Jump to content

User talk:GrindtXX/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GrindtXX. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work!

At antiquarian and elsewhere. I'd put something - anything- on your user page, as it turns the link blue & makes you look more respectable. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There, you see! Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

congrtulations on your new-found respectability!

The Blue-link Respectability Award
Awarded to mark your new-found respectability resulting from placing something (anything) on your userpage, thus making it a bluelink. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Auxiliary sciences of history

Hi GrindtXX, good job expanding this article, but I'm not sure removing the only reference there was was a good idea. If you can provide better sources, then it'd be great, but partial and obscure references are better than no references at all. Unless, of course, you're not finished working on this article yet. — Kpalion(talk) 22:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kpalion. I haven't seen the encyclopedia article, but my feeling was that it probably didn't have much in it beyond a (partial) list of 'auxiliary sciences', which was being amended as this list grew; and that fuller bibliographical references for the various topics would appear in the specific articles to which there are links. However, I take your point, so I've put it back in, but moved its location. I've also added to the list, but I'm not planning to do much more on this article. - GrindtXX (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pausanias (geographer)

Thank you for deleting the dumb "citation needed" tag at Pausanias (geographer). I'm so tired of seeing these attached to sentences like "Orpheus is a figure from Greek mythology" and other utterly uncontroversial statements. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

English county histories

Thanks for working on the article. I'll be filling in redlinks from the DNB gradually (always part of the plan), but I won't get in your way. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Willey Reveley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria (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) 10:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Jaywick Martello Tower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seaford (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) 10:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

North Staffordshire Regiment

Great photo of the 1st Battalion officers. I've been looking for a copy of that book for ages without success :-( There are two, Lyon & Ridgeway who appear in the other photo as well having been with the 2nd Battalion in India pre-war. NtheP (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The officer whose name can't be decyphered, I think might be 2nd Lt Hubert Francis Patry see the Army List here page 181. The list gives his commissioning date as 20 September 1911, however his Medal Index card says he died on 13 September 1914 having been found shot in hospital (1st Eastern General) in Cambridge. Suicide possibly? NtheP (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That does look very plausible on handwriting grounds: congratulations on the detective work. Sounds like a tragic story. I got most of the names by checking signatures against the list in the book of officers who embarked on 8 September, but there were a few variations. You'll see that one which was a partial guess was 2nd Lt Hill: he isn't on the embarkation list, but is mentioned a page or two later as having been killed in Sept 1914: no initials, unfortunately, but the signature does look like Hill.
I'll be adding a few more references from the book shortly. GrindtXX (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone elsewhere dug up this list of the officers of 1st Battalion in 1913 when stationed in Cork. No Hill but Patry is there. NtheP (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Croydon College

Thanks for your guardianship of the integrity of this page in the face of regular assaults from a marketing manager or similar. I've put in a request for protection and it is now semi-protected for a month. asnac (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Carl Menckhoff

BTW, did you ever get a source for the month and day he died?

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, actually – haven't seen that anywhere. GrindtXX (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it came from somewhere. I will keep an eye out for it. If we are going to use it, we should cite it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Congratulations, GrindtXX, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!

Thank you for all your hard work categorizing, copyediting, and improving articles in the encyclopedia. Keep it up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: her her

Damn! You're right, I got carried away by the doubling of pronouns without checking thoroughly. Sorry the time that I made you lose, I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks, --Eumolpo (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Market Town Status

Thanks for the feedback on my questions re market town status. Since I asked the questions I've also found the Gazetteer (through the National Archives) which I've now added as a citation on the market town article. I'm on a personal quest to categorise the market towns in Kent and East Sussex, motivated by a desire to move to one when we retire from London in a few years, so thanks for your help in making my life better, too! Cheers, p.r.newman (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Old UCL logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Philipot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Registrar (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) 12:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your excellent copy edits to Frederick Keel. Quite made my day! Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Text publication societies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish (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) 11:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Percy Hartley. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 08:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch!

Good catch here! Goodness only knows how long that's been wrong - well spotted! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, BRD, enforcement of policy

I think you're very confused about the difference between an edit war, WP:BRD and enforcement of WP:BLP policies. I'd strongly encourage you to read up on them. Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lincoln Record Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln (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) 11:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

King's MS

Thanks for putting in King's manuscripts, British Library, which I've only just noticed - I've dug up an illustration for it, a rather nice Italian MS of Cicero. (Excuses to go searching the illuminated manuscripts on a Friday afternoon are always eagerly received!)

If you do find yourself writing on any more of the collection, please do let me know if you think there's any help I can provide from the BL.

Thanks, and happy new year, Andrew Gray (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

North Staffordshire Regiment redux

Hi again, can I ask a favour. Can you check out the History of the 1st & 2nd Battalions and see what mentions there are of W D Stamer. I know he was commissioned into the 1st Battalion on 19 Aug 1914 so presumably he went to France with the battalion in September. he got an MC in 1917 and finished the war as a Captain but I'm trying to flesh things out further for an article on him I've started at my sandbox. It would be great if there are any images of him. He went on to be a divisional commander in WW2 and ended up as a Maj-Gen and GOC Sudan. Thanks. NtheP (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I'm pretty certain his MC is 1917 but I haven't located the Gazette citation yet. Found it, wasn't gazetted until September 1918 so looks like it was in connection with March 1918. NtheP (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

1500s - a digression

This edit is fine, but the edit summary isn't wholly correct. See for example 1800s. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GrindtXX. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology#US_Flags_and_Seals.
Message added 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people with reduplicated names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Hughes (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) 10:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#US Flags and Seals

It's started back up again, do you want to weigh in here. Somebody objected to our solution and partly undid one of the merges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical Archive of the City of Cologne

Hello GrindtXX, thank you so much for copyediting and your kind remarks on my talk page. That's how I like Wikipedia :-) Regards, --elya (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I do hope

that when you are in a disagreement with another editor about the scope of an article you are not always in the habit of simply re-writing the lede to support your POV without any sources or references to back it up. This is what in my household is called bad feng shui. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Public school (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page If... (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) 12:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Badges of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Society of Antiquaries (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) 11:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Naval and Military Club 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:
  • also be worn". Like many London gentlemen's clubs it has also opened its membership to women.]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Double-headed eagle

Greetings!

