Jump to content

User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Reference errors on 14 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Message from Jalomo

HiJalomo (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Robertson (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Highland Society. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ODNB: Robert Child (agriculturalist)

Hi Charles

I just created Robert Child (agriculturalist), as a v stubby byproduct of a disambiguation exercise. He has an ODNB entry (which so far is my only ref), but this 17th-cent polymath looks v expandable.

It may not be your cup of tea, but just in case ...

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've connected him up to the pre-existing Wikidata item (the ODNB has almost all been matched into Wikidata, though a couple of percent has gone astray). That brings him up as a Cambridge alumnus, though as the relevant site is offline at present that is not as helpful as it might be. He is also in EMLO [1] which shows him as mentioned in Hartlib's correspondence. So, yes, of interest to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Zite

I noticed that

07:04, 18 September 2009 Charles Matthews (talk | contribs) deleted page Zite (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

I don't know if your deletion was related to the Zite app, but I just want to let you know I added the Zite page as a redirect to the proper section of the current coverage, the Flipboard article. CapnZapp (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The old page was about something else: began "Zite, listed as zite.com.au is an Australian online job search engine." It was an unreferenced article. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Shirreff, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Osier and Haddington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steven Crisp

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The redirect has been restored, got hijacked that's all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft article on UKGWA

Hi Charles. We met in the recent Wikipedia session at TNA, when you offered to vet a new page on the UK Government Web Archive for me. I've put it up on Draft:UK_Government_Web_Archive; would be grateful if you could have a look and advise on style and suitability - and make live if appropriate. Thanks! Zosterae (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)]

I've done some basic work, which you can check in the history, and moved it out to UK Government Web Archive. Nice to hear from you. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Child (agriculturalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intelligencer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Georgius Agricola may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • engineer and his wife [[Lou Henry Hoover]]. Hoover was later [[President of the United States]]),.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James Rhoades
added a link pointing to Haileybury
Samuel Waddington
added a link pointing to The Academy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

William T. Kirkpatrick

I see that you have a posted list of persons, of whom William T. Kirkpatrick is one. I have just written a brief article about a person of that name, a headmaster of Lurgan College and private tutor to C.S. Lewis. Based on the possibility that this is the person in which you have an interest, I bring this article to your attention.Bigturtle (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Christopher William Puller
added a link pointing to Chancery
Samuel Walker of Truro
added a link pointing to Edward Bickersteth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John James Raven, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Emmanuel College, Mildenhall and Worlington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Philips Numan

Draft:Philips Numan, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Philips Numan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Philips Numan during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You were actually wrong to say "There's nothing sourced in the draft that could or should be merged." I had better things to do round Christmas, also. I have added the content, sourced to the ODNB, to the article now. You really could have paid more attention to my comments. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles Thomas Cruttwell
added a link pointing to Gartree
Jonathan Hanmer
added a link pointing to Torrington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Benjamin Parsons
added links pointing to Devonport, Nibley and Temperance
John Marsh (minister)
added a link pointing to Temperance
Richard Mant
added a link pointing to Hebrew poetry
Robert Wright (bishop)
added a link pointing to Episcopal palace

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Cruden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montrose. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Spa resort listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spa resort. Since you had some involvement with the Spa resort redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Convocation of 1563

Draft:Convocation of 1563, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Convocation of 1563 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Convocation of 1563 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Convocation of 1563 has been accepted

Convocation of 1563, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Odd processes we have these days. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Writing leads...

Errr...Charles, the leads are supposed to be concise summaries but they should be at least 3-4 sentences long minimum. It can be tricky if the article is small (though there is no problem in expanding the article to get a decent lead!). Something like Hugh Latimer would be an easy one to expand and qualify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, goalposts move then: "focusing on creating or improving the lead sections". I have created 100 or so because they came my way, and were worth creating. The mobile phone rationale is that there should be a lead?
But I find contests unsatisfying anyway, always have. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The thing is about modifying behaviour in a fun way to shift some content. Leads generally are a certain size and summarise the content of the body of the article. A couple of the bigger ones you'd done qualified nicely.But whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of a conversation where we talk past each other. I know what a lead is. I took a note over two weeks of the work I had done, without looking further than the articles I was seeing anyway. Maybe 30% or more of the biographies I see need a lead, of any kind. If they are not long - way short of the 15K you have as baseline - summarising basic biographical facts is make-work, better done by adding an infobox. In my view, and I don't add infoboxes. I do a large amount of similar work on Wikidata which is more efficient. Now there must be tens of thousands of such articles out there. Pietro Bizzarri: now that was one sentence and I added all the rest, which seemed like proper work.
It may be pompous, but I don't much care about having my behaviour modified. Recognition is fine, but I honestly don't jump through hoops for anyone. I'm a pluralist about editing philosophies, and I don't expect others to think the way I do about everything; and I assume that I have plenty to learn. But I do know what a lead is. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, how about reading instructions for a behaviour modification? I suppose this is a good case in point. I guess I didn't make the point of the contest clear. You have looked at wikipedia on mobile devices, right? Take a look at Pietro Bizzarri on your phone. I agree short articles are not good choices for this competition...but I didn't choose the articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Short articles are most articles. Wikipedia15 stirred up a number of thoughts for me. Certainly including the need to work over contributions coming from 7 to 9 years ago. By the way, I don't own a mobile phone. So, we work from different assumptions. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Mullins (priest)
added a link pointing to Bocking
Pietro Bizzarri
added a link pointing to Berwick

