User talk:PBS/Archive 18

ANI

It seems defending myself roundly at the AN/I has done me no favours. The universal dislike is palpable! I edited peaceably from February when I started in Wikipedia until the beginning of December when I became more outspoken on editing points, and now this! You said you were going to give me an opinion on one of the charges. The AN/I is being dragooned to a conclusion by Legacpac, so I wondered if I could have this before it ended.

PS Why are so many uninvolved admins/editors using IP identities? P-123 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS has expressed his opinion, as have many other editors. I don't know who the IPs are but they may be involved or uninvolved editors and admins (but I'm not using an IP). Please start reading what others are saying to you and drop the stick because you are beating a dead horse. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You said this at the AN/I:

"Having spent time going through ... list of accusations, there is only one that I think is substantial enough on its own to warrant concern even when assuming good faith, and I will discuss that directly with user:P-123 on the talk page of P-123. -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)"

I would be grateful if you could let me know which one this was and why. P-123 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• P-123, you continue your forum shopping by, once again, raising WP:ANI issues here after the thread has been closed. You need to read WP:WIN and just go about editing.194.169.217.168 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I can probably find out from another source but I was wondering how it could be considered to put a level of semi-protection on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant so that unregistered users would not be able to directly contribute. I appreciate that this may raise issues with regard to users that are not autoconfirmed, but I would personally consider the benefits of protection to out weigh potential problems.

Thanks and Happy new year. I hope to personally give you more peace. GregKaye 11:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This idea may have some merit, but we are having issues across related minor articles too with IPs. Lots of terrorist wannabees on Wikipedia these days. Legacypac (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Opps - I read the request as being for the article - the talk page does not need protection. Sorry about that. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving time on Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War

Hi, PBS, I was hoping for your advice of what to do here, both for future reference and to reduce the size of the talkpage in question. The page Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War is 326,556 bytes long with 73 sections and an archive time of 2 weeks. I feel that this is too much content, so I posted Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Sigmabot_archive_time, but this got no reply after 2 days, which on this talkpage seems to be a sign I'm not going to get another post. Should I try to change the time having never done so before and without consensus? Should I wait for you or another admin to get involved or ask one to help? Should I drop it altogether. Thanks. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for solving the archiving problem for the Syrian detailed map talk page. I guess if editing archive times comes under general sanctions, then so too must setting it up. The corresponding Iraqi map's talk page Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map#Status of Alqosh could probably due with having archiving set up having 105 sections, about half of which are at least 4 months old, though the talk page is only 147,350 bytes long. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

An apparent violation of a PBAN on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map by another editor

Pototo1 was given a PBAN on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, but then proceeded to make two edits that violated it. Callanecc is busy in real life, so I was hoping an uninvolved administrator could help so we can avoid the whole messy and time consuming ANI process, especially as this is all I have to say. Can you help, PBS? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move Moratorium

The ISIL Move Moratorium expires in less than 48 hours. I'd like to see it extended since the world opinion has gone even stronger against legitimizing the group by the "Islamic State" name. What is the correct procedure to move forward? Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about legitimizing or de-legitimizing a viewpoint, idea, group, or person. We're here to encylcopedia build, not fight the battle of hearts and minds in the war on terror (and yes, I acknowledge you believe I'm "Anti-American" [sic] for making this observation ([1]). DOCUMENT★ERROR 23:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More rearranging of comments

I'm bringing this to your attention as you've been party to the issue before. Legacypac has been cautioned innumerable times about rearranging comments. He's at it again in this thread. [2] While this doesn't, obviously, rise to the same level of severity as his blanking and moving of pages or personal attacks, it is still a real chore to constantly monitor each of his many ANIs to make sure one's own comments aren't being moved around to change their meaning. I apologize for bringing this directly to you but it seemed preferable to cluttering up his latest ANI with even more confusingly tangential issues. WP falls apart pretty quickly once the stability of one's own edits is no longer viable. A lot of us are at our wit's end. DOCUMENT★ERROR 22:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, in response to my leaving the above note on your Talk page, LP has - as per MO - gone into "attack" mode and has immediately started dropping claims around the Wiki that I'm engaging in "outrageous personal attacks" [sic] against him (but, as also per MO, not informing me of any of these accusations he's spreading). [3] As you know, immediately spreading rumors about other editors is his pattern response when the question of his combative interaction style is broached.

I have voluntarily avoided any article in which LP is a regular for months (IOW, against my better judgment, I let him chase me off) due to this "take no prisoners" style of editing on all ISIL related topics, and his unwillingness to work in a methodical manner (you, Kkj11210 and others have previously asked him not to blank or move pages during the middle of a RfC, and he did it again just this week [4]). However, in reviewing his edit history it appears this has not spared Skookum1, GregKaye, Greyshark09, Corriebertus, and numerous others from this toxicity. DOCUMENT★ERROR 23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I recently raised issue with regard to a recent good faith use of archive top by Legacypac on my talk page but this was reverted at early opportunity. GregKaye 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, C&P wrong editor - my bad. DOCUMENT★ERROR 23:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently as "pay back" for "telling" that he had been rearranging the comments of other editors again, LP has now dragged me to ANI for the fourth time. I should have learned my lesson last time, bit my lip, and just let him rearrange and edit others comments however he sees fit. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellow Box edit

Just a quick question - did I insert my comment into the middle of LPs? According to this dif he had a 5 ":::::" comment ending in the phrase "thank-you very much" at 19:53 followed by his sig. My comment was specifically in response to that comment and so was indented with 6 "::::::" There was an entirely separate comment he made (separate as it had 0 colons and a unique sig at 17:43) immediately after his 5 colon comment. [5]. Note the threading here: [6] DOCUMENT★ERROR 02:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ISIL rename request

Hello PBS, I just came across this [7]. Does this mean it is possible to make a request for move? I would like to put such a request on the 23rd January so your advise would be appreciated. Mbcap (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, could you please advise. I have already asked legacypac's permission for me to discuss him here. I believe I think with good reason as seen here[8]), that legacypac has a conflict of interest that seems to be impacting his work on the ISIL page. With the new move request I think this issue has become even more important.I kindly requested that he withdraw himself from the discussion because he seems to have a real demonstrable conflict of interest. In the diff he says:

"I'd like to see it extended since the world opinion has gone even stronger against legitimizing the group by the "Islamic State" name." (This seems to me like political advocacy.)

If legacypac had policy based objections I would not do this. I would really like to follow policy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS states that we not here to right great wrongs. The comment above and also the comment on the move discussion demonstrates that he is not able to seperate his opinion from policy - this is especially seen in the first comment by him on the discussion on the move request. I do not believe he is there to build an encyclopedia but to insert bias into Wikipedia as is clearly demonstrated from the diff and the afremention comment. Can you advise or do I have no basis and shut up? Mbcap (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, is there anything else that I need to do in regards to the requested move. I think it is clear the name I have suggested is the common name now. The only issue is, how do we discuss which one it should be; Islamic state or The Islamic State. Is that something that is within the remit of the current move request and discussion. Also when will the discussion close as my hands are quite tied up till at least the 15th. Sorry to bombard you with questions. Mbcap (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this[9]. It was not intentional, I did not know I had to write that. Mbcap (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TPG MULTI

Hi, Thanks for your comment at the TPG talk page. You indicated that it "is" time to talk and started a thread for that purpose. However there is already a discussion underway. Per the TPG point "MULTI" I moved you comment intact and verbatim into that thread. Let's talk, sure, but let's keep it one place so we don't end up herding cats please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest some housekeeping to see if it's ok with you. Now that you've replied in the original thread, there's no reason, IMO, to keep the italics I added when I moved your comment. I propose to self revert my own italics to reduce thread clutter. Ordinarily I would just proceed, but if I did so that would leave your own comment about using a separate thread dangling all by itself. So.... my suggestion is we help the next person to read the thread for the first time by deleting both remarks. If you agree, you have my permission to delete my italic comment about moving yours. Alternatively, I can clean them up if you give the OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

wrong link

The link works for me? Document★Error 11:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to locate the page patrol logs. Could you help me? Nevermind - I found it! Sorry. PBS I can only look at an editor's entire patrol log, but am unable to link to a specific patrolling action. Document★Error 11:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS

PBS - every specific issue I have raised in my ANI is supported by a diff. The only exceptions are 2 instances where an issue relates to a discussion that has been archived, in which case I have linked to the archived discussion as I do not have the technical knowledge of how to link to diffs within a page that has been archived by sigmabot. I do understand that was the reason I was blocked; not that I was claiming things that didn't occur but that I incorrectly linked them. If you could maybe give me some assistance in that area I would be happy to update those two links right now. Document★Error 12:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Some help with possible copyright image on Ibn Kathir

I have spoken to this user and asked him if the picture he has added here[10] is free to use and he said it is copy righted. I checked the image and it did say it was copyrighted. I have to study so I am unable to get the chance to learn the wikipedia image-use/copy at this moment in time and was hoping you could tell whether to delete the image or let it be. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Concern

Thanks for reaching out.