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Double-headed eagle#Further comments regarding which images should be included in the image gallery at Double-headed eagle#Examples. As the current discussion is between only two editors (myself a Direktor), I think the discussion would benefit from the opinion of another editor. I hope you will revisit the page and offer your comments. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heraldic visitation

Thanks for your great work on Heraldic visitation. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my edit on Samuel Ayscough. I was just going through and purging the pages with the {{library-bio-stub}} template to update a new image in the template and didn't mean to change anything on any page. I have a script on my browser that automatically converts foreign currencies to USD and I believe it might have messed up the page when I was editing it by deleting any mentions of money. I'll have to be more careful... Thanks again for catching my mistake. —Mono·nomic 19:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Lyttelton (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) 08:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Record Commission

It's about time we had this article! I suggest you develop it considerable. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The boy Jones 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:
  • architect." — {{cite book |last=Raikes |first=Thomas |authorlink=Thomas Raikes (dandy) |year=1857) |title=A Portion of the Journal Kept by Thomas Raikes, Esq., from 1831 to 1847 |publisher=Longman,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Thomson (advocate) 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:
  • Jeffrey]] and other projectors of the ''Edinburgh Review'', Thomson contributed three papers (on [[Erasmus Darwin]]'s ''Temple of Nature'' (1803); [[Anna Seward]]'s ''Memories of the Past'' (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: John Philipot

Here are your options.

  1. You can find an appropriate article to which to link the word "Registrar".
  2. You can link the word to the Wiktionary entry, wikt:registrar.
  3. You can unlink the word.
  4. You can make it an intentional disambiguation link, per WP:INTDABLINK, by piping the link to Registrar (disambiguation).

Choose wisely. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, cheers again! bd2412 T 01:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DNB antiquarians

I have just done a topical list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Antiquarians, and thought it might be of interest to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

I am new to Wikipedia and this was my first contribution to a page. I wrote about the Panopticon because I had learned about it in class, and wanted to share that knowledge with anyone that was interested. You are right, however, that I focused more on my contribution as having a separate identity rather than integrating it with the already existing identity of the Panopticon page. I would also agree with you that my contribution has a lot of detail. I read the Panopticism page due to your suggestion, but do not agree that my contribution would fit in because the Panopticism page talks only about Foucault's, Discipline and Punish. I feel that my contribution, which does not talk about Faucault at all, would not be congruent with that information. Perhaps I should create a page of my own that solely discusses IT as a new Panopticon. Thank you again for your feedback. I will consider it in any future contributions I decide to make.

Dorin1234 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching and correcting my error on Herald. A good reminder about WikiData as well. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Francis Palgrave 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:
  • Summons'' (2 volumes, 1827 and 1834; including in vol. 2 a text of ''[[Nomina Villarum]]'')) and ''Rotuli Curiae Regis: Rolls and Records of the Court held before the King's Justiciars or

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of Westminster 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:
  • are plans restoring it as a public cinema, while also maintaining its use as a lecture theatre).<ref>{{cite web|title=Birthplace of British Cinema|url=http://www.birthplaceofcinema.com/project/|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacuna (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) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carl Menckhoff may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • {{reflist|30em}}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bunhill Fields 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:
  • *[[John Macgowan]] 1726–1780), Scottish Baptist minister and author

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Spam?

How is this edit spam? It's simply adding a link to the homepage in the infobox. Please be more careful in your reversions. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Westminster Pollution History.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Westminster Pollution History.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Doomsday 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:
  • ''[[Sigma Force|The Doomsday Key]]'' (2009), a novel in the Sigma Force series by [James Rollins]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Haha It's funny how you responded to my addition on Editcountitis, And your userbox says it all.I totally agree with you, do not put two spaces.Cheers! Chamith (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Too and also

Hi GrindtXX, as a native English speaker of some 60+ years, with a book and many articles in scholarly journals (in English) to my name, let me suggest that "too" is completely correct, and colloquial, if a touch more formal than "also". Still, your changes sidestep the issue reasonably neatly. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Find My Past

We may disagree about the weight (if any) to be given to the former "controversy" section in this article but it seems to me from the history that this article is under attack from multiple single purpose accounts (and possible socks) with a grudge against them. What do you think? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Exchequer of the Jews

I've reverted your removal on Exchequer of the Jews -- if you go to the page you linked to, you'll find it was the student's own essay, and Moglen encouraged him to post it here. Jheald (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong!

How do you know that? For example, when it rains and is not so warm, it feels better. Therefore, a change for a more gloomy weather might be called its improvement, which contrasts your description. And vice versa: for example, when it does not rain, it is easier to do some work in open air, as the nicety of the day does not interfere with working. So indeed, the locution “the weather improved” could mean many different things, and it's unclear which one is meant in this particular context (evaluating the local views in different days). Also, some views may look better in a sunny day, and other views may look better when there is no sun, and yet other views may look only good when it rains. Also, evaluation of views in different days depends on personal tastes or simply on the mood. So, the wording is indeed unclear. It tells no more than a simple “the weather changed”. - 91.122.8.150 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Really liked your article about Quaker Gardens, very well written! LethalFlower (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

List of archivists

I was developing [1] so 'the corrections turned up'; if you wish to make use of [2] or [3] feel free. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As I don't want to dislocate the table can you add a link to Archival bond against the relevant names on the list please. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Done (hope that's what you had in mind). I'll try to fill out some of the other entries a bit as well. GrindtXX (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Magna Carta 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:
  • *[[William de Ferrers, 4th Earl of Derby|William) de Ferrers, Earl of Derby]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to River Fleet 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:
  • the crossing over the river known as Fleet Bridge, and is now the site of [[Ludgate Circus]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

...for wading into the deep end at Talk:Magna Carta while I was offline. I appreciate the help! Maralia (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Kaley Cuoco and incorrect hyphenation

Be aware of WP:QUOTE, which says "If not used verbatim, any alterations ... Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected ..." Chris the speller yack 00:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Conservation articles

Thanks for helping to edit some of them! Keep on keeping on! --RichardMcCoy (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anthony Panizzi 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:
  • of the British Museum – With Notices of its Chief Augmentors and Other Benefactors, 1570–1870] |place=London |publisher=Trübner |page=413 }}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Capitalized "trust"

