business rivals of Who's Who or one of its biographees; or were written by members of an organisation whose then chairman said he is unhappy that Who's Who does not include more celebrities from that organisation; or were written by critics who could find so few errors that they had to resort to recycling old news of errors from up to two decades earlier. [The problem with these kind of allegations is not necessarily whether the errors actually exist (although some of the allegations are not accurate), but that the significance and importance of the errors may be massively exagerrated out of all proportion.] And so on. None of this information should have been witheld from WP:RSN. All of it should have been disclosed.

As an aside: The sources you have been removing from articles include Who Was Who. Since Who Was Who is fact checked and corrected before publication, and the corrections cannot be refused by the biographee, and no evidence has been produced that Who Was Who contains any errors whatsoever, you should immediately stop removing Who Was Who from articles, because it manifestly does not satisfy the closing rationale of the RfC. By removing Who Was Who, which was not even mentioned by name in the RfC, you are going far beyond any consensus that could possibly be alleged to have been reached in the RfC. James500 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is absolutely true that some of the power relationship lies with the editor (as you rightly point out, the 2001 BBC piece has Charles Black saying that "the only criterion is that the entry is not libellous"), it is also the only change that the publication is capable of making ("The editors make no changes to the information supplied.") Similarly, the 2004 Spectator piece also has the publishing director of Who's Who, Jonathan Glasspool, state that in case of non-libellous disagreement between the publication and the biographee, the latter prevails ("But, to take one example, what if Jeffrey Archer insisted that his entry was correct when it wrongly states that he became a member of the Greater London Council in 1966? ‘We would have to take him at his word,’ says Mr Glasspool"). Hopefully this helps explain why I think that, in modern times, the power relationship lies with the biographee. This was not always the case, as Sladen's autobiography suggests.

You may think that I am cherrypicking, but you may not have the full context of the first RfC. I brought the RfC to RSN editors because this source was being used in the context of the general notability guideline to claim a living person was notable, although that person had no other significant coverage from reliable sources under their name. In that context, I did not look for sources, like the ones you added from the early 1900s, since 1) I was interested in recent views on the publication and 2) I did not find, let alone have access to, the sources you later brought to the article. At the time, previous discussions and the article had little to no third-party assessments of the publication, so it seemed like a vast improvement to me. Some sources not being brought to the RSN thread does not mean they were intentionally "withheld".

FYI, most people try to help the project, not hurt it, so I don't really understand where you got your idea that sooner or later another editor (and I do not want to be that editor) will eventually accuse you of a blockable level of incompetence. Although accusations of "cherrypicking" and "misrepresentation" I can understand (but not condone), if you believe my behavior is worthy of a sanction, then I invite you to take your evidence to WP:ANI where our conversations will become the subject of wider scrutiny. Otherwise, it's probably best not to accuse others of bad faith as long as it remains a content dispute: I really don't think I am cherrypicking or misrepresenting sources in any way, nor that I am being unfair to you. We have both significantly improved the Who's Who (UK) article from the state it used to be in, and have engaged productively there, so I have to ask that you keep the same level of collegiality here as you have with me there. Please heed my advice seriously, because I think your insinuations cross a line. We are all volunteers here, and we're trying to improve the project because we believe in it. Pilaz (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Pilaz: I did not accuse you of bad faith. I did not accuse you of doing anything intentionally, or even advertantly. I did not insinuate anything. I do not believe that the phraseology that I used implies that anything was done intentionally, or even advertantly. James500 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Glad we cleared this misunderstanding, including the mention of people being blocked for incompetence. Pilaz (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Frederick Stephenson (MP) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Henry Frederick Stephenson (MP). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Pilaz (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, back to mainspace, because WP:POLITICIAN. Still think once source is too light for a stub. Pilaz (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you literally have nothing better to do than to harass other users? Atchom (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About bringing an RfC

I have read the message you placed on my talk page. I believe that the previous RfC was at WP:RSN. I am afraid that I do not have time right now to prepare an RfC either. I cannot see myself having time to do that for several months, or possibly even longer. I suspect the best starting point for an RfC might be those parts of the Who's Who corpus where the editor was in complete control (and where the biographees (if there were any) had no control) of what information was published, namely the pre-1897 editions, the pre-1904 tables, the Who's Who Year Book, and Who Was Who. I cannot think of any arguments against the reliability of any of that content that the community would be likely to accept. James500 (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Who's Who in Australia - Reliable, please?. Neither you or User:Necrothesp or User:Piecesofuk participated in that discussion. There would be no point in me, or anyone else, starting an RfC if nobody is going to show up because nobody is watching WP:RSN. [I should point out that WP:ABOUTSELF, which was the only argument advanced in that discussion, does not apply because Who's Who is neither self-published (it is published by A & C Black, and not by the biographees, and the biographees do not pay the costs of publication) or questionable (it appears to be generally accurate).] James500 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't notified that the discussion was taking place or I would have taken part. Atchom (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is ever going to notify you of any discussion at WP:RSN. As far as I can see, the particpants never send notifications to anyone, even when asked in express and unambiguous words to do so. If you do not actually watch WP:RSN, whether by checking it regularly or by using something like the Wikipedia:Feedback request service (which may not be able to do WP:RSN specifically), you will never be aware of any discussion taking place there. James500 (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Courthope Bosanquet