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Catholic-Hierarchy.org

Hello. I noticed that you have edited a number of articles on Catholicism. A discussion is taking place as to whether the website Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a reliable source that can be utilized on Wikipedia or whether all references and information derived from it should be deleted. This topic is currently being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [2]. As the website's removal as a reference will affect several thousand Wikipedia articles, I believe that the broadest range of opinions should be obtained before action is taken. Please contribute if interested.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Benjamin Hawes
added a link pointing to Blackfriars
William Hawes (1805–1885)
added a link pointing to Zoological Society

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Resource-based learning

Hi Charles, I have just started the Resource-based learning article, which i thought might be of interest to you. Leutha (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I experienced the early days of Nuffield science: boiling tubes of crude oil and pumice chips, repeat the experiment every week until you didn't send the oil up the delivery tube. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Jackson (bassist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Davison. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Henry Keepe
added a link pointing to Anne of Great Britain
Robert Houlton
added a link pointing to Drury Lane Theatre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Caroline Anne James Skeel

Hi, I don't know how familiar you are with Girton College but is it true the library is named after her?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be the library at Westfield College, 1971.[3] Not quite clear to me what happened when Westfield merged into QMUL. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that's right, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:VCH

Please see Template talk:Cite Victoria County History. I wanted to use your template but couldn't hack argument 1. Thanks! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's six years old, and I no longer use it. A typical VCH page these days is like
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp9-17
The reason I don't use it is that the BHO site prefers nowadays its own citation style, given in this case as
'Parishes: Havering-atte-Bower', in A History of the County of Essex: Volume 7, ed. W R Powell (London, 1978), pp. 9-17 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp9-17 [accessed 7 March 2016].
It looks like they have also changed the way they do URLs. The template is used in about eight places only, I think, and so it probably should be deleted, after those references have been fixed. The alternative would be to rewrite the template, which might not be too hard, assuming the BHO is consistent across counties with its VCH URLs. Can't immediately comment on that. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Henry Headley
added a link pointing to Matlock
Richard Conyers
added a link pointing to Olney

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CRMatHeadway1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CRMatHeadway1.jpg, which you've attributed to Headway[who?]. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carnock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Lewis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hewitt

Would you perhaps have something insightful to say at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Carl Hewitt? Cheers, —Ruud 09:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Marmaduke Matthews

Hi Charles, seems to be an error when you click the Welsh biography link in [4] I get:

" Resource Not Found

Message: Resource Not Found

Description: The requested resource "/yba/YBA/en/s-MATT-MAR-1606.html" could not be found

Sender: org.apache.cocoon.servlet.CocoonServlet

Source: Cocoon Servlet

Apache Cocoon 2.1.10"

♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed now at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18559825. The problem was at the Welsh Biography end. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Whately, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

De Costentins

Hi, can you find a source to support the De Costentins "being among the first Norman invaders of Wales in the early 12th century"? All I can seem to find is a site which looks like a dubious paraphrasing of wikipedia. Can you also find anything more on William de Goldcliff?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The first looks like descendants of fr:Néel II de Saint-Sauveur; a bit of a nightmare because Néel = Neil = Nigel, and the number of name variants is large. The only hint I get is some association with Roger de Montgomerie, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury or his descendants. Treat with suspicion - may be based just on some old source.
I can't find anything new on William de Goldcliff. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Thomas Jenner (publisher)
added links pointing to Royal Exchange and Broadsides
John Evan Hodgson
added a link pointing to The Hermitage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rowland Davies (priest)
added links pointing to Siege of Limerick and Cork, Ireland
Malcolm Laing
added a link pointing to Teutonic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
  • Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
  • A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
  • Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Tunbridge grammar school listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tunbridge grammar school. Since you had some involvement with the Tunbridge grammar school redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Certes (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbolic Geometry:Poincaré half plane model listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hyperbolic Geometry:Poincaré half plane model. Since you had some involvement with the Hyperbolic Geometry:Poincaré half plane model redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. WillemienH (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taxes on knowledge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Francis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Pigot Diamond listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pigot Diamond. Since you had some involvement with the Pigot Diamond redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mb66w (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Hamilton Reid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smithfield. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Henry Harington