Hi, I saw where you recapitalized "trust" at Ham House. You are right of course that National Trust, short for National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty is a proper noun, but I generally downcase "trust" when used by itself, the same way I would with "the zoo", "the park", "the mountain", etc. The guidance for that comes from MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Does that make sense to you? Also as an American, I may be missing that "the Trust" in UK English is assumed to refer to the National Trust. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The bit I take from MOS:INSTITUTIONS is "Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form". Although "trust" is, of course, a generic term when used in discussion of legal topics, one would not use it in broader colloquial English. By that I mean that one would not generally refer to the National Trust as a "trust" (whatever its legal status may be); one would call it a "charity" or an "organisation". In the present instance, to write that "Sir Lyonell and his son donated the house and its grounds to the charity" would be perfectly acceptable (and if you feel really strongly about this, I would have no objection to that change); but to write "... to the Trust" can only be a short form of "... the National Trust". To refer to "... the trust" looks wrong. GrindtXX (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Foreign relations of Guinea may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • [[Republic of Korea]] and Guinea were established on 28 August 2006. The number of South Koreans]] living in Guinea in 2011 was 70.<ref>http://www.mofa.go.kr/ENG/countries/middleeast/countries/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Spaces

Please don't do that again: the edit was to return the article to the state it was prior to its main page appearance - and the version that passed FAC. The spaces are not needed, and no further reversion is required. - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Carey, Lady Berkeley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nibley. 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) 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

3rd Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom)

GrindtXX, just to say that I reverted your edit on 3rd Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom) as I believe that even if a References section is empty, it should remain in place in the expectation that it will be used in due course. Prompted me to do a bit of work on the article. Hamish59 (talk) 09:04, 29 October 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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

London Borough templates: tube and rail stations discussion open

Hello and a Happy Christmas. Thanks for your recent contributions, improving London's coverage. I would like to invite you to: Category talk:London borough templates.- Adam37 Talk 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 May

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, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Amenity society

Re this edit: I changed the capitalisation to all lower case because that's what the title, the lead section and the following section use - that is, the entire article except for that one section. By comparison, the article Building society consistently uses sentence case, except in names of organisations and the short titles of Acts of Parliament. If you think consensus would support the capitalisation you reverted to, you should move the article to Amenity Society. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Err, um. I just realised what it is you actually said. The phrase is "National Amenity Society". Still, according to MOS:CAPS, "Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals". I submit that "amenity society" falls under this rule. Note that Wikipedia generally doesn't slavishly follow the formatting used in its sources. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Hairy Dude Yes. My argument is that "amenity society" is certainly a generic term, covering hundreds of local societies, which should not be capitalised; but that the "National Amenity Societies" is the title of a specific official (or semi-official) grouping of 6 leading societies, recognised by planning legislation. Maybe the section needs a bit of reworking to make that clearer. However, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. GrindtXX (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GrindtXX. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 December

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) 00:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Damad Ali-Paša's Turbeh

Hi GrindtXX. You moved my article [Chippendale Society] some time ago, for which, thanks. I'd be glad if you'd do the same to this article as I don't know how. The correct spelling is "Damat", not "Damad", (redirects here). Thanks again. MarkDask 01:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, and for the advice on my page. I will of course do the "in text" corrections myself. MarkDask 02:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

OED

Hi GrindtXX. When you went to revert Reeves315's "watermelon" edit he had already reverted it (typical test edit). You therefore reverted his reversion - ie put it back! I've removed it now, but thanks for trying to clean up messes like this. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Lesbian rule

Hello, sorry for my wrong edit on Lesbian rule. You’re right. But I’m not totally wrong : my source was the French edition in Wikisource. The division in books and chapters isn’t always the same. Thanks. --Morburre (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Panopticon

Apologies. I had thought I'd checked it properly but I had both Millbank prison & this page open ..& it was past my bed time. Regards JRPG (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sea Hero Quest

Thanks for the update - having played the game, and created the WP article (in fact, looking at it, no-one else edited it at all until yourself today), I had occasionally wondered how the project went! Really good to read about it, and to see the article brought up to date too. PamD 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Block appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GrindtXX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appear to have been blocked by User:Berean Hunter, with no reason given other than "Block evasion...long term trolling and socking on this range". I have no idea what has triggered this. I am a longstanding good-faith editor, have almost always edited under this username, have never previously been blocked (under this or any other username), and have never been involved in any "trolling", "socking" or serious edit-warring incidents. I edit from various computers, including some that are shared public computers, and it is possible that the block relates to the IP address of one of those.

Accept reason:

  • This account is not directly blocked, so it will indeed be a block on the IP address. If you let us know the exact message you get, including the IP address, someone will be able to check it (and if you don't want to reveal your IP address and therefore your location, please follow the directions at WP:UTRS). Alternatively, you could just avoid using the problematic public IP to edit Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Range contribs - someone who persistently trolls our boards and tries to hound folks likes to hop IP's in this range. What triggered my recent block was this but they are persistent in this range. Other examples include this, this and this to name a few. This range is now hardblocked to prevent this person from avoiding scrutiny and IP hopping.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Message reads: "Editing from 31.52.138.0/24 has been blocked (disabled) by Berean Hunter for the following reason(s): Block evasion...long term trolling and socking on this range. This block has been set to expire: 23:36, 17 April 2018." As I say, I edit from several computers, but this block appears to relate to my home computer: I assume, therefore, that the problematic editor is somebody in my geographical vicinity. I almost always edit under my username, and have only ever occasionally edited anonymously (i.e. using IP address only) when I have forgotten to log on, something I don't believe has happened for at least 2 years. GrindtXX (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You may be a candidate for WP:IPBE. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this userright to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Broad arrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barb. 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) 10:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Journals

@GrindtXX: If you're going to insert a journal link as you did in this edit, consider linking all the other journals cited in the article that have Wikipedia pages, for uniformity. I don't see the point of linking a single instance of a journal name in a citation when there are many other similar instances of other journals in the article. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style dates