To address your points on Anne Hungerford Lee:

1. The article you wrote on Anne Hungerford had already taken the name; I thought the adding of her married name would mark the difference.

2. English nobility: To be a lady in waiting to the queen, you must be of noble rank. The same goes for marrying a Viscount. Her family was of noble station.

3. I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source. It is used all over Wikipedia. If you show me parameters that list Tudor Place as unreliable, then I'll remove it. Until then, it's a common practice. Also, I added a book with matching information ahead of the TP source. The TP one just had an easier layout, but they both match.

4. The names are not messed up. Lucy Hungerford married another Hungerford. They were fifth cousins, so her maiden and married name are both Hungerford. That could also be inferred considering the article states Lucy is the daughter of Lucy of Sir Walter Hungerford of Farley.

5. The source for fifth cousins is at the end of the sentence. It is relevant to explain the relationship of the family, and helps explain why Lucy's maiden and married name are one in the same.

6. I didn't know that was a no-no. I'll fix it.

7. The relationship isn't extrapolated. It's common sense. Ex: If person A and person B are brother and sister, and then person A has a daughter "C", it doesn't have to be proven that persons B and C are related. If it can be proven A-B are siblings, and then A-C are parent/child, it's common sense to make the inference that B-C are related.

Also, added the books that I had left off of citations.

--Kbabej (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation

All I've sought is to be left alone and free from unjustified accusations. I'm planning to continue to ignore DocumentError unless/until he launches another personal attack on me. If that happens it shall be no burden to restrict the focus to then current issue. Thanks for your intervention and have a happy day. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comments as requested at the end of the ANI. Please inform me if there is any problematic interaction between the two you before it escalates. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm even thinking about ignoring the personal attacks below. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In ref to the ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Harassment

A note - I appreciate that wasting administrators' times with "voluminous complaints will not endear" me to them. I wish similar consideration had been afforded me with respect to the 19-diff ANI lodged against me last week, or the 4 prior ANIs that same editor shotgunned at me all without action. My block log might have avoided being permanently marked because of something I did (not provide correct diffs) when trying to defend myself against an ANI that should never have been filed against me. That said, two questions for clarification -

• With respect to your note that "I would also advise DocumentError to continue to stay away from the pages covered by the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for the next six moths," I think that is sound advice. Is it correct to assume that advice applies to both myself and Legacypac, or is this a punitive measure being applied only on me? As you can see by looking at my edit history, I have never had any conflict with any other editor except one. But that one editor with whom I have had a conflict has a long and colorful history of combative relations with many other editors on WP that have resulted in numerous final warnings [11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (truncated to seven examples for purposes of brevity). It would therefore be extremely insulting, albeit I'm sure unintentionally, if we are not mutually advised to steer clear of each other, instead of me simply being told to give Legacypac a wide berth or to run and hide if I see him in the cafeteria at lunch.

• You said There are also one involuntary constraint: If either of them bring an ANI against the other in future neither of them is to refer to perceived wrongdoings of the other before the closure time of this ANI. I enthusiastically accept this as it is what I have been repeatedly requesting since I became the subject of this ANI shopping campaign. I just wish this had been applied months ago so the situation might not have descended into the nastiness that ensued. I have only two requests:

-First, I would request that, (a) if Legacypac [or me] violates the proscription you have applied and diffs to intercourse we have had prior to 13JAN2015 you guarantee you will immediately close the ANI on becoming aware of it, that I will not be required or expected to reply or participate in it, and that my lack of reply will not cause me to be blocked nor will my lack of response in any other way be held against me, (b) if Legacypac refers to my ethnicity (or related topics such as religion, creed, nationality, etc.) or declares me to be "anti-American," I be permitted to reference his past comments in order that this not be treated as an one-off slip, (c) if Legacypac again patrols or posts on my talk page I be permitted to reference his past history of using the patrolling feature for purposes of "grave dancing" so that claims of ignorance can be properly and contextually evaluated.

-Second, on accepting these conditions I will no longer intervene to provide support or comfort to new editors being torn apart by Legacypac, as I did with respect to the "are you a child?" comments that prompted LP to file his most recent ANI against me. If I observe such behavior can I call your attention to it so that you might provide new editors some welcoming assistance - even just a kind and simple affirmation that things get better?

DocumentError (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:DocumentError: Glad to see that your parents have allowed you to edit again. You ought to revert this edit.

This voluntary agreement made public on the ANI is not open to negotiation you either take it or reject it. If you reject it, the consequences of that are unpredictable (do yo know anything about Game Theory and the prisoners dilemma? if not I suggest you learn). Do you accept the offer or reject it? -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand it's not open for negotiation, I'm just asking for clarification. I do understand the subtext of your post, that if I do not accept it I will be immediately blocked for filing an ANI against someone who has filed 4 against me without repercussion. At this point, as my WP career is completely wrecked anyway, I do feel I have the luxury to stand for principles, though wiki-martyrdom is admittedly my last choice. And yes, I am familiar with the prisoner's dilemma. As you probably know, my people are as opposed to gambling as we are to the Great Satan, women playing football, and uncarpeted flooring. (edit - thanks for the notice about my template; that's embarrassing) DocumentError (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) I have no idea who you or "your people" are and I have no wish to know as it is not relevant to this proposed agreement. (2) The prisoners dilemma as nothing to do with the gambling (as you would know if you had bothered to read it). (3) Your account will not be immediately blocked if you do not accept the offer: I wrote in the ANI (did you not read it?) "If either party does not agree then I will bring an ANI to allow the community to decide what to do." (4) You have not answered the question: will you keep to the voluntary agreement? -- PBS (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I read the ANI. (1) In it you said it had BOOMERANG'ed badly against me. You made no similar comment about a BOOMERANG in the preceding ANI against me in which 6 uninvolved editors opined, 5 of whom said there was nothing egregious in Legacypac's report, and 3 of whom endorsed my observations of LP's behavior. IOW, that ANI had a consensus of the community (with the exception of one very verbose editor) decide there was nothing egregious in LP's latest report against me and that my counter-claims were positively founded. The result of that community discussion? My block, imposed unilaterally and without warning. Is it not to be expected I would take it as fait accompli that the reopening of the ANI will result in my block, most likely an indefinite one, in the wake of that precedent? (2) I cannot be seriously expected to respond to a proposal that involves a topic ban on me from a topic I'm not involved in editing (ISIL). The only thing accomplished by topic banning someone from a topic they're not editing is to humiliate that editor.