Percy Scholes, The Great Doctor Burney (1948), vol 1 378, has a passage about the Gordon Riots, and mentions that Dr Harington had called and told them he had found messages chalked on his front door and rumours that the catholic chapel in Bath would be burnt down. It is quoting Fanny Burney's Diary and Letters vol 1 421 et seq
Joyce Hemlow, The History of Fanny Burney (1958), p 384, has a passage relating to 1815 mentioning Dr Harrington [sic] still being active musically in Bath.
Roger Lonsdale, Dr Charles Burney: A literary Biography (1965), p 462, mentions Harington asking him to look over a manuscript he has written. This is referenced to a letter in the Berg Collection in the USA.

I have emailed my contacts in Burney Centre in Canada, since they are working on Charles Burney's letters. Its probable there is more info but as yet unpublished. Kind regards, Tony. Apwoolrich (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks — one thing leads to another. When I was on my travels I put together William Hamilton Reid, when I had wifi. That led to John King (official) and the surveillance mentioned prompted by Daniel Lysons (physician) of Bath. That sent me back to James Losh and his time in Bath, and so to Harington. Lysons and Harington undoubtedly knew each other. I found a couple of references about Bath and suspected subversion to put in the Harington article, anyway. Harington also knew Hester Piozzi. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Augustus Charles Bickley
added a link pointing to Carlisle
Henry Harington
added a link pointing to Glee

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Champion of Bristol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abraham Darby and Neoclassical. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Edward Lapworth
added links pointing to Magdalen College School and Henry Berkeley
Henry Dundas Campbell
added a link pointing to Zoological Society

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about 'theory of...' articles

Hi Charles Matthews,

I have a question about something that sort-of frustrates me about how to understand Wikipedia article content. Two examples are the competent article about singularity theory which you wrote in 2004 or so, and then the 'collective animal behavio(u)r' article.

In both cases the issue is that the article title refers to a body of knowledge, really, with necessarily vague boundary lines. I note that your article has a type of disambiguation sentence at the beginning which links to 'mathematical singularity' for 'other' uses of the word, but that that other article also has a section replicating your section about singular points of algebraic curves, and with a concept that a mathematical singularity is where 'something' becomes undefined; at these points of curves it is where the tangent space becomes undefined.

The analagous issue with 'collective animal behaviour' is something that I discussed at some time at length on the talk pages, and I think it comes down to the situation that there are particular influential people who become identified with a subject. Your article confusingly quotes Arnold as saying that some part of the subject is over-publicized, without one knowing which part he is referring to or not..... Anyway, the phrase 'collective animal behaviour' is the title of a book, and of course then one may decide that the perspective from which to present the 'theory' of collective animal behavior should follow the way it is understood in that book, the idea being that a type of algorithmic understanding of cooperation towards a goal or indeed plans of intervening and modifying habitat based on insights into how these algorithms precisely work, should be the definition of 'collective animal behaviour.'

What I am saying is that both articles (and many others in Wikipedia) fail NPOV in a way that is very obvious, but hard to describe, hard to pin down. It is as if I were to write an article titled "God," and then to say, "God is a consciousness which transcends all others," and give various biblical references. One might somehow say, yes, there are a lot of references, but the very existence of an article like this fails NPOV. In a dominantly religious society, such an argument would fail. Editors would say "Of course not, we're including all the points of view about God."

I think that the distinction has to be made: if an article is about a *theory* then it must specify which historical time period it is referring to, who gives the theory that name, when it began, when it ended, how that theory relates to other knowledge.

OR, if there is an established body of knowledge like, say, mathematics, then one can define 'singularity' like it is defined in the mathematical singularity article, and say, we are *not* writing about a theory, but about a conventional and shared use of a word, within an established and agreed subject.

In the 'collective animal behaviour' article, it seems not to be clear that there is a notion of 'collective' in biology, or maybe it is an emerging concept somehow. But it is clear that particular practitioners have hived off a section of scholarship, and taken over the word 'collective' which has uses in other subjects (philosophy, economics, psyhcology), using it in a very limited way.