The recent edit you made to Old Style and New Style dates reverted to an addition made by a banned editor. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And your point is? Irrespective of the identity of the editor, the edit in question was indubitably valid and should not have been reverted. GrindtXX (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
See Ban and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change for context.
"Irrespective of the identity of the editor, the edit in question was indubitably valid and should not have been reverted". That is not correct see Bans apply to all editing, good or bad.
-- PBS (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So you are arguing that a blatant grammatical error – in this case, the lack of a full stop at the end of a sentence – should be left uncorrected, merely because the first person to have spotted and corrected it happens to have been a banned editor? Do you really believe that is Wikipedia policy? GrindtXX (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That is what the section Bans apply to all editing, good or bad in the Banning policy states. It is the major difference between a user account that is indefinitely blocked an one that is banned.
It is a matter of balancing the good done to the project by fixing a grammatical error, against the bad done by allowing such an edit. An example of which is the amount of time wasted discussing it and the banned user who made the edit. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Believe me, I have no intention of wasting any more of my life on this pathetic and vacuous "discussion". As you have now clearly proved your case to your own satisfaction, I will expect you to return to the article to remove the full stop from the sentence, thus making your own little contribution to the degradation of the standards of Wikipedia. GrindtXX (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
In this case the change one way or the other is minor point (literally). I have no intention of reverting you revert, If I had intended to do that, I would have done it and not posted here. Instead I have I presented the policy to you and left it to your judgment to decide what to do. -- PBS (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

OSCOLA

The MOS advocates the use of OSCOLA for article titles about cases from the UK. No statement is made about such format for the content of articles, presumably because articles may refer to cases from more than one court jurisdiction, and it is up to editors of articles to select a style for a particular article and follow that style consistently within the article. Again, the MOS style guide to which you referred only advised for the titles of articles, not for content text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for edit help

Hello GrindtXX - I'm an employee of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. We are searching for editors to review our proposed changes to the IISS page, which address the fact the page is insubstantial and contains slight inaccuracies. I see you have edited another foreign policy think tank in recent months (the Royal United Services Institute) - would you be interested in looking over our page? Thanks for taking the time to read my message. Craig. BurnettIISS (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A bunch of strawberries for you!

National Buildings Record - Useful redirect, proper job :) Dysklyver 13:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Haydn Gwynne

I'm uncomfy with this edit. It's very Orwellian if topics of articles can just edit out facts they don't like. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but the fact is that this info is not in the cited source (from 2015, which refers merely to "teenage sons, Orlando, aged 17, and 14-year-old Harry"); and – per WP:BLP – we do need to be cautious about adding personal details of this kind. The info shouldn't have been there in the first place without a proper citation. GrindtXX (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
What the iP said "it is information I don't want people who know me/my mother to know" doesn't even make sense if he had really changed his name as presumably the people who know him and his mother already know his old name since he would have had it for 17 years until the IP first claimed a name change a few months ago. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GrindtXX. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rot Lot Pat

Thank you very much for your help on my query at Letters Patent. If I may pray/prey further on your good nature [and I won't be surprised if you can't make time to reply], I found the reference at nealography.com and it just takes me further down the rabbit hole! Any idea what litteris attestatis apud 129 might mean? [I guess the first two words are 'letter cited' but apud? And cited where? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: apud is just "at", and attestatis is more like "attested", "certified"; so the phrase means something like "letters issued at ..." – but one would expect that to conclude with a place-name, not a page number. Are you sure you've read your source right? I've also looked at the entry on nealography.com, and the document in question wasn't actually a market charter, merely a document that King John happened to issue at Stony Stratford (presumably while passing through). I'm not completely sure of the details, but it's addressed by John to the mayor and reeves of Northampton, and is about Godfrey Blundus, who is in custody accused of the death of Roger Hareng ... and after that I get a bit lost (I think John is ordering that he should be tried by the royal justices-in-eyre, but I'm not sure). However, I guess this is probably a side-issue as far as you're concerned. GrindtXX (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you GrindtXX. I guessed (incorrectly, it seems) that it was referring back to another document. You have done more than enough so I won't ask for more. But what you have found is consistent with a report I heard that a local amateur historian had tried to find the fabled charter and was unable to do so. That is consistent with your reading. Clearly the VCH lacked keen editors checking citations . Well, so what if the citation is a bit dubious despite its excellent credentials - history is written by the victors. Thank you again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Theses

Hi, GrindtXX. Regarding your recent edit to John Blair (historian), I figured I'd let you know that the titles of theses are usually italicized on Wikipedia (as they are in APA style). MOS:ITALICS provides that the titles major works are italicized and that the "[m]edium of publication or presentation is not a factor" with respect to italicization. This is reflected in {{cite thesis}} and {{infobox academic}}. Cheers, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Polydore Vergil

Why bother with the archaic spelling and grammar? Most modern readers are turned off by needlessly arcane spelling. This is not a translation by Shakespeare, so we're not sacrificing genius. Let's be approachable instead of punctilious, condescending, and effete.

Rosspz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.190.144 (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's rather "condescending" to assume that the reader is a moron, who hasn't got the wit to make sense of something written in non-standard spelling. However, the more important point is that there is an unambiguous Manual of Style guideline, which I cited (MOS:PMC), stating that "the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced", and should "retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization". If our cited source modernises the spelling, so do we. But if it doesn't, we don't. GrindtXX (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert.

Thanks for reverting me at Blazon. You are quite right.--Srleffler (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hilary Jenkinson

Thanks for the spot. Usually when I see a potentially gender-neutral name like that I double-check, but this one slipped my notice. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Like-Minded Persons' Club (provisional membership award)

"Dreaming the same Impossible Dream"
The Like-Minded Persons' Club
For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.

(Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think? And, as Bruce Chatwin said, Arguments are fatal. One always forgets what they are about)

Congratulations. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why 153 fish ?