Again, this entire situation over the last week has a definite and traceable starting point: I objected to Legacypac bullying yet a new editor with name calling, the latest in a long and established pattern of behavior that has been the subject of repeated and loud objections (as detailed in the diffs in my ANI and elsewhere). There's no way I'm going to apologize for doing the right thing. If you want to block or ban me like you've done other editors who have crossed LP, while continuing to issue him final warning after final warning, you'll have to do it without my seal of approval. I expect to be off WP for awhile so goodnight and good luck. DocumentError (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DocumentError In constructing this voluntary agreement I did not pluck the prohibition on editing ISIL articles out of thin air. I included the ISIL prohibition because of two edits you made to your talk page in an interchange with me (12:14, 6 January 2015‎ and 12:53, 6 January 2015) in which you say that of your own free will you had been avoiding ISIL articles for the last 90 days, I have simply extend that as it keeps you out of an area that you and I know Legacypac is interested in. There are over 4 million other pages to choose from, so better that you choose some of those than you waste more time on issues like this. I am closing down this conversation. You are not to post anything else to this section other than "Yes. I agree to the voluntary restraints." or "No. I do not agree to the voluntary restraints.". You have until 20:43, 14 January 2015 (24 hours from your first posting to this section) to give one of those two answers. If you do not reply I will block you account until you do give an answer. As I wrote when closing the ANI#Harassment if you reply "No" then "I will bring an ANI to allow the community to decide what to do." -- PBS (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tudor Place

You had left a message on my page about fixing an article that you "didn't own". I removed Anne Hungerford Lee from that article. Also, as I stated, the Tudor Place link was backed by another matching source, and the article in question (Anne Hungerford Lee) will soon be deleted anyway, rendering it a moot point for me. If you want to follow up with that discussion on the board, by all means, but I've unfollowed it and don't have an interest in discussing it further. I've removed your discussion from my talk page because we don't have anything more to discuss IMO. If you need something, feel free to reply here, like I had previously asked. --Kbabej (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 January

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

• On the Light Horse Regiment page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice needed

Hello again PBS, I have just got a comment from an IP on my talk page. It is right at the bottom. The IP accuses me of being another user who I presume is banned and details his entire personal information. I personally feel very sorry for the user in question as no matter why he was banned, this behaviour is not warranted. What should I do as these allegations have been following me around for a while. Mbcap (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, admin Dougweller has been dealing with the issue, so I will leave it in Dougweller's capable hands. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I am bringing these two edits to your attention because in previous cases they have been deleted by the admin Dougweller. The edits are; [[18]] and [[19]]. I have deleted the offending parts from the post and kept the rest on my talk page. Regards Mbcap (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Verify credibility |reason= parameter now functional

At this edit:

{{Verify credibility|certain=y|self published website; and Jorge H. Castelli is not an expert|date=January 2015}}

→

should be

{{Verify credibility|certain=y|reason=self published website; and Jorge H. Castelli is not an expert|date=January 2015}}

→

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map

Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (history) has had edit warring between User:Lindi29 talk and User:8fra0 talk, both of whom appear to have violated the 1RR rule though if you treat the pairs of edits as one only Lindi29 has violated it, though really two reverts within 1 minute could be considered to be the same revert. Lindi29 has not been informed of community sanctions, but 8fra0 has (diff). I found no evidence on the module talk page or their talk pages of any attempt between them to discuss their reverts. For future reference, was this the right place to post, and are non-administrators allowed to inform users of community sanctions? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk 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:

• |first=Michael A.R. |date=January 2008 |origyear=2004 |title=Howard, Thomas, third duke of Norfolk (1473–1554 |id=13940}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edmund Beaufort (died 1471) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:

• {{harvnb|Pollard|1901a|p=157}} cites ''Cal. Patent Rolls'', 1461-5, pp. 29, 32; Stubbs, iii. 196).</ref> 3rd Duke received a general pardon on 10 March 1463,<ref>{{harvnb|Pollard|1901|p=157}}
• the defeat of the Lancastrians in 1461, Edmund was brought up in France with his younger brother [[[[John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset|John]], and on the execution of his elder brother [[Henry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

I don't know where to request general sanctions enforcement for the SCW/ISIL sanctions, so I thought I'd ask you. Would you consider implementing a new move moratorium at the ISIL page? It seems we are right back to where we were before the last moratorium: frequent move requests with no real purpose, to titles that have been proposed many times already. It is really rather absurd. The current RM should be allowed to finish, but that should be enough for months. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Northampton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious

Curious why you pinged me at my talk page about articles I moved last September when it was basically a vandal revert, but phrased more diplomatically. Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good point, of course, then there are some people I shall not mention by name who like to make bold moves and semi-salt the old location so it can't be moved back without an RM and a bunch of drama. (sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Breaking the 1RR

Hi PBS,This editor has break the 1RR.here.Lindi29 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected 1RR violation

Assuming that the 1RR applies to 24 hour periods, on this page the edit at 13:36 today may have violated the 1rr, as they previously reverted at 21:18 yesterday. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My edit

I added some material which previously had been removed by some editors in the ISIL article which I found to be significant.They reverted my edit and replaced the paragraph in the sexual violence and slavery section with something like "According to ISIL, fighters are allowed to have sex with adolescent girls to discipline slaves by beating. ISIL also allows fighters to trade sex slaves as long as they are not pregnant by their owner"(The editors english is bad) instead of the proper english "It says that fighters are allowed to have sex with adolescent girls, and that it is also acceptable to beat and trade sex slaves. On the contrary, it says it is permissible to beat a slave so long as it's a form of disciplinary beating, and also that it is forbidden for fighters to hit the female captives in the face. However, the pamphlets says a woman can't be sold if she becomes impregnated by her owner. " I request you to take necessary action.Hand snoojy (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Like ban you as a SOCK of User:Absolution provider 1999 aka User:Update stormtrooper for that is who you are right? Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question has been previously removed for soapboxing and therefore being against consensus. Also, this shows your 02:30 edit was a revert. Having reverted at 15:25, this violates the 1RR. If you are, as I suspect a sock, what you are doing is not going to lead to the inclusion of the material. Everyone is now on guard for the slightest trace of POV pushing. In short, your disruptive editing is actually pushing the tone of the article away from including material of the type you seem to wish to include. It is against the rules of wikipedia to use multiple accounts to get around blocks and bans and is counter-productive. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Berlin

PBS: your name has been brought up on the talk page for this article. I leave it to you whether you wish to reply. Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Prince of Ligne

Thank you very much for your explanation and advice regarding the edits that I had made to the article Prince of Ligne. I greatly appreciate your clarification that those sources are not considered to be reliable sources, so I apologize for making reference to those. I will correct that by removing those sources from the article. Thanks for your understanding.

- Blairall (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

House of Beaufort-Spontin

Thank you for your comments regarding the edits that I had made to the articles House of Beaufort-Spontin and Frederic Augustus Alexander, Duke of Beaufort-Spontin. I now understand your point that the source I used is not considered to be a reliable source. As a result, I have now taken a lot of time to do some more thorough research and find reliable sources for support. I have posted my findings at Talk:House of Beaufort-Spontin for your review and comments.

- Blairall (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Regarding the recent reverts by users who never edited the article, the text that was reverted was actually formulated by you[20]; you argued that it should be added to the footnotes. I know your opinion on Senyavskaya, but you were not against adding the text if it would be in the footnotes.
The other part that was reverted was added back in 2009 by another user[21] and there was a long discussion on this back then.
So the text was not added by me and these reverts are just disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

...is back, with a vengeance (not that I believe he ever left) as I'm sure is no surprise to you. Mannyfabolous is the latest incarnation, while Franzy89 is used to insert photos of royal portraits, doubtless with no regard for copyright. And I still believe that Enredados is LPC (who says his real name is Tom). Not to mention anons whenever he can't be bothered to open a new account or revive an old one. I presume that he's also still editing Wikipedias in several other languages as well, despite blocks and bans. Just thought I ought to tell someone that he continues to generate vast amounts of crap for others to clean up... FactStraight (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not LPC, and my name is José Manuel, not Tom.