It would seem better in many cases if such articles were properly subsumed into existing subject articles. Createangelos (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It is true that we want Wikipedia articles to be "good surveys", and that means coverage should be "proportionate", not driven by a particular school of thought. In other words, a "bad survey" that is clearly slanted is not wanted here, any more than in science (where such things undoubtedly exist, but would be frowned on).
The singularity theory article I started 12 years ago should not be too vulnerable to that sort of criticism, though no doubt it should be improved. The point about Arnold is that he was arguing along the same lines as me: catastrophe theory does represent one "school of thought", while his view might correspond more to the sort of scope that is inclusive on singularities.
I'm not in a position to comment on your example in the area of animal behaviour, but the same ideas should apply. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Laing (doctor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wesleyan Methodist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge Agreement

How was the meet up? Sorry I could not make it. I was wondering if you knew where the meeting which gave rise to the Cambridge Agreement took place? Leutha (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly Emmanuel College, but all I have seen so far on that is speculation. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

8 years of Cambridge meetups

Charles, at the meetup you said the Cambridge meetups have been on for 8 years - that's more than half the lifetime of Wikipedia. Would you mind being nominated for the wmuk:UK Wikimedian of the Year 2016 prize for this achievement? Deryck C. 11:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, if you insist! Charles Matthews (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you never won this prize? If not it's been a very long time coming!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

First awarded in 2012. If the chapter actually worked more on categories on the site ... well, the result would be that you could see the winners, more easily, and I'm not among them. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Henry Dawkins
added a link pointing to James Dawkins
John Luther (MP)
added a link pointing to Ongar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Mangles (MP) has been accepted

James Mangles (MP), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

/wiae /tlk 02:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you think you could use a more accurate and helpful template? This was a draft of mine, which someone has put through the AfC mill without consultation or notification. Charles Matthews (talk)

James Roberts

Hello... Is the James Roberts listed on your Watercolours R page, and linking to the James Roberts disambiguation page, the painter with vital dates 1753-ca.1809? if so, he now has his own (appallingly stubby) page at James Roberts (painter). But I didn't like to skip the disambiguation page, in case there's another one out there. seglea (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, so that is helpful. There is a little extra information in the Mallalieu book on which the watercolours list is based. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your expansion of the page, that is most informative. seglea (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to chase up also his role in scenery painting at Blenheim, but that requires a library visit. It seems his Oxford time is better documented than the rest of his career. The ODNB places him in London, or more accurately Westminster, otherwise. I also was led a merry dance on Wikidata, chasing up his father (who is also of interest; but such things don't interest everyone). Thanks for dropping by. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Puritan exorcism (June 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This needs more sourcing and expansion to show where the topic would be independently notable outside of Exorcism in Christianity. I think that it'd likely pass, but you need a bit more before this can be asserted.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Charles Matthews, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I'm not "disappointed", in that I didn't submit the draft to AfC. This was done by someone else. See my comment in the section above, and feedback given elsewhere. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata & Wikisource Showcase at University of Edinburgh - 2nd August 2016

Hi Charles, I heard about you through the recent Wiki Education event in Leicester and thought I should get in touch. Myself and Histropedia's Navino Evans will be delivering a two hour showcase event (split into two x 1 hour segments by a half hour coffee break inbetween) as part of the University of Edinburgh's Repo-Fringe event (http://rfringe16.blogs.edina.ac.uk/programme/) on 2nd August 2016 so as you seem to have experience of both projects I thought I should ask whether you would have any tips or advice about running a successful session on these two projects? looking to combine theory with practical demos for a crowd of up to 64 attendees. And provide a context with where we are in terms of the latest developments. Any thoughts or pointers as to who we might want to contact or things we might want to include then let me know. All the best, Stinglehammer (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hullo. I think you tackle Wikidata first. In the second hour, what you can emphasise on Wikisource is the basic workflow using the Page: namespace and transclusion with headers. In other words the verifiability of the proofreading that goes on there, with text side-by-side with scanned images. Anyone can check someone else's work and correct it.
Then to tie the two aspects together, and the reason I briefly referenced Wikisource at Leicester: the "main subject" property P921 on Wikidata, and the way it is used on "metadata" items for Wikisource. E.g. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Darwin,_Charles_Robert_(DNB00) on Wikisource, connected to Wikidata in the header, goes to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19074342, and that item links to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1035 which is the Charles Darwin page. With a different route, the initial words of https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Darwin,_Charles_Robert_(DNB00) link to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Charles_Robert_Darwin, which links via the header again to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1035.
So ... both works (articles) and author pages on Wikisource can link to Wikidata, as well as to Wikipedia, for a close integration of the information they hold on texts. Wikisource as a library is therefore beginning to use Wikidata intensively.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Book_digitisation_workflow.svg is probably a help for talking initially about Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: Thanks Charles, this is hugely helpful. We will be splitting the day up into 1 hour on Wikidata and 55 mins on Wikisource as you have suggested. We now also have an extra 45 mins in the afternoon to play with - so we could link the two then and/or cover offshoot projects such as Histropedia. Incidentally, is there a Wikisource Project leader? Have been in contact with Lydia at Wikidata, and she has been very helpful with ideas, latest developments & with providing swag, but can't seem to find details of her Wikisource counterpart. Any ideas? Stinglehammer (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No equivalent to Lydia for Wikisource. One of the "latest developments" around Wikidata is the switching on of authority control info on Wikidata being rendered on Creator pages on Wikimedia Commons. This might be a bit outside your scope, though. I'll explain more, if likely to help. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: Hi Charles, have just been speaking to Stuart Prior and he suggested that there may be funds available for some Wikisource helpers to come up to Edinburgh to deliver the event. If so, would you be available on 1st-2nd August? (the event is on the 2nd of August but Navino Evans is coming up on the 1st to help deliver the Wikidata side of the showcase). We have now had our allotted time extended so we need to fill 3hrs approx on Wikidata & Wikisource. If you are available and interested in helping deliver the event then you'd be more than welcome. And if you can think of any other WikiSourcers who may be similarly inclined to take part (Martin Poulter is delivering the Keynote) then let me know and I'll message them. (Or I could just leave a message on Central Discussion area, of course.) I've requested that Edinburgh University's Centre for Research Collection release a text we could use but I'm not hopeful they will approve its release in time. Anyway, I'll be getting my head down to work away at this tomorrow so if you're free for a chat then to discuss how to get the best out of the demo then great. Otherwise it would be good to chat about this whenever you're free next. All the best Stinglehammer (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Not ruling it out at this stage. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