Hello GrindtXX, I saw that you have deleted my post on the page [1] because it was copypasted and lacked references. Therefore, I did researches by myself and except the Milesian code I can't produce any references. The text was copypasted because I edited it first on word, then I added it on Wikipédia. I would glad to talk to you to give you more information about my research since it's a long mystery which was waiting to be solved. User:Gataram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gataram (talk • contribs) 12:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_catch_of_fish
I reverted your additions strictly on the grounds of Wikipedia policies and conventions. Your ideas appear to be based on your own speculation and research, and therefore count as "original research", which Wikipedia does not allow (see WP:OR). My reference to copypasting was based on the tone of your language, which was (again) speculative and conversational, rather than "encyclopedic" (i.e. precise, factual, and concise), and looked as if it might have been copied (without attribution) from a theological essay or something similar. The article already states that "many conflicting theories [have] been offered" for the significance of the number 153. If you want to go into a little more detail about some of those theories, with full references to the writers who have proposed them (see WP:VERIFY) that would probably be acceptable (although I think that the article on 153 (number) might be a better place than this one). You should also be aware that Wikipedia disapproves of giving disproportionate emphasis to minority "fringe" theories (see WP:FRINGE); and there has in the past been much discussion about the inclusion of such theories in this article (see Talk:Miraculous catch of fish). If the research and arguments are truly your own, there are other places – ranging from print journals to blogs – where you can publish your ideas. Wikipedia is not the place to start. GrindtXX (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Thanks for your answer. I understand your argumentation and I will check carefully Wikipedia's polities in my future publication. Therefore, if I write the same article again (in the talk page instead of article one) are you going to revert it again because of copypast or something ?
Actually, I would like to share my discover in order to inform biblical theology's specialists. It could open new horizons that were inexplorated until now. As a Father myself, I received a lot of encouragement of my religious community to publish my discovery.
As I said earlier, this research was written on a other support (word). So I can't produce at the moment an "official" approuvement to it. In the case I send my theorie to the Biblical School of Jerusalem and this one is judged acceptable, will it be enough for the references ? Gataram (talk)
I apologise for not responding to your last message. I would indeed strongly encourage you to publish your detailed findings and arguments in an appropriate forum elsewhere. Once you have done that (and provided that the forum in question is sufficiently reputable to meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source) you would be welcome to add your conclusions, with a reference, to either Miraculous catch of fish or 153 (number) (or both), and I would be unlikely to revert. GrindtXX (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

re: George Dawson

Thanks for contacting me. I welcome the feedback. I assure you that I take on the task of editing VERY seriously. When I received your message, I went back to review what happened. I recently began using AWB and have been experimenting with the settings. You happend to have made your edit -reinserting the religion parameter in a different infobox - before I updated the list I was working from, which ID's those articles with the parameter in the Infobox Person. For the record, long before I made my initial edit, Geroge Dawson's religion has unviewable in the article. For well over a year it has not only been unviewable, but the code in the edit window creates an error message in the system which ultimately appears here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Infobox_person_using_religion I'm just removing the code from the edit window. Gene Wilson (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh

Hello fellow Wikipedian,

I admit I was not able to give my argument on the tags I put so I put a new section on the Talk page.

Cheers!

Allenjambalaya (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

KES Mark Fenton

He will be leaving on 31 August, see https://kes.org.uk/2018/08/22/, so yes, you are right it is premature. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Avetik Chalabyan article up for deletion

Hi GrindtXX! About 2 years ago I wrote a biography of a living person article [Chalabyan]. The article has been recently marked as up for deletion. Any advice on why this might be happening, how to address it or what to improve would really be appreciated. Obviously, your vote as an experienced editor on Wiki would really go a long way to make sure it's not deleted.

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

Alice Ananian (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Croydon Palace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Country Life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GrindtXX. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Iron gall ink

If the Fountain Pen Network reference is good enough for Wikipedia I do not know. Google 'Platinum iron gall' and it will yield quite some video, images and articles and vendor offerings regarding the 'Classic' ink line of Platinum Pen. The ink behaviour Platinum describes on its own website does tick the typical iron gall ink for fountain pens boxes. Remind most other iron gall inks for fountain pens are not referenced at all in the article. I added another reference regarding such inks.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean?

(Restored quotation: you didn't "cut it down", you cut it entirely. It's the only detailed description we have of how the building actually worked. If you don't like the long quote (and I don't particularly), it should at least be paraphrased, and probably the reference retained. And the separate system wasn't really the same as solitary confinement.)

No panopticon was ever built, how can a secondary source quote be a description of "how the building actually worked". Its not about long quotes or not, we have a quote from Betham on how this building was suppose to work. What is the value of a paraphrase.--DroidBishop (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Bentham put considerable time and effort into devising (and then revising) the technicalities and practicalities of a structure in which the inmates were, or might be, under constant observation, while the observers remained invisible. We don't need to go into all the detail that he did, but the reader may want more than the current vague "by blinds and other contrivances". The Bartons' elucidation of the depth and backlighting of the cells, and the "maze-like connections", seems highly relevant and of an appropriate length, though I'm not bothered as to whether it's presented as a quotation or a paraphrase. GrindtXX (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

File:CNHSS logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yanks Go Home, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan MacNaughton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

John Florio

University of Michigan has placed a photographic copy of the original work Second Frutes, used as the reference, online. Whereas compositors' spelling of the time isn't necessarily consistent it *is* the original work and it's definitely "Italiane". Frances Yates, the "go to" scholar for Florio extensively referenced in the article, goes with "Italiane". Bear in mind that the article has been "Italiane" since 2011, rather than yesterday's fly-by edit into "Italiano". I'm minded to revert again (while staying on the right side of WP:3RR) citing the photographic facsimile. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Almeida Theatre

Just a coincidence, not stalking.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Romanbow135

Do you have a take on how legitimate this user's edits are regarding areas of east London? They've been moving paragraphs of text from one area article to another (eg. from Bow to Bromley-by-Bow) and changing the described locations given for buildings, for some time now and all without explanation. I don't know east London well enough to judge how accurate or useful this all is. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

