User talk:DBD/Archive 19

February – March 2012

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of deans in the Church of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Pritchard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wales

Howdy DBD. Would you restore the position of a post of mine, at that article's talkpage? Daicaregos may have accidently moved it. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are just as capable of doing so as I am, and it is no less advisable for you than I. While we're here, are you sure you should be getting into it with Dai? You are clearly never going to win. I would like to suggest that, however right you are, the only way to "win" this is to walk away. DBD 23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't wanna argue with him. I just don't understand why he moved my post, to make it look like I was responding to him, when I wasn't. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to argue; nor do you have to understand. Just explain in a civil fashion when you return your post to the correct position. DBD 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's done. I deleted my post & reposted the exact same thing, but in it's original place. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I must be loosing my mind. I'm actually advising editors to walk away from that article discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Archdeacon of London

Sorry for that, I did an automatic find/replace at Archdeacon of London and did not check the result well enough. Superp (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail

You got some time to have a discussion over email? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Iff it's very brief – bedtime here. If not, can get to it in 10h or so. DBD 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll send now. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't feel bad

Hey DBD, FWIW, I did explain to Mais that I had 2 mentors & even pointed you both out to him. GoodDay (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DBD. You have new messages at GoodDay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

List of Deans of Bristol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Snow

List of Deans of Hereford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Hervey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Please see User talk:Steven Zhang. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You missed all the drama. GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, good fun that was :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it. It looked under control by the time I did though... :) DBD 10:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can be a bit like that some times... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Email, you have one. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you & Steven, want me to stay away from British & Irish political articles 'or' wish to recommend a topic-ban? I'll accept that arrangement. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we will be recommending a topic ban. The three of us will talk it through before too long, just chill out for a little while. DBD 20:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/I - GoodDay

FYI, [1]. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Completing templates

DBD, I notice you quite often leave a gap in your templates: I guess because you use British History on-line (which often takes one up to about 1865) and then obviously the more modern ones which will come up in a Google Search. I cannot believe such a well edcutated person as yourself is not a member of a library. Most libraries then allow you to link Who's Who on-line and various newspaper archives such as The Times and 19th Century Newspapers on-line. I still fall short sometimes. The one I am stuck on at the moment is the Archdeacon of Sarum between 1998 and 2004- I find these modern gaps are often people who have become Roman Catholics Bashereyre (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC) PS If you'd spent as many hours in the Guildhall Library (City of London) wading through pages and pages of people with the same name you'd know why I have no objection to middle names.

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Booth (priest)

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 Robert Booth (priest) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've recreated the page. I don't know why it was deleted in the first place. That first article may not have been a great article, but there are other articles with much less which have not been culled. Some users are a bit too zealous deleting things. All they had to do was to identify it as a stub. Hopefully this new page with survive this time. Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Scriv. I'm not sure what happened there, really... DBD 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on whether Robert Booth (priest) should be moved to "Robert Booth (deacon)" since sources only mention he was ordained a deacon, not a priest. Or perhaps to "Robert Booth (dean of Bristol)" since that was his highest office? Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would be tempted to assume he was priested because he held office as an archdeacon and, a mere two weeks ago, General Synod rejected attempts to change Canon Law to allow deacons to exercise the ministry of an archdeacon. I think it might be reasonable to conclude from that that it may have been unlawful for quite some time... What do you think? DBD 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about that Canon Law. We'll have to assume he was ordained a priest at an unknown date later. Best to leave the page where it is. Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Antony Bridge (artist)

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 Antony Bridge (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites 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 belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bgwhite (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category moves

Please use the WP:CFD process rather than manually moving categories such as you did from Category:Provosts of Portsmouth to Category:Provosts and Deans of Portsmouth. Tim! (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Dean of Southwark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Southwark

Dean of Southwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Southwell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll delve a bit deeper

Re Edward Bowles Knottesford-Fortescue I'll see what the good people at Lambeth Palace Library can come up with Bashereyre (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Ian Cundy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Peterborough

Kenneth Stevenson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Portsmouth

Roy Williamson (bishop) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Southwark