  • New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
  • Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
  • New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Lyall, Sr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfred Lyall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Robert Lovell Gwatkin
added links pointing to Allan Cunningham and 62nd Regiment
Robert Wilmot (playwright)
added a link pointing to Henry Noel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James Dormer
added links pointing to Preston and James Stanhope
Robert Harley (mathematician)
added links pointing to Halifax and Temperance
Elisha Leighton
added a link pointing to Brabant
George Tobin (Royal Navy officer)
added a link pointing to Ferrol
John Luard
added a link pointing to Battle of Toulouse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Zeno's paradoxes

Hi Charles. Would you mind taking a look at Zeno's paradoxes (see Talk:Zeno's_paradoxes#Chinese equivalents) to see if any admin action is warranted. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 11:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, had a look. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-names/paradoxes.html might be useful for some context. Generally, (a) philosophy articles need high-grade references, obviously, while (b) there is indeed much systemic bias in what gets included. Just picking up some books at random, it shouldn't be so hard to establish a timeline for early reception of the paradoxes. For me there is a big cusp at the Late Antique. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. My real question was whether you though the article ought to be protected from IP edits, as suggested by Bill Cherowitzo on the talk page? (I'd do it but, of course I'm involved in the edit war there). Paul August ☎ 12:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, that would seem to be over-reaction — though I haven't recently been involved in such matters. The page is basically a bit neglected, and I was trying to look at this all as an opportunity to improve things. Chinese analogues could enter usefully, either in terms of history, or to clarify paradoxes of motion generally. Certainly if Needham cited specific Chinese works, we should include something about it for the sake of NPOV. I wonder exactly what he had to say, though. You could try User:Deryck Chan if you want something less fuzzy. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
OK. Here's what Needham has to say: (as I wrote on the talk page):
[p. 292:] J. P. Reding 91985), pp. 274-385, takes up the crucial question whether Hui Shih's dicta are properly understood as scientific paradoxes in the first place. He provides a [p. 293:] detailed alternative interpretation intending to show that they are not scientific paradoxes at all. A. C. Graham (1970), p. 140, on the other hand, writes: '...although Hui Shih's explanations no longer survive, the whole list can be read, like Zeno's paradoxes, as a series of proofs that it is impossible to divide space and time without contradiction.'
Unfortunately, all we have are Hui Shih's theorems and paradoxes as preserved in the last chapter of the book of his friend Chuang Tzu, to which we will now turn. The cases of Zeno and of Hui Shih differ profoundly in that we do have a fairly precise idea of the stringent logical arguments Zeno used to support his theses, whereas we know little of the intellectual context of Hui Shih's paradoxes that one can evidently raise doubt that they are scientific paradoxes in the first place, as Reding does.
Paul August ☎ 15:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Benjamin Woodroffe
added a link pointing to Marbury
Charles Marshall (judge)
added a link pointing to John Wilson (judge)
James Hamilton (language teacher)
added a link pointing to Gower Street