--Enredados (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not. So where are the reliable sources for the additions to articles you always omit -- especially those you've made to Carlo Emanuele Ruspoli, 3rd Duke of Morignano and his relatives? Clearly you've just shown that you do understand English well enough to understand requests for references. FactStraight (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i have no idea who is "Louis Philippe Charles", but I assure that's not me. I just made a mistake with the photos, i'm new and had no idea of copyright violation. --Mannyfabolous (talk) 7:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible violation of 1-revert rule.

User Lindi29 has a long history of violating the guidelines on Wikipedia. Recently, on Februrary 13 he made two reverts (manual opposite editing) at 16:42 and 16:47 respecetively on the Iraqi insurgency detailed map. These reverts effect two users, one of which is myself. Less than 4 hours later user Lindi29 made an additional revert at 21:36. He quickly reverted his own revert this time when he realised that he had already reverted twice the same day. Mozad655 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

At 14:56, 14 February 2015‎ and 15:02, 14 February 2015‎, the same user again made a double revert, which is less than 24 hours after the double revert mentioned above. Also this time, his' reverts were done manually and it effects the work of two editors. It seems that he is finding a loophole in the 1-revert-rule by reverting manually. Mozad655 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Mozad655 I didn't made any rv look carefully I provided sources I didn't rv anybody.Lindi29 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mozad655 I have looked at the history Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. An edit followed by a revert (with no other editor's edit in-between), counts as no edit (see WP:3RR for an explanation). So as far as I can tell Lindi29's edits are:

• 16:47, 13 February 2015‎ Lindi29 (clashes are reported in this village http://en.firatajans.com/news/isis-gangs-attack-south-kirkuk)
• 14:56, 14 February 2015‎ Lindi29 (al-Baghdadi per http://time.com/3710172/isis-attack-military-base-iraq/,http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31449976)

Without looking at the content the timings mean that they are outside the 24 hours 1RR limit. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@PBS But the timing is within 24 hours? The time from first revert at 16:47 to second revert the next day at 14:56 is 22 hours.Mozad655 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, my mistake. But too much time has passed so I will not be taking any action and so will not look into it further. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victoria League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria Gardens. 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) 08:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Seems that you are perfect in your efforts on Wikipedia! Keep it up! Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 01:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference style

Hi. I meant the templates; I think that the more templates and coding we use, the less people will want to (or be able to) contribute to WP. I added the parentheses around the dates: if you insist on including the date in a short cite when there is only one book by that author (a make-work project, IMO), then we ought to make them look neat and easy to see. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Breach of 1 revert per 24 hour rule by another editor

The editor "JapanerRusse" is new to the map and has since contioniusly undone edits that were otherwise very well sourced using multiple independent sources. I have informed him that his source is biased and heavily outnumbered. I have tried to start a dialogue to resolve the issue, but he is not responding. First revert was at 09:12, 24 February 2015‎ and second revert was 14:52, 24 February 2015‎. In both cases he reverted well sourced edits concerning the towns of Taza Khurmatu and Daquq, and changed them from joint controle to only kurdish using an unlawful (partial) source. Mozad655 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

IP using a user's signiture

An IP has, in all 6 of their contributions hand typed most of another user's signature (forgetting the time). Should I delete the user's signature to avoid giving people the wrong impression? Thanks, Banak (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Re what was said on my talkpage

• I did not consider outing to be an issue, due to SineBot doing it already, but I realise this was wrong as I drew attention to the link, which I will be careful not to repeat. I also thought that the User's inactivity would make ascertaining what was going on, which is why I didn't consult them. In retrospect it is unlikely that an IP would impersonate a not very active user.
• You may wish to check if you need to suppress any past revisions here to avoid outing. Banak (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• You have not fully hidden the information from past versions where you tried to. Banak (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I have added an email address to my account. I freely admit that I could not work out how to access yours. Despite being a scientist I have zero intuition on computer related matters. Urselius (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Try Special:EmailUser/PBS, or click on email one the left hand side while viewing PBS's user space. Banak (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PBS. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, PBS. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suspected socks on ISIL

Sorry to keep on bringing problems, but two users (Hum_num_gitu and Martin_slad) have appeared whose contributions are almost exclusively to adult actors and ISIS, and have added filler text their user page to avoid red links to their names. To me this indicates they are probably not new editors. We have had a lot of socks at SPI who have been banned but I can't show whose socks these two are, if they are indeed socks. There may be socks more I've missed. Banak (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about using names at first mention in paragraphs

Hello PBS, I noticed your edits on the Charles II article in which you included his name at his first mention in paragraphs. This is also a custom I follow and was wondering if there is something in the MoS which mentions doing this. If so I would be grateful if you could point me to it if possible as I like to be able to support my editing with the MoS. Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks.

If you'd like me to contribute to Wikipedia in the future, you might want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkBernstein#Topic_ban_2 and the ensuing fracas. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 March

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

• On the Military history of Birmingham page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think my 'spidey-sense' is tingling ...

Hi PBS, I'm not getting a 'good vibe' from this reversion exchange. I took a look at the other user's talk page and found the tone of their header and the fairly recent exchange with you combined to ... well, let's just say it hasn't put me anymore at ease. If you're in a position to spare a little attention, please keep an eye on things for a bit. If my hunch is correct and I've run into a current manifestation of an ongoing issue it seems pragmatic to encourage some oversight. Alternately, please pardon me if in the end I come out seeming overly sensitive. Thank you for your time and consideration.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
p.s.— A little curiosity ... is your username, 'PBS', a 'Public Broadcasting' nod or is there more to it? 20:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Death warrant of King Charles I on Wikisource

Source added. Richard75 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Suspected 1RR violation

Assuming that the 1RR applies to 24 hour periods, on this page the edit at 11:35 today from editor LogFTW may have violated the 1RR, as he previously reverted at 15:22 yesterday.Lindi29 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Chocke of Avington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avington. 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, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Violation of page ban from posting at Syrian Civil war detailed map

this diff shows a user who has in their only contribution since returning from a page ban made another contribution to the page, albeit one that actually contributes slightly to the wiki. Banak (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Cromwellian conquest of Ireland

I note your revert from slavery to indentured labour in the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland article. Wp:brd should not be used for a revert, let alone for WP:WEASEL. It was slavery. Ref: The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, a chapter entitled “Irish as slaves in the Caribbean”; The Making of Barbados: “... sold as slaves or indentured servants to British planters. The lived in slave conditions and had no control over the number of years they had to serve”; Testimony of an Irish Slave Girl (not as scholarly) “The majority of indentured Irish brought to Barbados between 1630 and 1660 received no contract, but were sold upon the open market.” there are plenty of other sources. I suggest that you revert your revert. Regards Lugnad (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benjamin Hunkins. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for your help and encouragement! RFD (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Julio-Claudian family tree

I reverted your change on the Julio-Claudian family tree article. The entire article consists of one sentence and a family tree - it makes no sense to hide the tree, leaving the article as a single sentence. Please discuss this on the talk page before reinstating it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Nerva–Antonine family tree

I see you've added an {{unreferenced}} template to the Nerva–Antonine family tree. I'm trying to picture how a template like that could have references. Would the <ref> markup work from within the chart? What about pages that don't have a {{Reflist}} or equivalent? Or should there just be two or three references at the end, à la "This chart was compiled from information from the Oxford Exhaustive Dictionary of Obscure Classical Biography and The Cambridge History of the Northern Hemisphere, volumes 17 and 18"? Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection of User:Winkelvi

Hi. Can you please reduce or remove your indefinite semi-protection of User:Winkelvi? As far as I can tell, there's been only one instance of vandalism in the past few months. Indefinite semi-protection seems like a completely disproportionate response. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Butting in here - indefinite semi protection of user pages is not uncommon when the user asks for it as there's no reason why unconfirmed/IP editors should be editing a user's page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If there's a pattern of misbehavior that we're trying to prevent, page protection for a fixed duration makes sense. However, looking at the page history, there doesn't seem to be very much abuse at all. Given that one of our core principles is open editing, it seems like page protection should be used as sparingly as possible. There are plenty of instances in which a user might want to edit a user page (such as fixing typos, updating categories, etc.). Perhaps the protection could be reduced to a month? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