I came to Sir Ronald’s page by a roundabout route. I’m interested in his connections to Archbishop Temple and to Dingestow Court. This, [3] suggests that Temple was a frequent visitor when Sir Ronald was in residence. As the article’s author, do any of your sources happen to mention Dingestow Court? Thanks in advance. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Daughters of life peers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Daughters of life peers has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND

Hi, I've noticed that you recently started hounding my edits (WP:HOUND) by following my contrib history and reverting my edits. It seems you disagree with what various template documentation pages say (notably, Template:Infobox military person and Template:Infobox person) and therefore you disagree with editors who implement what the documentation pages say. You could try to change consensus through the proper procedures instead of simply ignoring the current template documentation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation is a bit rich given your editing behaviour, which has been extensively discussed in several places, and found to be wanting. Atchom (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill of Rights Bill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Do us a favour and use the edit summary feature even (or especially?) when doing bulk edits like moving “sir” in an infobox. You could even link to the exact place in the MOS that supports what you’re doing to save everyone time and avoid confusion. — HTGS (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philip Durham Henderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madras Cavalry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving honorific to 'name' field of infobox

Can you point me to where it was decided that honorifics should go in the 'name' field of the person's infobox? It appears contra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person#Parameters . If there is a policy or consensus on this, I'd strongly recommend using an edit summary pointing editors to it. I have reverted some of these changes, however if policy/consensus supports it, I'll stop. Separately, I note that you have added middle-names to a few people's bios, without providing a source. There has to be some evidence presented that the middle-name exists as added. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. There have been extensive discussions about Sir and Dame since one particular user decided to unilaterally move thousands of "Sir" and "Dame" to the prefix field, when they are part of the name (as reflected by the longstanding rule in WP:SIR that requires them to be bolded in the article lede with the other parts of the name. There is a long discussion at Template talk:Infobox person and a couple of simultaneous threads elsewhere.

The middle names are sourced from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is widely considered to be authoritative. The cite:ODNB template is sort of broken so I haven't added the references everywhere, but if you will bear with me they will be properly cited soon. Cheers! Atchom (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't see much of a consensus in that discussion, but on the other hand, I'm not equipped to argue one way or the other. You might consider just keeping the wikipedia short-url for that page and paste it into your edit summaries - at least then there's something for random editors to refer to (https://w.wiki/9sLc).

On the middle names, it's just peculiar that most of the extant sources don't list a middle name, but ODNB does. Since its paywalled I can't tell one way or the other. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB makes a point of digging out the birth certificates (they are very thorough). If you have a Wikipedia Library membership you should be able to use it. Atchom (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Been here eighteen years, never knew about the WP Library membership. Sure wish I'd known about it long ago, an incredible resource. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir

Hi, I noticed that you undid my edit of putting "sir" as a prefix on Alan Lascelles' wiki page, to list a few, Tony Blair Vince Cable David Attenborough all pages put it as a prefix so please do not undo it again Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Talk page?

What talk page has concluded that Sir should be part of the name as a guideline. Sir Michael Gambon, Sir Mo Farah, Sir Derek Jacobi, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Sir Elton John, Sir Michael Caine, Sir Billy Connolly, Sir Barry Gibb Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Patrick Stewart, Sir Cliff Richard, Sir Tom Jones and Sir Van Morrison, Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Richard Starkey (Ringo Starr), and Sir Nick Faldo All have it as a prefix. Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Your recent editing history at Tony Blair shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made two edits over 11 days - how is this edit warring is beyond me. Please kindly back off. Atchom (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You joined in with an on-going edit war, that you were clearly already aware of, to repeat an edit that had already been reverted repeatedly. You have made no attempt to reach consensus, and instead prefer to make vague reference to a discussion elsewhere, that you seem to believe is other's responsibility to find. There are repeated attempts on the article talk page and on this very page of your own, to get you to engage, which you have ignored. Edit warring is not simply a case of counting edits over time. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir

In your edit to Sir Winston Churchill: "'Sir' was in the name field until 2021 (when this article had been a GA for many years) when an editor went on a site-wide rampage and moved thousands of "Sir" to the "name field". To compound everything, he cited MOS:SIR which did not back him up at all. Restoring the page to its lonstanding format on this basis" So you said that it was wrong for a long time and now that it is right, you want to put it back to how it was before, just because it was longstanding? 212.250.203.150 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry. Atchom (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So with regards to Alan Bates, it's been set. But now I ask, what about other actors? Are their Sir/Dame prefixes all meant to be placed in front of their names as well, I would presume? (There shouldn't be any difference, right?)