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alfred Egmont Hake
added a link pointing to Mahdist
James Cooper (minister)
added a link pointing to Elgin Academy
John Ward (diplomat, died 1890)
added a link pointing to C.B.
Norman MacColl
added a link pointing to Athenæum Club

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Metiabruz

An article that you have been involved in editing—Metiabruz —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ejaz92 (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 

Ejaz92 (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Bysshe (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prosody. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Caw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Guthrie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem with a user

Hello. I need advice from an experienced user regarding a problem that I'm having with another user. He keeps me from editing an article (reverting my edits) even though the edits are valid and sourced; not only they obbey Wikipedia's general policies but they also don't infringe the article's specific rules. The strange thing is that he admits he thinks my edit is not wrong, and yet he insistis that I must discuss the change on the article's Talk page. I went to his Talk page and asked why on Earth he was reverting valid edits and asking me to discuss them. As far as I know, valid additions only need to be discussed if they are polemical or controversial, which was not the case (I was only updating a number that was outdated by 19 years). For my surprise, he deleted my comment and wrote "Kindly get lost from my page.", which is not proper behaviour for a Wikipedian in my opinion (apart from the fact that a user's page is not really his, but a public space that follows the same rules as other Wiki pages). All in all, he seems to be acting like the owner of the article. How should I proceed ? Is this enough for a block or is there another way to solve this ? I need some admin to intervene. Also, I suspect that this user has been comitting sock puppetry. Who can investigate it further in order to find evidence for that infringement ? Thank you. Clausgroi (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at the article List of best-selling music artists, and the conditions on sourcing announced there. It may just be that http://www.allmusic.com/ is not an acceptable source, and that there is some consensus about that, for the purposes of the particular article.
On other points: everyone can delete messages from their own User talk pages. I think User:IndianBio has some unfortunate habits in communicating. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Listen Clausgroi, do whatever you want with the article, go and edit war for all I care, but if you leave another note in my talk page in a threatening tone, I will ask you to get lost again. —IB [ Poke ] 15:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
To Charles Matthews, please do not link me with any messaging template, I have had enough with this user and do not want to associate with his/her theatrics. —IB [ Poke ] 15:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I suggest you adopt a civil tone, here and elsewhere? I will not link you again (without good reason). But some of your edit summaries are inflammatory. And your posting here speaks for itself. You are clearly not adhering to the collegiate spirit, and that is not helping to clarify the matter that has been raised with me. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Charles Matthews I don't want to do anything with this issue, the user is free to do whichever edit of his he felt that I intervened. If I have been incivil with him, has been that spurr of the moment and I apologize for it. I don't want any further dealing on this issue. Thanks and good day. —IB [ Poke ] 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Charles, I don't know anything about an addition sourced by allmusic. In this case, my edit was sourced by The Daily Telegraph (actually, The Telegraph, its online version) and respected the rules explained in the Talk page of the article (specifically, one about the mininum certified percentage of claimed sales in the source).
Regarding his talk page, of course he can delete whatever he wants from it, I just didn't think it was appropriate, because I was merely discussing the issue and IndianBio adopted an agressive attitude, which made him remove my comment and tell me to "get lost". As you can see here, he still seems pretty angry and difficult to talk to, whereas I am open for discussion. By the tone in his writing, you would think we have been quarreling for weeks, but I actually only exchanged two messages with him and he seemed nervous since the very beginning. I asked myself "why would he be angry with me if we just started our conversation ?". Then he mentioned an argument I had with another user about the same article and I thought that was very suspicious, for it had happened just some hours before. It was like he was tired of arguing with me the days before and wanted to stop talking to me, only he forgot he was using his other account when he expressed that. I mean, that's only my impression, but the way they write is similar and when they communicate between themselves, it seems like someone talking to a mirror (hard to explain in words, you would have to read the whole conversation to understand). Also, they responded to themselves in a matter of seconds, which would be practically impossible since they would have to read the messages and then think about what to write (unless, of course, it was the same person behind both users). Note that Harout72, the other user, also removed my comment from his talk page in much the same manner as IndianBio. That's why I think it's a good idea to check their accounts and clarify this, but I don't have the privileges to check IPs and that kind of stuff.
After IndianBio wrote his first message here, he wrote on Harout72's talk page and made it clear he was going to stop watching he List of best selling artists. Now I fear I'll have the same problem I originally reported to you here with the other user, so basically the issue still remains. How should I proceed ? Clausgroi (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, setting aside all personal difficulties, you should probably make a comment on the talk page of that list page at the same time as adding a sourced contribution. I don't understand the issue in depth; but there is obviously a point that inflated figures may be in circulation, and here at Wikipedia we try to be scrupulous. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles, let me put it this way: can a Wikipedia user force me to discuss my edit even if it is reliably sourced and non-controversial (in other words, a perfectly valid addition) ?
If so, then I really can't understand it. From my point of view, some users, like IndianBio and Harout72, are acting like they own the article, demanding that everyone explains in details their additions to be "approved" by them. Actually, I think the issue is even worse than that: they seem to think their opinions are more valid than reliable sources. I have a Daily Telegraph article that states Genesis has sold more than 150 million records, but these users claim "the figure is inflated". How, may I ask, could they possibly assert that ? Based on what ? Of course Genesis' certified sales are much smaller than that (40 million), but that is the case with ALL artists on the list: in every case, the claimed/reputed sales are way bigger than the certified ones, which is not something hard to understand considering the difficulties found in estimating and certifying record sales.
If not, then clearly I'm not the one creating problems and the users who are should be dealt with in a way that is judged applicable and fair by more experienced fellow Wikipedians. Do you see my point ? Clausgroi (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see you are unhappy about the criteria that are being applied to sourcing. What is at WP:RS is not absolute; and given what we are up against that isn't really so surprising.