MZMcBride, I'm curious as to why someone I've rarely interacted with (if ever) is concerned about semi-protection in my userspace and is asking that it be lifted. If your userspace was protected, I sure as hell wouldn't be butting in and telling you or an administrator that it wasn't necessary. All that in mind, what difference does it make to you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Your recent edits have apparently been calling significant attention to yourself. I'm not sure what's surprising you here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC) What's surprising is that anyone would seriously think it's their right and duty to fix typographical errors in someone else's userspace. Not to mention giving more than a second's thought about it. Surely, there are other things in Wikipedia that need fixing and need your attention where it would be appropriate for you to care and do something about it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to chat more then please do so @User talk:MZMcBride -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

template:chart top

<center> is obsolete; with |width=100% it is redundant. -- Gadget850 ^talk 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Added an align parameter to the sandbox. See if that works as needed for charts less than 100%. -- Gadget850 ^talk 17:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

family trees

Hello PBS,

Is there a tutorial somewhere that explains how to configure the family trees? Or maybe a template? I am going to add a tree to a few articles and was wondering if you could point me in the right direction to do so. Thanks. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, why is there a need to hide charts or center them as you did at Kohler family of Wisconsin? Nyth63 18:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I in the process of undoing my last edit, you were appearently editing it and I had an edit conflict. Is there a reason that the text was shrunk down even more when you added the frame? I had to remove the font size parameter to restore the readabiliy. I disagree that this type of chart looks better centered. I also was just looking at the documentation and was about to add the |collapsed=no parameter. Is there any reason not to remove the unused Notes: tag at the bottom? Nyth63 19:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Loyal Women

The question with stubs is surely not "how many sentences are there?" but "How much more is there to say?" It's difficult to see what more could be said on this subject. Rathfelder (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Slow edit war on ISIL

There is a slow edit war over the inclusion of a paragraph in the lead of ISIL. Whilst there is some discussion, the edit warring is still going on. Should this text be included while discussion is ongoing? Banak (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julio-Claudian family tree 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:

• {{chart | | | | | | | | | | | |)|-|-|-|.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | }}
• *William Smith (lexicographer)|William Smith]]. [http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/index.html ''Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Invitation

EB1911 template and periods

I just noticed that reading an EB1911 expansion can feel a little choppy. From Ferenc Deák:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Robert Nisbet Bain (1911). "Deák, Francis". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica 7 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 895–896.

One sentence and five clauses separated by periods. If there's no author, then it's one sentence and four clauses. Is this a prescribed format? I realize that none of your recent changes made this happen, but I just noticed it and you seem to be the only competent maintainer. David Brooks (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC) - ETA: I realize this may be a property of whatever template you call from EB1911. David Brooks (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give the detailed reply. I'll live with it; consistency is good. David Brooks (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Großer Tiergarten#Requested move 19 March 2015

I invite you to another RM on this subject. --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you using PBS-AWB to change family tree templates?

Big question - why are you slapping the family tree templates with "unreferenced" tags? And by whose authorization are you running this automation to do this? Has there been a discussion somewhere about changing the policy of how family trees are done? Are you acting on your own to do this? And why the navbox addition? First of all, navboxes don't have to have referencing. And secondly, templates are easily transcluded without being navboxes. What's the point in what you are doing?— Maile (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing PBS, can you explain/justify what you've been doing here? — TAnthony^Talk 13:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April

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

• On the John F. Fitzgerald page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Was this simply a misclick on rollback? I get that sometimes myself and it is annoying, but just letting you know I've reverted it to fix the reference formatting. Take care, Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Simon Collins RFC

Hello PBS,

I would like to start this message by thanking you for re-formatting the RFC I created and initiated at the Simon Collins article talk page.

I also see your appropriate hatting of the beginning discussion that was not really pertinent to the issue of the passage being left in the article or being removed. I also read the note that you left for me, and the posting you left on the user winkelvi talk page.

In particular you said on the user winkelvi page "I am going to re-collapse the exchange of the start of the RfC on Talk:Simon Collins as an administrative action. If you edit my edit, I will take further administrative action against you. If you do not like the collapse then take it to ANI and ask another administrator to revert my edit. -- PBS (talk) 8:08 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

I am sure you probably read the responses afterward on that page. Your admin action to collapse the non-pertinent discussion occurred at 00:13 see here [22]. and then 15 minutes later user winkelvi made this posting in the RFC on the Simon Collins talk page: [23]

"Bad faith RfC Commenced without any discussion taking place, even though it was attempted more than once (see section directly above this one). Looking at the previous section, it is easy to see that the entire premise of the RfC is anti-AGF and BRD. As for the disputed content, it was aggressively reverted repeatedly by the originator of the RfC even though it is out of place where it is currently ("Early life"). It was removed originally because the content addresses the article subject's current life, not his early life prior to adulthood and his career, seems trivial in nature as it is (out of context). It should either be removed completely or integrated into the article where it would be germane and appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 8:38 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

I previously formally warned user winklevi for not assuming good faith in her postings at the Simon Collins RFC. See here: [24]

disruptive behaviors by user winkelvi at the Simon Collins RFC

• In the posting by winkelvi at the Simon Collins RFC quoted above user winkelvi has violated the spirit of your warning by not reverting your hatting of the non-pertinent discussion, but by reinserting the same language and message he/she put in the part that needed to be hatted.

• He/she started with the BOLDED words --- Bad faith RfC

• Then stated a lie "Commenced without any discussion taking place"

Discussion most certainly did take place but winkelvi refused to discuss the issue at hand of leaving the passage in or taking it out. There was previous discussion in this exchange above the RFC on the same talk page:

Talk:Simon_Collins § Not trivia but how astronomy affected themes in Collin's Music

• "As for the disputed content, it was aggressively reverted repeatedly by the originator of the RfC even though it is out of place where it is currently ("Early life")."

Again this section: "it was aggressively reverted repeatedly by the originator of the RfC even though it is out of place where it is currently"

Again this contains irrelevant and non-pertinent, as well as non-neutral wording which is suggesting or implying that the originator of the RFC (me) did something wrong or untoward by simply starting a neutrally worded RFC.

1st warning to winklevi for not assuming good faith in her postings at the Simon Collins [25]

Again winkelvi is assuming bad faith by directly posting in a formal RFC that the initiator of the RFC started the RFC on a "false premise" and "BRD" when discussion did take place as outlined and quoted above in this message. I believe that winkelvi needs to be warned for the second time for not assuming good faith WP:AGF in the Simon Collins RFC. I would place the 2nd warning on the talk page of winkelvi, but so as not to disturb the user, I am leaving the warning to winkelvi here on your talk page since you have done some admin action at the RFC. You, of course, can take whatever actions you deem necessary, but I would ask that you leave a formal warning or whatever action you deem appropriate on the talk page of winkelvi so that a formal record of the warnings to winkelvi can be maintained.

I believe user winkelvi also needs a formal warning about disruptive editing as evidenced by his/her postings and disruptions at the Simon Collins RFC. I would place a warning myself, but again so as not to disturb the user, I would ask that either you place a formal warning on my behalf, or of course do whatever action or actions that you deem appropriate. I request this so as to maintain the sequence of events and establish a history or pattern of ill behaviours and disruptions by user winkelvi during the pre and current Simon Collins RFC.