Here are a bevy of examples that come to mind: Julie Andrews, Michael Caine, Gladys Cooper, Daniel Day-Lewis, Olivia de Havilland, Judi Dench, Edith Evans (And should Edith Mary Booth even be in the infobox like that??), Michael Gambon, Alec Guinness, Rex Harrison, John Hurt, Celia Johnson, Angela Lansbury, David Lean (So I snuck in a director, big whoop!), Ian McKellen, John Mills, Helen Mirren, Michael Redgrave, Vanessa Redgrave, Margaret Rutherford, Maggie Smith, Elizabeth Taylor, May Whitty

Whoops, just realized how long this list is already. I'll leave it at that for now!

P.S. Just if you wouldn't mind helping me comprehend this for future reference, since I'm still a novice at peerages but a huge fan of cinema and these actors and I want to grasp this: Laurence Olivier

The suffix, OM, that's the Order of Merit—his post-nominals, I get that. Now the rest.

The paragraph begins Laurence Kerr Olivier, Baron Olivier

While the infobox reads~

The Right Honourable

The Lord Olivier

The prefix, The Right Honourable, his pre-nominals.

The moniker "The Lord Olivier".

And the territorial "Baron Olivier".

What each means, especially those latter two…why they're different in each spot—plus specifically placed in either spot? This is all a bit foreign to me (an American), but I'd love the Peerages-for-Dummies version without the excess palather, please?

Just noticed Richard Attenborough had the same distinctions when I was about to add him to the above list, in which he didn't qualify. Thanks in advance. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 05:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPs' names

Thanks for adding the full names of a lot of MPs as they take the oath/affirm (I'm still waiting to see whether my local MP Lizzi uses a "Sunday name"). But you seemed to give up on adding the excellent source after a while - there's nothing to show where Anna Gelderd's middle name came from, nor several other later ones. Could you perhaps add the source, so the middle names don't get deleted as unsourced?

And will you be creating the necessary redirects from these names? I wonder whether there's a bot which would pick up the bolded lead name and create one? But in some cases there will be more than one plausible name from which to create a redirect, so I've created Maximilian Wilkinson as well as Maximilian Peter McGregor Wilkinson, for Max Wilkinson who is on my watchlist (which is what alerted me to your project). Thanks. PamD 07:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And an edit summary such as "Full name" would be very helpful too. Thanks. PamD 07:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus on MOS:SIR

Hi Atchom (talk · contribs), I thought you might like to participate in this discussion on the placement of Sir/Dame in infoboxes. Thanks. Walco1 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugène Caillaux moved to Draft

Hello, Atchom, and thanks for your contributions, especially to biographies of French jurists and politicians, and related concepts in French law. I think I first noticed this in your article Avoué, which I updated, and that led to some of the biographies, and I noticed you created nine articles today, and a similar number yesterday. I ended up at one of them, and long story short, that is now in Draft space at Draft:Eugène Caillaux, after I discovered that it has no secondary sources as required by English Wikipedia's notability policy. Please incubate this article in Draft space, and then either submit it for Afc review, or just move it back to Mainspace after the issues are dealt with.

Also, please use in-line citations (the article had none, but there were already three tags by that point, so I didn't bother adding another one for that) rather than plain, bare urls in a general references section. Also, even if the topic meets the minimum bar of notability, if there is insufficient sourcing to develop it past a bare-bones, two-sentence article with 33 words, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it might be better to include it as one section or paragraph in an article on a broader topic, such as, perhaps, List of French jurists, rather than leave it there as a permanent stub. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. There are in fact two secondary sources on the Caillaux article if you click through the first and second links. He wasn't a jurist but a politician, and as he was minister of finance I think you can assume he is notable. Atchom (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very likely, but still needs the sources to prove it, right? Seems a little thin, so far. I did some searching around (Qwant has some links; see the talk page) and it looks like one of those borderline cases, where it may pass the threshold of notability, but sources dry up past the most basic information, which appears to be the same information, plus or minus, from all the sources, so their independence is questionable. It might end up better as part of a list article, maybe, List of French Finance Ministers, or something. I mean, how much is available out there about him, if we used every single source in existence about him, from what I have seen so far, they all paint the basic, resumé of birth/death, career positions and dates, and one I saw had his wife and children on it, but we usually don't include them in an article if not separately notable, other than a brief mention in a ==Personal life== section. Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translated article is missing required attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from German Wikipedia to Hellmuth Becker (politician). While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Cameron Lees (colonial administrator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Governor of Mauritius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Morgan, 5th Baron Tredegar

Hello @Atchom. Why have you felt the need to remove the HonMag and Bar post-nominals from the Infobox? Mac Edmunds (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mac. UK usage does not give barons a special postnominal. Ditto for honorary magistrate, which is covered by JP. Cheers! Atchom (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, baronets who are peers do not use Bt or Bart. by long-standing usage. Atchom (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]