My impression is the edits are good faith but poorly informed, and that the user tends to be motivated by quantity rather than quality. The ones I've been looking at have mostly been around the Shoreditch/Spitalfields/Brick Lane/Bethnal Green area, where he/she has made a number of edits tinkering with precise definitions of boundaries, which I've been deeply suspicious of but not quite confident enough of my ground to be prepared to revert (it would need an in-depth knowledge of precisely how historic parish boundaries map onto modern local government areas, which I don't have). He/she sometimes deletes quite substantial blocks of text without explanation, e.g. here. His/her changes are frequently often sloppy, to say the least, from a grammatical point of view – e.g. extending existing sentences into impossibly convoluted and incomprehensible longer sentences. I also suspect him/her of being a sock of another mildly disruptive editor, Taytay95, who seems to edit a very similar range of articles in a very similar way: look e.g. at this short paragraph on the cat cafe in Shoreditch, introduced by Taytay95 on 14 June, removed by Taytay on 17 June, reintroduced by Romanbow135 on 14 July, removed again by Romanbow on 19 July, and reintroduced by Romanbow on 21 July. Or the recent edit history of Leopold Buildings, in which they've both wavered repeatedly over whether it's in Shoreditch or Bethnal Green. GrindtXX (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
And this morning they're back to moving content around without edit summaries. I think you're right about Taytay95. From their overlapping page histories, User:Laytar1 is another user who behaved very similarly to Romanbow (East London boundary changes and whether the "British Empire" fought in WW2, all ignoring requests for edit summaries), to the point where they were indefinitely blocked last year. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1000#Londonergezzer_replacing_nationalities, all accounts and the IP mentioned there having very familiar editing patterns and talk page warnings, and the IP is currently tag-teaming with Roman. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Have since found a bizarre rosetta stone in the Lakeview Estate article, I'll start a sockpuppet investigation into it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
They were immediately confirmed as a sock and blocked. How do we clean this up? This has potentially created a lot of minor stupid damage to Wikipedia's coverage of London, if a single person has been shifting articles back and forth between different regions every few weeks for some mystery reason they never wanted to tell anyone, apparently (from them moving the Lakeview Estate five times in a few months) not even sure themselves which one was right. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Lord Belbury, thanks for instigating the block. I'm still not clear whether this pattern of behaviour is intentionally disruptive or good-faith-but-confused (though it's looking increasingly like the former). All the cases I've seen do seem to be in border areas, where there's some genuine confusion about where the boundaries lie. As I say, the area I'm familiar with is that around Shoreditch/Spitalfelds/Bethnal Green, where the simple way of looking at the issue, using modern London borough boundaries, is that Shoreditch is now part of LB Hackney, while Spitalfields and Bethnal Green are now in LB Tower Hamlets. But it does get more complicated than that, with, for example, Shoreditch High Street railway station lying well inside Tower Hamlets, and historical tweaks to boundaries meaning that areas such as the Boundary Estate, which originally spanned the Shoreditch/Bethnal Green boundary (hence the name), is now largely (or entirely?) in Tower Hamlets, but is commonly perceived as part of Shoreditch (and the area is even identified as "Shoreditch" by LB Tower Hamlets itself [4]). I suspect similar issues apply to your example of Lakeview Estate, which is certainly in Tower Hamlets, and therefore, I'd have thought, in Bow; but which lies north of the Hertford Union Canal, and so might be perceived by some as being in South Hackney (I'm not so sure about Old Ford). We could apply a relatively painless policy of trying to adhere strictly to borough boundaries (which are fairly easy to establish), but ultimately all the articles really need to be reassessed individually by editors with local knowledge. As you say, it's a wide-ranging problem: should we flag it up on WikiProject London? GrindtXX (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't fathom the motive. I could imagine someone disruptively "relocating" major landmarks into their local area to talk it up, but changing locations back and forth over a period of months makes no sense on the surface. Flagging the issue to WikiProject London is a good call. We'd also need to decide what to do about articles like Globe Town, London which were written entirely by this user, I think (although lack of edit summaries makes this hard to check) by moving paragraphs from the Bethnal Green article, and maybe others. --Lord Belbury (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like they're back today as User:Globetownrevival, with some edit summaries but no actual insight into why they're changing anything. I really don't know what to make of edits like this one, where they're saying "Bow Road is in Bow, not Bow Common please kindly do not change this" while reversing an edit made by Romanbow135 a couple of days ago. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I see you've started another sockpuppet investigation, which I would support. I'm coming back to the view that the edits are good-faith but confused and ill-informed, that the editor just doesn't know how to cope with contradictory evidence, and that they're unwilling to educate themselves in basic Wikipedia protocol. I don't think there'd be any case for instigating a comprehensive rollback of their edits – many are perfectly valid – but everything they've worked on should ideally be rechecked by informed editors (which, of course, on a volunteer project is a big ask). I have no fundamental problem with the existence of Globe Town, London – it's a distinct neighbourhood, and worthy of its own article: the article could certainly do with some tidying up, but my only serious criticism is that it should simply be titled Globe Town (currently, and confusingly, a redirect to Bethnal Green). GrindtXX (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
My main concern with the Globe Town article is that it's been a temporary dumping ground for paragraphs from other articles, and we're now leaving it in the arbitrary state it was in when the sockpuppets were blocked. Romanbow's dithering over which borough to put articles in has also manifested in changing his mind over which article to put paragraphs in, with content being shuffled back and forth repeatedly between Globe Town, Bethnal Green, Bow and others over time (and often being cut-and-pasted leaving a void behind, without any summary or mention in the original article). But I guess it just needs a pass from an editor with local knowledge, making the call over whether each paragraph is in the best place, or whether Romanbow has pedantically moved a fundamental Bethnal Green landmark to Globe Town, to the detriment of the Bethnal Green article.
It'd also help to decide whether it's ever useful to locate an article by saying "X is in Globe Town, London" or whether that's too obscure for the typical reader. I think my first encounter with this editor was reading an article opener like that and having no idea where "Globe Town" was, despite knowing London very well, and wondering if this was someone's attempt at another Midtown, London (which Wikipedia appears to have roundly ignored). --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I've posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Bow_/_Bethnal_Green_sockpuppet_cleanup as suggested. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No reaction from the WikiProject, and (as an IP) the sockpuppet editor is continuing to run around east London changing districts to locales to areas and back again as much as before, currently relocating a lot of articles to the Aldgate, Tower Hamlets area, an article they wrote themselves by lifting uncredited paragraphs from other articles. They're also moving some content back out of Globe Town to Spitalfields now. Aside from a brief comment (and lie?) about how they are repairing the mistakes of those pesky sockpuppets at User_talk:Globetownrevival they don't seem interested in discussing what they're doing or why they're doing it. Any advice? --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to 86.161.106.117 – although immediately preceding their arrival, 86.163.220.72 was following a suspiciously similar similar editing pattern. Sorry, no, I don't have any further suggestions – other than to initiate another investigation and block. GrindtXX (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Already did, for both of those IPs. They haven't been processed yet. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now this user's articles (see The Quarterdeck) are being deleted for being created by a banned user, which means we're going to start losing valid content soon, because they never credit when they're moving long-standing content from other articles. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Bow_/_Bethnal_Green_sockpuppet_damage has got no traction in a month. Can you offer any advice there? How to deal with the "it's a district, I mean an area, no wait a region, maybe a peninsula, actually definitely a district" juggling is another question for another day, but we need to make a call on either finding and endorsing with further edits this user's cut-and-paste article creations (so that they don't get deleted as "created by banned user") or moving the uncredited content back to where it was and deleting the articles. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have now left a "supportive" message on the London project page, but I don't really have any positive suggestions of my own. GrindtXX (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Avril Angers