I thank you for your attention to this matter. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your analysis of the WordSeventeen-Winkelvi situation and your comments. I appreciate your due diligence and your expertise. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you PBS, for standing up for what is right! Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

No wine available in the list (per Drmies suggestion), so beer will have to suffice... It's a craft beer on tap, by the way, as domestic, run of the mill beer would never do. Thanks for the time you put into the edit-analysis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Tiergarten

There IS consensus to have the park article at Tiergarten (park); see Talk:Tiergarten (park)#Requested move 19 March 2015. Therefore it only makes sense to put the dab page at Tiergarten. I have no dog in this fight: I was simply cleaning up the move I made as an uninvolved party. If you disagree with the consensus from the last WP:RM, the best approach would be to discuss rather than revert. It seems strange to quibble over a redirect when it's really the park article you seem to care about. What say you? -Hadal (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from a bit better, now; but I still think you're splitting hairs. If the consensus is to dab with "(park)," the corollary is that it is not the primary topic. Nonetheless, I will recuse myself. I was only trying to keep the wiki gears turning, not start a war. --Hadal (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

user:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger

Hi PBS, I don't want to get in the middle of this battle, but I just wanted to make sure that you realize that MMAR cannot edit his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wordseventeen again

Wordseventeen is back to hounding/goading/poking/taunting me once again. At the RfC you essentially told him to sit out. The RfC he started at an article talk page he came to because he was hounding me. See Talk:Simon Collins and his contributions there for the last hour or so. It's exactly what he had done at all the other RfCs and AfDs he followed me to: making a point of casting a dissenting vote/opinion in opposition to my own. At this point it seems he just refuses to leave me be. As when I came to User:Drmies about him several days ago, I'm sick of the behavior he continues in (which feels very much like harassment) that is obviously intended to WP:POKE at me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi is being disruptive at the Simon Collins RFC again

Hi PBS,

I went back to the RFC I started at the Simon Collins article talk page to add my comments to the ongoing discussion there. Winkelvi has become disruptive again by attacking me again and bringing up his perceived issues that have no place in an RFC. This comes after the other disruptive violation where winkelvi brought the same off topic issues up again in the RFC discussion area just after you instructed him not to revert your hatting of non-pertinent discussion. Today Winkelvi has become disruptive again by posting this in the RFC discussion area:

"You were told by an administrator to let this RfC "play out". In other words, he was telling you to drop your involvement. That was after you had been told by at least one admin to stop WP:HOUNDING me. You came to this article because you were hounding me. Which is what you're doing now, once more. Do we need to get admins involved again, or are you going to stop? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 1:53 am, Today (UTC−4)"

The page is here: [26]

Thank you. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Even further disruption by user winkelvi

Hi PBS,

So sorry to bother you again, but the disruptions by winklevi have gotten completely out of hand. If you look at this diff:[27]

User winkelvi has reverted the note to me on MY talk page left by you an administrator!

For what purpose is user winkwlvi reverting anything on my talkpage? who knows, but it is just further disruption by winkelvi.

User winkelvi is totally out of order!

I leave it to you sir. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you PBS, for standing up for what is right! Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

and the beat goes on - courtesy notification of a mention

Please see here where I mentioned you, Not sure if the pinging works well. [28]

for your convenience:

"Talk:Simon_Collins#RFC_regarding_a_passage

Consensus has been reached among editors during the discussion. No need for the RfC to drag on. Request an uninvolved editor to close per agreement the content should be reworded, but will stay in early life section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:03 am, Today (UTC−4)

break

@PBS Consensus has most certainly not been reached. I am the originator of the RFC and it has been a quite controversial RFC to say the least. Please see here:

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] The user @winkelvi has gone as far as reverting a message to from administrator @PBS on my talk page. I reported this to admin PBS and he warned user winkelvi in the diffs above. No consensus has been reached, and to date only like 3-5 editors have even comment or voted. I would ask that the RFC be let to run a normal course of time to ensure the maximun number of editors may comment or vote so that we may reach a true consensus, Thank-you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

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

Waterloo Campaign

added links pointing to Chamber of Representatives, Peronne and Marchienne

François Antoine de Boissy d'Anglas

added a link pointing to Louis VIII

Waterloo Campaign: peace negotiations

added a link pointing to Chamber of Representatives

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

genocides list

hi you reverted my edit of the Genocides in history‎ page, could you undo it?

(it was not only adding the harrying of the north but also a big structural change, i found the present structure not very good) References to that it was a genocide are on the harrying of the north page itself , is that not enough?

Here they are as well:

William's strategy, implemented during the winter of 1069–1070 (he spent Christmas 1069 in York), has been described by William E. Kapelle and some other modern scholars as an act of genocide. Contemporary biographers of William also considered it to be his cruelest act and a stain upon his soul. Writing about the Harrying, over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis said:

The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation.

I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him.|Orderic Vitalis, 12th century.}}

The land was ravaged on either side of William's route north from the River Aire. His army destroyed crops and settlements and forced rebels into hiding. In the New Year of 1070 he split his army into smaller units and sent them out to burn, loot, and terrify. Florence of Worcester said that from the Humber to the Tees, William's men burnt whole villages and slaughtered the inhabitants. Food stores and livestock were destroyed so that anyone surviving the initial massacre would succumb to starvation over the winter. The survivors were reduced to cannibalism. Refugees from the harrying are mentioned as far away as Worcestershire in the Evesham Abbey chronicle.

Thanks WillemienH (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [35] Jeppiz (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

French Invasion of Russia

Here is the only book that I have ever referenced using Riehn

1812: Napoleon's Russian Campaign Paperback – April 18, 1991 by Richard K. Riehn ISBN-13: 978-0471543022 If you need any help just let me know.Tirronan (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Phillip here it is: Borodino, The Moscova: The Battle for the Redoubts Hardcover – April, 2001 978-2908182965 F. G. Hourtoulle (Author) Tirronan (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I wrote about 90% of that article so any problems you need my help on feel free to ask and I will bail in to help. I'll have to own the mistakes as well after all! Tirronan (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Waterloo to Paris about the best book on that is Peter H. 2nd volume. It the short Wellington marched after the Prussians, his army was never fast on the march and a side note of "I don't really want to antagonize the the French when Louie is coming back. But Peter is pretty through on that as well as the fortress battles. (The only source I know of there.)Tirronan (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Phillip, I was talking about after the defeat on the pursuit of the remains of the French Army. I understand the wheres and whens before.Tirronan (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, found the army North German Federal Army, Kliest I believe, did most of the fortress reduction. Most were brought under siege and often French Royal authorities would negotiate the surrender. Tirronan (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Kana'ina family tree sourcing

I have never seen genealogy trees referenced with inline citations. Generally the references are on the article however, like you that doesn't really satisfy me. I did remove the tag you placed only because the tree is referenced here and there is no true guideline or procedure that requires templates to have inline citations is there? If so please direct me to it as there has to be an easier way to do it than placing an inline citation within the template. It makes editing very difficult, is hard to decide where to place the citation and if multiple references are used it stacks up and looks odd. Suggestions or should I just keep doing it pretty much as I am and just make sure to repeat the references on all the templates? Let me know how you feel I should proceed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Waterloo 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:

• accessdate=3 June 2015}}</ref> legacy of the battle and the century of relative transatlantic peace{{efn|"No international disturbance comparable in magnitude…has ever been followed by such a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Waterloo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• ->|1891|loc=Letters: 18, 26, 104}}{{sfn|Clark-Kennedy|1975|p=111}}{{sfn|Fletcher|2001|pp= 142-143}}{{sfn|Wood|1895|pp=164, 171}] halted a combined cavalry and infantry attack (Household Brigade only),{{sfn|Siborne<!--HT-->|1891|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Waterloo 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 Foot|71st Foot]], a British infantry regiment. Adam's brigade was further reinforced by [[Hugh Halkett|[Hugh Halkett's]] 3rd Hanoverian Brigade, and successfully repulsed further infantry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Duchess of Richmond's ball

Thank you very much for your kind invitation regarding the Duchess of Richmond's ball and its 200th anniversary. I had not been looking at that article's talk page, so I did not see the note that you put there in late April, thus I apologize for not responding to that. I have been increasingly busy with work and other matters over the last while, and I am now swamped with items that need urgent attention. In addition, I will have to travel for work quite a bit over the coming months, so I will not have the time to do proper research regarding good sources for this article or creating new related articles, unfortunately. I'm sorry that I cannot assist at this time, but if I do come across some suitably good sources, I will be happy to add those. -- Blairall (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

Hm, I think it's just the single general that needs to go back -- the others are all names, I believe? valereee (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Article: Hougoumont

Hello PBS,

I tagged the article merely to direct attention to the Talk page. I see all too many entries on Talk pages which do not get addressed. Naturally, I did do some looking around on Google and found a reference on Project Hougoumont [36] giving specific opening hours but did not do anything about citing that reference.