In particular it is stated that "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." (WP:RS#Some types of sources) The Telegraph is a mainstream source; but we don't have to believe everything it asserts. The issue with the list is precisely about the context, as said there.

Assuming a _genuine disagreement_ about which sources are appropriate, it really is best to have a discussion process. The classic way is have both sides rehearsed on an article's talk page. "We have already decided ..." is not an adequate argument there. On the other hand, supposing we are trying to settle a bet rather than write an encyclopedia, would a piece of journalism seem an adequate criterion? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not that I'm unhappy with the criteria. The fact is that I have a reliable source on my side and a user is preventing me from using it because he is assuming the source is wrong (that is, he seems to think his opinion is as reliable as the source). The burden of proof lies with him to prove the source wrong, not with me to prove it right. But that's something he can't do. How on Earth could he prove Genesis hasn't actually sold (more than) 150 million records ? In the end, all we have is the information contained in the source, and that should suffice for the purposes of adding a sales claim (and note the word is claim, which, by definition, exempts itself from representing the truth necessarily). The Telegraph is one of the most respected sources in that page, along with CNN, BBC and TIME. It was used to source, among others, Michael Jackson, Madonna and Celine Dion; why isn't it good enough for Genesis ? On the other hand, there are feeble sources there like "The Tuscaloosa News", "Albany Democrat-Herald" and "The Macomb Daily" that neither IndianBio nor Harout72 are worried about. It seems they are particularly interested in removing big, well-known reliable sources instead of the unknown or suspicious ones.
One thing that I forgot to mention is that my addition to the list of best selling artists meets the requirement stipulated by consensus on the talk page: "To be on this list, artists who began charting before 1975 are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 20% in certified units". Genesis first charted in 1969 and has certified sales for 39,9 million units, which correspond to more than 26% of the 150 million claimed. So even by the article's specific standards, my addition is correct, which IndianBio implicitly admitted on his TP.
This whole situation seems surreal to me. Put yourself in my place: you make a non-controversial addition to an article (a simple update of a number), sourced with a reliable source. A guy reverts it. You go to his talk page to discuss the matter and, after exchanging two messages, he gets angry and asks you to "get lost". I mean, am I missing something here ? Like I said to IndianBio, I would gladly discuss any change in the article if it was polemical, but this is not the case. For all I know, I have no obligation to justify valid additions to an article to people who think they own them (Harout72, particularly, has been acting like the "guardian" of the list; he is virtually the sole contributor nowadays and reverts other people's edits all the time).
I'm sorry to be wasting your time like this, it's just that I need to confirm these things with more experienced users and you surely are one. Clausgroi (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You write:

"It's not that I'm unhappy with the criteria. The fact is that I have a reliable source on my side and a user is preventing me from using it because he is assuming the source is wrong (that is, he seems to think his opinion is as reliable as the source). The burden of proof lies with him to prove the source wrong, not with me to prove it right."

My points about that:

  • As stated and argued above, you cannot be absolute about your source being "reliable", because the guideline I have cited you does not say that: it says, in terms, something relative to the context.
  • The said user is not "preventing" you, having withdrawn explicitly.
  • You may feel there is some proxy preventing you, but that has not been shown.
  • No one enjoys being reverted, I think. When it happens to me, after 13 years here, I first make sure that I understand why. Personalising the issue is not helpful if there is a policy point.
  • You may be correct that WP:OWN is an underlying issue here. WP:OWN#Resolving ownership issues has comments on that.