Why alter/ reamend avril angers,it was giving more info on her,i wanted to find out whom that person was in all creatures great and small and I went to great lengths to find out whom it was,,it wasnt disruptive,she was one of the main characters in that episode Drew270 (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)drew270Drew270 (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have copied and responded to this comment on on Talk:Avril Angers. GrindtXX (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Another roguish ,Character that seems tp prey on younger amenders for their own self righiousness,It was a short amendment,thanks for complaining about my edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jeremiah Rotherham & Co

Ref your edit to Jeremiah Rotherham & Co. Thanks for the sarcastic comment: Much of this looks copypasted. Made my day after I had spent weeks researching the subject. I guess it is one way to discourage editors from further participation.

Sidpickle (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

HMS London

Thanks for the edit on the early years. I hadn't spotted that Victory wasn't tied up in the Pool or something! Well done. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Politeness

See Talk:Philippa of Hainault --Edouard2 (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree - egregious boorishness - what do you propose doing? Roy Bateman (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I politely but firmly asked another editor to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines in providing sources for changes, in providing edit summaries, in desisting from edit-warring, and, where there was potentially contradictory evidence, in discussing the issue. The other editor responded by accusing me of being "hysterical". I chose not to rise to the bait. GrindtXX (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Line Breaks

I'm genuinly puzzled by your (and others) firm position on this subject as per your recent revert on the Laugharne article - is it not simply a matter of preference? Please see Wikipedia_talk:Line_breaks_usage Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: If you look at any piece of prose text, in print or online, it is usually divided for the reader's convenience into paragraphs. Paragraphs are generally separated from one another by a line of blank space. The depth of the line varies according to the typographical standard being followed, and where space is at a premium (in a newspaper, for example) there may be no blank line at all. In any text, however, there is a typographical standard, and all paragraphs are treated uniformly. Very occasionally – mainly in legal or quasi-legal documents, or in highly structured technical texts – a paragraph may be divided into subsections (or sub-paragraphs) that use a lesser form of division, with the blank line reduced or omitted; but such subsections are routinely also distinguished by being numbered or lettered. In standard prose there is simply no precedent, anywhere, for a text that separates most of its paragraphs with blank lines, but that at whim employs the sort of sub-paragraph – involving a line-break but no blank line – that you seem to wish to introduce in the present instance. I am genuinely astonished that you, who appear to be literate and educated, have never noticed this. If you can point me towards any such precedent I will happily eat my keyboard.
The <br> syntax exists for certain rather exceptional circumstances: for example, to introduce a "paragraph" break into a subsidiary piece of text, such as a blockquote or a footnote, where a blank line would appear intrusive; or to allow the presentation of lists, or transcripts of inscriptions, or pieces of verse, where it is desired to separate the text into distinct lines, but not to separate them excessively with extra blank lines. It might also be used for the sort of "legal" sub-paragraphs mentioned above. However, no such circumstances apply here.
The Talk page to which you refer above is actually largely considering a rather different issue (though admittedly it gets a bit confused in places). This is the practice of some editors, within the source (editing) text, to manually insert single-line breaks within paragraphs in order to separate different parts of the text (for example, to separate each sentence). Like the various pieces of code employed in editing, such breaks become invisible on the front screen, which the reader sees, where the paragraph will appear as a single block of text; but they remain visible to anyone opening the source text on the edit screen. There are arguments for and against the practice, but it has no relevance to the present issue. GrindtXX (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Appearances can be deceptive I'm told ;-) My view about the judicious use of line breaks to preserve semiotic continuity is a relic of my NUJ apprenticeship some 60 years ago.
For a week I was put in the care of a linotype setter who could proof read reversed blocked matrices quicker than I could read my Beano. His stated aim was always to contain sentences, wherever possible, so they were within complete lines - thereby reducing wasted space and improving readability. I commend his view to the assembled company!
Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Good edit.

No one screwed up there. But someone screwed up in the previous edits because the formatting for the list was broken. I'll give you dirigible but "cannon" hasn't been a plural for about 150 years. Serendipodous 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit. That was the picture I had in mind. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Edward Horner

Re this - the loss of a kidney is mentioned in the biography section below, so neither implausible nor vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

And the groin is mentioned in Cynthia Asquith's diary and elsewhere. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sara Pascoe

Despite your description of the advert tags as 'completely inappropriate', a mere cursory read of the 'career' section would show their necessity. The whole section is full of puffery and flattery, and is clearly written by either Sara Pascoe herself, her agent, or another not disinterested party. It is an advert.

Details about her book publisher name and date of publication, podcasts, scores on QI... all are not NPOV, or even particularly noteworthy for an encylopædic entry. Source No.1 references that she went to the University of Sussex, but neither that, nor the other connected reference (4)mention that she had an unsuccessful interview at Cambridge. The closest I could get is a Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jul/28/sara-pascoe-comedian-q-and-a-interview) where she states she 'had applied to Cambridge' - nothing about an interview.