I have never had occasion to go into the matter of citations very deeply. I suppose that this is largely because I have an old-fashioned notion of a citation as an academic printed source and often feel a bit doubtful about the quality (or shelf-life, for that matter) of on-line sources when I follow them up. I leave citations well alone, apart from occasionally pointing out the lack of one. Accordingly, I put the message on the Talk page hoping for someone with more knowledge/confidence to add a better citation.

I was interested that you mentioned the Daily Mail as it illustrates the sort of doubts I have about diving into adding citations. Although I personally do not doubt the general veracity of the Daily Mail – it’s a reputable newspaper with a large circulation – I note that its reliability has been disputed on Wikipedia for some years, (here’s the latest [37]) and that would probably deter me from using it were I ever to become involved in citation work, at least until some sort of consensus was reached.

Do you think the Project Hougoumont reference suitable? If so, perhaps I will have a go at entering my first citation.

(Incidentally, am I going mad? I could have sworn that your text on the Talk page changed between my first and second readings of it, although there is no record of a change on the History page).Freeman501 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Waterloo campaign subarticles

Hello, Since I see you worked on & split these off - can you take a look at the proposals @ Talk:Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities (15 June) ? In particular, I'd be a fan of switching from colons to commas to make it less of a formal subtitle, as well as changing the subarticles to be divided by date rather than description. (But I'm not an expert on Waterloo, so maybe the dates aren't used, or this would compromise the narrative too much, hence asking for input.) SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Family tree collapsible code

Hi. Can you tell me if there is any way to keep the original size of the family trees under the collapsible code? I realized that this code is making the charts smaller. This is an issue in the case of the text between <small></small> and  parameters, because is making the text even more smaller and thus, difficult to read. --Daduxing (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Here is the Example 1 or Exemple 2 --Daduxing (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you very much. I will play a little with that parameter :D --Daduxing (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Template:Refimprove/doc

Hi,

The documentation for {{Unreferenced}} states that it should only be used when there are no citations at all, whereas the documentation for {{Refimprove}} states that {{Unreferenced}} should be used whenever there are no inline citations. When I changed the {{Refimprove}} to be consistent with the {{Unreferenced}} documentation, you reverted it; so, now they're inconsistent again. Are you planning to fix that?

Thanks,
—Ruakh_TALK 01:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Waterloo Elm

Hello, PBS! Just a note that I grabbed that picture, in case you’re not watching the upload-help page on Commons. Feel free to drop me a line on my Talk page (either here or there) if you need any more such extraterritorial help—or if you think this image needs recropping or any other adjustment.—Odysseus1479 02:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcome with spinning icon

Template:Welcome with spinning icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR on No. 9 Squadron RAF?

Why have you completely changed the reference format on this article? You have used the excuse "homogenised the format of the citations" to completely change the format of all references and citations to a form that wasn't in use at all. Where is the consensus for such a change? What was wrong with the existing format?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Manual of Style/Linking

Greetings User:PBS! Could you please have a look at WP:Manual of Style/Linking? It seems User:EEng has made a huge amount of edits (67 edits by the user) to the WP:LINK guideline without any prior discussion[38], and has kept WP:EDITWARring to keep his changes. Another user commented the same at the article Talk Page too: "It appears an edit war happened to keep the changes. Thats not how WP is supposed to work. This isnt an article, but a guideline that will affect tons of articles"[39]

Well, I am not opposing all of the edits (not opposing the copy-edit ones), but I am asking you to look over these 12 edits by the user:EEng[40].

Here's a short summary:

1. user:EEng makes his bold edits without any discussion[41]
2. after being reverted, user:EEng restores his edits[42]
3. ...user:EEng restores his edits again[43]
4. ...and again[44]

The edits have been discussed at several forums, such as:

1. User Talk:EEng#WP:LINK - I mentioned that he's made BOLD changes, and I encouraged him to discuss the edits, avoid an edit war, and seek for consensus.
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Mainpoints deleted - User:Moxy asked: "Why have many of the main point of the subpages deleted? I think having all the main point here is much better then having to run all over to find them. I suggest a revert and a discussion of reworking of the page."
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Discussion of_individual edits (1) - I provided a detailed explanation about the problems. Yet the original proposer, User:EEng, has not really provided any explanation for his edits, but has merely been snapping on the other editors' comments. He's been reverting back to his own preferred version whenever another user's reply hasn't pleased him (even it would be his responsibility to explain his own edits in the first place)
4. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Arbitrarybreak - It appears that two editors find the edits substantive (User:AlbinoFerret and I), but user EEng and Boson do not.
5. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Discussion of individual edits - This edit, only after two hours of my major contribution to the article Talk Page, User:EEng decided to edit war and revert in order to keep his own version.

Summa summarum: Despites of the many places where the discussion has taken place, user EEng has not really agreed to provide rationale for his edits (he says communicating through ES is enough). He's also been asked to provide rationale for his edits, but he has said that each "edit is self-explaining via the change it makes to the text itself plus its edit summary"[45] There's no consensus for his changes, and he's kept edit warring in order to keep his edits (as quoted above)

I have warned him about edit warring earlier here[46].

Sorry for taking your time, and I hope you have time to take a look! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

[47] and [48] pretty much sum up the situation here. EEng (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

DNB

Hi PBS. Thanks - how confusing. I'll try and remember. Perhaps DNB should become a dab as has been done with Template:ADB. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Anything that alerts translators that a template copied from German Wiki is pointing to the wrong template on English Wiki is clearly a help. Thanks for spotting this and suggesting a fix. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mulsanne Straight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arnage. 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) 08:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ARBATC

I think EEng should get the same formal notice as Jayaguru-Shishya. That inter-personal dispute is entirely 50-50, and it's continuing with a lot snarking, and pointy editing and reverting, but short of full-scale editwarring. I can't remember if it was ever settled or not whether such a notice carries the same weight from an admin or a regular user. I've been trying to mediate between these two for days at WT:Manual of Style/Linking, and some consensus on this change vs. that has been forged (actual progress), but EEng's using my talk page as a venting ground (next-to-last thread). There's seems to me to be a noteworthy degree of game-playing (not necessarily WP:GAMING, more like WP:WIN) from both of them. It's getting slightly disruptive, though not enough (to me) for an ANI action much less AE / DS at this stage. I think the stuff on my talk page is sufficient for EEng to get the same notice, as are may of his posts in the WT:MOSLINK discussion. J-S seems to be watching himself civility-wise, but some of his actions haven't been constructive. Disclaimer: I don't actually believe ARBATC is a good idea, or procedurally valid (it's a failure of separation of powers, with ArbCom interfering directly with the WP community's internal self-governance, when ArbCom was created to handle behavioral matters in public-facing content disputes, and harassment). However, if we're going hand out notices, it should be done equitably when both sides are being transgressive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No Gun Ri

Hello,

Hope you're doing well. I am currently engaged in a lengthy dispute resolution process over at No Gun Ri Massacre, which has seen a very heated debate between Cjhanley and WeldNeck which has seethed for years.

Part of it revolves around a sourcing dispute, namely, the credibility of the U.S. No Gun Ri Review Report, the initial AP reports (particularly the credibility of certain eyewitnesses), and of historian Robert Bateman. In general, the page has been a battleground, with frequent personal attacks, accusations of POV, bold edits against consensus, and so on, although it has calmed down as of late. It is important to note that Cjhanley is in fact one of the AP reporters who initially broke the No Gun Ri story, and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize; also, WeldNeck has accused him of a conflict of interest. Both editors have compiled extensive lists of their grievances, and have dragged one another to ANI: [49][50][51][52][53] WeldNeck also attacked Cjhanley as a sockpuppeteer: [54]. Neither editor is blameless, to say the least. I filed a DRN quite some time ago.