I would still recommend re-adding your edit, with a talk page note inviting discussion. If you are clear in your mind that you are acting within consensus, this is the way to take the moral high ground. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

IndianBio was preventing me from adding that content, and now that he withdrew, Harout72 will be the problem. His claims are exactly the same, along these lines: "You might have a reliable source for the addition and it might not break any article rule, but I am telling you the figure is wrong (inflated), so believe me and conform". That I can't do.
You said "Personalising the issue is not helpful if there is a policy point", but that is not the case because there is no policy involved in IndianBio and Harout72's arguments. They assume the source is wrong and they are right, and act accordingly. The policy is on my side, actually, since my edit conforms to all rules for valid additions to the project.
Anyway, I'll try to readd the content later and let's see how it goes from there. Thanks for the help so far. Clausgroi (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if you think I'm needed. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As expected: it took only 40 minutes for him to revert the edit. I'm really tired of this and want to move on doing my normal work here, so I would like to report him on the grounds of disruptive editing and "owning" the article. How can I do that, please ? Clausgroi (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You could first follow my advice, which was to leave a note on the Talk page at the same time. Let me put this to you: to the extent that you have invoked my help with Third opinion, and to the extent that the discussion is confined to this page, I'm not able to do more than try to persuade you to follow the normal course of negotiation. If you want me to put points to other parties, about the content of that list page, this page is not the right forum. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no "negotiation" with people who think they own the article. If Harout72 is reverting even valid edits without any policy basis, then clearly he must think the article is his. So far, I have avoided discussing in the article's talk page for 3 reasons: 1) a user can't be forced to discuss (or justify) a valid edit just because someone is telling them to. 2) If I discuss on Talk page, I'll be doing exactly what Harout72 wants me to do, and I don't think I should abide his whim. 3) I know, beforehand, discussing the matter there won't make a difference because I have already discussed with this user about another edit and I know how he thinks and the kind of arguments he uses; in the end, we will just repeat ourselves and, as I said, I don't want to waste any more time on this.
In order to save time and actually try to solve this, I don't see any option but to report him. How can I do this here ? On my native language's Wikipedia, we have a page where we can ask for the block of people who are interfering negatively with an article (even if it's just for a day, like a "warning" instead of a punishment). Do you have this here too ? Clausgroi (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You came here for advice (see the top of the thread). You now know what my advice is, with a full rationale, and we have discussed it. You have set up a loop, in which you give reasons involving external factors, as reasons for not taking the advice. I have referred you to policy pages here. We are close to exhausting the topic.

I will now advise you not to escalate this matter further, without contributing to Talk:List of best-selling music artists.

That would not clever. You clearly believe you have a strong case that your edits improve the article, and are well sourced within policy. No discussion can build on that assessment of the position, without it being on the Talk page, as your contribution to defining the dispute.

You either walk away, or you take that one step to resolve the dispute. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Monuments and memorials to martyrs

Hi Charles. I recently came across a list article (List of martyrs' monuments and memorials) and added some entries. It is currently organised by country and could obviously be very long. Could I get your views on whether it might be better organised by what the martyrdom was for? At the moment, it is mainly memorials or monuments with 'martyr' in the name, but that is a fuzzy scope as some memorials are to martyrs without explicitly stating that, and some more general memorials (e.g. war memorials, but usually independence and liberation movements) are sometimes named martyrs memorials, and some are not. Also, some memorials are named in other languages using their word for martyrs, which may have a slightly different meaning to English (though usually the same). There is potential I think for a list of monuments to the Marian martyrs. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The obvious point is that "Catholic martyrs" are as recognised by the Catholic Church, and so on. For example, Charles I is an Anglican martyr. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

George Edward Jelf
added links pointing to Blackheath, Chatham and Clapton
William Haig Brown
added a link pointing to Harry Bates

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Fordham War Memorial

Hi Charles. Long time no see! Anyway, I thought I'd let you know I finally got round to writing that article (I'm slowly working my way through the list of Lutyens' war memorials) and used two of the photos you took for me. Much obliged for those! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Charles Matthews (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. So if working on DNB articles one day, place article improvements on the list! Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Charles, who would be best to speak to about editathons in the UK? It's just I think it would be possible to organize some physical editathons across the UK throughout the year in the spirit of this scheme.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd start with User:Richard Nevell (WMUK). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, in a few days I'll have a list from Hansard of missing politicians, MPs and peers. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Naturally the missing ODNB articles can count towards this too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Makuzu Kōzan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Setouchi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Gerard

Hello, Charles Matthews. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Richard Gerard, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Richard Gerard to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Charles Matthews. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Elyot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles_Matthews/Archive_41&oldid=1140443798"