Reference 1 also notes that she declared herself bankrupt, but this information has been omitted from her résume in favour of more flattering aspects of her work/life. I will remove the more egregious aspects of her self promotion shortly, but the 'advert' tag is fully justifiable and should stay. Fortnum (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your input re: Bod is appreciated FYI. gobears87 (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
life is too short to deal with ******** editors is all i've got to say :-) thanks for your hard work. --gobears87 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Record Type

I stumbled across the Record Type article today during my research and wanted to thank you for your contributions -- they really helped me clarify some of my questions on 19th/20th century editions of medieval texts. I wonder if you knew a term for the typesetting system that (I assume) succeeded Record Type, which was used by the EETS to represented expanded abbreviations and other textual features in publications like this? -Ben (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Benwbrum: Thanks for your message. I'm afraid the short answer, however, is that I don't know. I think the term "record type" is used almost exclusively with reference to publication of source texts in Latin: certainly that's what the (relatively few) secondary sources that discuss it seem to take for granted. The EETS example you give seems to be a hybrid form: on the one hand, it uses a number of special characters (the thorn, the yogh, and other letters modified to indicate that they incorporate contractions) – all of which I would still call record type; but on the other hand, the editor elsewhere seems to have expanded contractions, indicated by the use of italics. I think, if pushed, I'd have to fall back on some clumsy phrase such as "partial use of record type". Clearly this would be worth a mention in the article, if we had a reliable secondary source that explained it – but I'm afraid I don't know of one. GrindtXX (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, and for looking at the EETS example. I've seen EETS typesetting referred to as "record type" elsewhere, but--as you note--it is at best a mix of record type and other forms. I think I'll post on S-EDIT and maybe TEI-L to see what they have to say. If I get a response, I'll mention it here and (if it contains RS) incorporate it into the article. -Ben (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

University of London

There is an error in the article. Nelson Mandela did get his LLB but was later awarded Honorary DSc in Economics from University of London in 1996. He was never awarded honorary LLD. I have checked the UOL records and also this is clearly shown in UOL official YouTube video.

Please change and update the same from your side. Thanks.
I have copied this comment to Talk:University of London. GrindtXX (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Catholic Record Society logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Fuller.

Hello. I receive an "Error code " message, and "Failed", nowadays, whenever I press the 'Thank' link, so I'll have to say it here: thanks for the contribution to the L. Fuller page. Heath St John (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Middlesex

If you haven't seen it already, you may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Northern Ireland and above it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hewell Grange

Hi - Glad that the Hewell Grange article was of interest. Regarding the citation in the lead for the direct quote, I’ve tended not to use them - as long as it is re-quoted, and cited, in the main body. In this case, in the Architecture section. Very happy to be told I’m wrong on this, but I think it’s compliant with MoS/policy. The fate of Hewell post-closure is likely to be interesting. Not sure that many millionaires would relocate right next to a prison. But security would be good. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi KJP1. The relevant policy is MOS:LEADCITE, which does encourage cites for direct quotations. Certainly if I see a quote which is clearly an expression of opinion, or a striking choice of words, I'm immediately curious to know whose opinion or words, which is why I stepped in here. (Without a great deal of effort, I hasten to add: I just copypasted the reference from the body.) I don't have a special interest in (or any particular knowledge of) Hewell Grange: I strayed into this article while trying to discover why the chancel of Tardebigge church, which contained some monuments of the Windsor family, was considered to lie in Warwickshire. (There's an explanation of sorts in the VCH, but it's still not very clear.) On a separate point, there's a mention in the History section of "the old Hewel [sic] Grange": is that a typo, or the preferred spelling for the old house? GrindtXX (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Thomas Aquinas Church, Ham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petersham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That Hideous Strength

Wikipedia articles have localized spelling (national variants) suitable to the topic, but I'm not so sure about localized punctuation... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete that

Why did you just delete to the Eastern state Penitentiary page what I put was true it was from other Wikipedia pages? RatPack1970 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Eastern State Penitentiary

You don't like that I'm right that's all. I'll change it to just peoples names if you would prefer that. But it has to be in there for the people to know who was there. Obviously you don't care. RatPack1970 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Who write the history and how the say and write story

Who write the story and who write the history and the say the history 106.78.87.242 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating. GrindtXX (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

About Oxford University Dictionary

The dictionary isn't principal. It is wrong. That's why I want to change it. Petipoelattchi (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for uploading some great images of Tower Hamlets Town Hall. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

for fun 2C0F:FC89:AB:41F:6C25:35F6:DAE1:9591 (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Presidents

Thank you for your help. Something is missing between 1862 and 1872. I sent a mail to the Society. If you have a clue, you're welcome... Best regards, Pierrette13 (WP fr) Pierrette13 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't explain that gap. GrindtXX (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On § Vectorization

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On § Vectorization. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 19:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

INCUNABLE

returning sentence with source. in addition in "procopius waldvogel " there are many more sources with research done on this finding Mzc1954 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Croyland Chronicle

Hello, can you take a look at your revert on Croyland Chronicle. The time spans now overlap with 2 ending in 1486. Keith D (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Keith D:, yes, that is correct. You can check this in Riley's 1854 edition (links at foot of page). The second continuation (which Riley calls the third, but that's a separate issue) spans pp. 453–510 and the years 1459–86, ending with the marriage of Henry VII (January 1486); the third continuation (which Riley calls the fourth), by a different author, spans pp. 511–33 and starts with Henry's coronation (October 1485), but mainly deals with events in 1486. The article does need more work, and some of the complexities explained, but those ranges are sound. GrindtXX (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for the explanation. The article needs clarifying as it looks wrong as it stands. Keith D (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

About revert

Hey, just noticed you reverted me on Old Palace School. You said "no need to shout". That's the official name on the register. For context, it's not always caps on the website. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 21:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Kunal Nayyar

Hi, I've added some more discussion to your post about Nayyar's nationality, since it seems to be a rather contentious topic and it doesn't seem like there was much discussion happened after you made your post. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vi et armis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's peace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Serial comma

Thanks, the {{Nowrap}} template threw me off. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Prince of Wales Feathers

Just to finish the edit summary (which saved too early): (B) It's WP:PRIMARY at best and hardly high quality regardless of the Self-pub (C) it's entirely unnecessary in the lead (D) I'm not going to spend time unpicking what's ok and what's not in a defective edit (D) Per WP:BRD take it to talk if you disagree. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Alexithymia image

Just saw this article go past on my watchlist again and I'm still a bit puzzled by the infobox image. Any thoughts on my response at Talk:Alexithymia#Infobox image, where I missed your initial ping? Belbury (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GrindtXX/Archive_1&oldid=1260435292"