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Basher replies

Did not realise that about the Template Barnstaple Archdeaconry (Exeter seems to be the same) Sometimes Archdeacons are allowed to remain Ven (emiterus); and if they die in post were a Ven to the day of their death; likewise an Archbishop reverts to Bishop until given the title Archbishop Emiterus By all means follow me: there is some very sloppy work out there that I try to rectify ie the incomplete lists of Archdeacons, because people took what was an easy source, British History On-line which tend to go up to about 1860 and did not have the patience to trawl through The Times 19th Century Newspapers and Genuki (which are available to anyone with a public library card) or the requisite Crockfords/Who's Whos/Debretts (which are mine; or Portsmouth City Libraries) It takes a lot for me to admit defeat, as I had to for the DOD for Arthur Frederick Ward I am principally a historian, and therefore do get a bit puzzled with references to Cosmo Lang and other attempts to bring the informality of the 21st Century to ancient clerics. But live and let live Wikipedia is a great vehicle but it does get some odd ideas (the current Old Fooians debate being an example) Let me see a superb article you have created (or someone you look up to) I'll go from there Bashereyre (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And another thing

The succ boxes are really helpful to many of our site users, and as a teacher I often use them to give a quick overview of a person: most recently, Winston Churchill. I shall continue to put them in. What is more if I was to follow your example with one of those incomplete templates I would be none the wiser, wheras with, say, the succ boxes for the suffragan bishops you can usually navigate backwards and forwards along aline of incumbenst in a few seconds

Simon Barrington-Ward

Thanks for your high-quality infobox makeover. [2] I'm particularly impressed by your colourful plain-text reconstruction of the portrait in the alt-text field. Deryck C. 21:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. When you recently edited Ronald Bowlby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Southwark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philip Down

The article Philip Down has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Athleek123 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please move "Sources" to "References". Thanks, Athleek123 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, you what? So an article would get deleted because its sources aren't in-line? Or because it has no section called "References"? It wouldn't be correct to call the Sources section "References", because References is for just that – in-line references. DBD 07:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed PROD banner and added {{linkrot}} to it. Thank you! Yasht101 :) 08:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tips for Athlook123;

You cannot PROD it because the editor uses source inplace of references.

You can have {{subst:prod blp}} when there in no third party source to vrify the content. In short, if the article has any link to reliable source, then you cannot PROD it.

For any questions, feel free to ask me. I am here to help. Thank you and Happy editing! Yasht101 :) 08:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope that I have solved this dispute. Yasht101 :) 08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've turned the bare link into something more like a full reference – am I okay to have removed the linkrot hatnote? DBD 10:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Its good to see you improving it. But it is still linkrot. Bare URL means the references or sources that are not in <ref> URL </ref>

Please have a look at this:Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_place_an_inline_citation_using_ref_tags

Once you have followed the instructions in the above link, you can remove linkrot. For now, I have readded it so that if another editor sees it, then they can improve if you do not. Thank you! Yasht101 :) 13:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. I usually use inline citations when adding small chunks of content to established articles. But here, I have created an entire article from those two sources – should I <ref> every fact? There would be a dozen occurrences of two sources! DBD 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. There is solution for that also. Have a look at this: Repeted References

That will solve your problem. Yasht101 :) 14:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been here over 6 years and made almost 40,000 edits – do you really think I haven't heard of repeating references? No, what I mean is that is reference would be repeated a dozen or more times, littering the prose with inline references when the list of sources would serve just as well (and more elegantly)... DBD 15:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you cannot do that, then atleast place the ref tags at the end of every paragraph. Unless you do that, the article will be linkrot. Yasht101 :) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand exactly what linkrot is – the sources contain author, publisher and date. There's nothing in the linkrot policy at all necessitating in-line citations. I think we'll be fine to leave it as is and remove the hatnote, cheers. DBD 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just wanted to stop by and apologize for all this. I didn't know and will be more careful next time. Thanks, Athleek123 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that it is okay to remove linkrot, then you may do it. I dont mind now.

Its okay Athleek123. You are atleast not violating any policices. You will not belive but I was warned twice in January 2012, 2 months ago to be blocked as I was a very bad new commer, but I learned from my mistakes and now I warn other users who violate rules. You are on the right track but just u need is a little more understanding of things in Wikipedia. All the best for your WikiJurney! Yasht101 :) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Christian Union (students)#Who can join

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Christian Union (students)#Who can join. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans

Toughest thing about'em? One has to rvt his/her correct edits, as I just had to relating to the British throne line of succession. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does one have to do that?! That damages the 'paedia... DBD 11:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I edited articles yesterday, that I wasn't suppose to. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)