For some time, I, along with Timothyjosephwood, Wikimedes, and Irondome have attempted to mediate, and we have successfully imposed an unofficial "freeze" on editing the page without prior proposals. The page has been fairly quiet for a while. Unfortunately, there has recently been some adding and reverting of content, as the "freeze" has begun to thaw out:[55][56][57][58] I would appreciate any help an experienced editor such as yourself could offer. If you are interested, I can also provide some sources to provide background, although some can also be found on the page's external links category.

Thanks very much,

GAB (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: North-east

Ah, I keep on forgetting that one; thanks for the reminder. Graham87 09:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Date of death template

The helpdesk message was meant to be requesting advice on where I can get some more people to contribute to the template proposal. Thanks for your input which I have copied to the template talk page. Just letting you know I moved your comment to the new section. Periglio (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AutoEd

Hello, I appear to be having some trouble with AutoEd. I ran it on the page, it made those changes and I saved them. I thought that was just how you used it: it picks out errors and changes them. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, Rubbish computer 14:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

If you criticize the work of people who've worked very hard to promote something to FA and have invested their own money into research for it, what do you expect? If you don't respect the work and quality of article then don't expect people to be "civil" with you. I suggest you withdraw your ANI report at is just looks like you're screaming for attention and to attract the civility brigade and open another can of worms. Stop wasting everybody's time and do some work on something which actually needs it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation links to ANI discussions

You should know that you are adding WP:DAB links as section headers with your wikilink to ANI#Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night. It's probably better to direct people to the discussion in hand rather than guide them towards a page which talks about a ruined Turkish city, etc etc. Just in case you hadn't realised. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Declaration outlawing Napoleon at the Congress of Vienna

Re your message: Can you recall why you made this edit (17 April 2015). Which changes a standard internal link to a wikisource article into a none standard one:

Before: deceleration outlawing Napoleon After: declaration outlawing Napoleon

-- PBS (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to correct a typo in the link text. I did not realise that this would change the link itself. I have now reverted the edit and the link text is correct and the link now works. Thanks for your diligence in spotting this.

Kinnerton (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles..

I would like to rename "Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that includes an obsolete parameter‎" to "Pages incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that includes an obsolete parameter‎" to uniformised naming style. (Same for all three similar tracking categories). What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of Kingdom of Germany

Hi, I noticed you've recently participated in a discussion on the talk page of the above-mentioned article. I'm letting you know I've opened a move request here. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Coram may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• knowing person about the plantations he had ever talked with".<ref>{{harvnb|Stephen|1887|p=194}}} cites Cox, ''Walpole'', iii. 243.</ref> He obtained an act of parliament taking off the
• in [[Rotherhithe]] and regularly travelling into London to engage in his business interests (a journey of about {{convert|4|mi|km}}, Coram was frequently shocked by the sight of infants

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I recently ran across the wiki for Sir Edward Stafford, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Stafford_%28diplomat%29. Do you know of any images of Sir Edward?

We have a portrait in our museum collection that may be of Sir Edward. The evidence is slim so far. Another image of Sir Edward would certainly inform our research.

Thanks

Perry Hurt Associate Conservator North Carolina Museum of Art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Hurt (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James VI and I may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 4 "{}"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Clean up a small mess please?

I could use your mop for a clean up. I made a move of an article, then saw your note from May and moved it again so I was hoping you could delete the redirects as they are not needed: Template:Miller/Desha/Beamer family tree and Template:Miller/Beamer/Desha family tree. The current title is Template:Miller, Desha, Beamer family tree and I have replaced the links on each page.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Also still have three more templates that will need to be moved for the same reasons and none of them will need the redirect pages.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated links

WP:REPEATLINK "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (my bolding) SpinningSpark 22:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Werden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Mary II. 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) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

PBS "You wrote "The evidence is slim so far (happy to share if you are interested)." I am intersted. -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)"

Edward Stafford (diplomat)

Sorry, I'm new here and dont know the system or etiquette. Concerning Stafford I'm going to have to step back. I'm collaborating with others and cant make our conversation public at this time. Perry Hurt (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Perry Hurt: I have replied on your talk page (this is the demo of the use of {{Reply to}} using "{{Reply to|Perry Hurt}}". -- PBS (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Error in the NIE template

The following mistake results in a widely propagated inaccuracy to an out-of-copyright citation at Wikipedia.If it can be fixed, the correction will propagate widely, and result in improved information accuracy in the encyclopedia.

The template:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

should reflect the fact that the editors of this first edition were: Daniel Coit Gilman, Harry Thurston Peck, and Frank Moore Colby (see Template:New_International_Encyclopedia).

Instead, it presents the the third editor as "F. Moore" (presenting the middle name, omitting the surname).

Please, indicate here how this might be fixed (or, if easily done, execute the correction yourselves)? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Medlands

Do you happen to know who/what Charles Cawley is? Would you happen to know the current "consensus" concerning this website's reliability? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have replied in detail on you talk page but short answer (and an aid memoir for me): Have you looked up the conversations at WP:RS/N? Probably best to start with Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. -- PBS (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you PBS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting EB1911 maintenance pages

Carried over from a conversation on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism

"I notice that the editor who created {{Update-EB}} was yourself."... my goodness, so I did (9 years and a day ago). I had blanked on that. I believe I created it, Include-EB, and now-deleted ni-EB, under guidance form someone more experienced, but I forget who. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification#Propose another template for me talking to myself.

As you suggested, I only use that big ugly header for articles that are clearly deficient, primarily as a warning to readers. For articles that are probably valid but have EB1911 as the only (or almost only) source, I've taken to adding a comment in the references section for future editors, as well as a {{One source}} (which I sometimes forget). I realize that leaving comments is very un-Wikipedia, and I'll convert them to a category; either a new one or Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates, although that isn't exactly appropriate. I can automate the conversion, if you agree it's OK to leave that tag on the main page and not the talk page.

There are references to ni-EB (such as in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification) that should be removed. Come to that, Include-eb isn't really getting any use. David Brooks (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally like Wikipedia articles based on DNB articles, I do not think it matters if a Wikipedia article is based on an EB1911 article, because those are tertiary sources and are usually a summary of other reliable sources, or were written by an expert who knows the subject, so generally I do not think that {{One source}} is usually helpful for readers. If ever you have seen the reaction of someone who is frightened of heights who see a sigh "don't lean over the rail" who then draws the false conclusion that the rail is unsafe and won't approach it (why are you telling me about only one source if the information is relevant and accurate? -- it must be unsafe/[not relevant or inaccurate]). {{One source}} I think is useful when it is for labeling an article based on a secondary source that is pushing a particular POV (Eg a British book on the Spitfire that throughout the text implies that the Spitfire was the best fighter, under all conditions, present at the Battle of Britain).

Thanks for that interpretation of {{One source}}. Makes sense and I will adopt it. David Brooks (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I take you point about the Big ugly heading, as a warning to readers and I would agree that sometimes it is useful, but of course someone needs to be cleaning them up and I am not sure anyone is doing it.

Not sure anyone is doing it either, and not sure I will live long enough to clean up the EB1911 import, but its still The Right Thing to act as though there will be later generations of editors interested in obscure projects. I think a new category that says "EB1911 main source, please add data if you can" is appropriate and I'll think about it some more (have to go out now) but it will probably be a super- or sub-category of Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates. David Brooks (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually David you have turned up at an appropriate moment. Today I created a number of articles on Wikisource because the Wikipedia article "John the Fearless" is a classic example of one developed from an original copy from an EB1911 article with no article title in the {{EB1911}} template. ("first catch your hare": it took me some time to work out what the article was called -- I had to go via a text search on some of the original text and found a match with a Gutenburg EB artcle. Having identified the article I then created a Wiksource version (and as it was over two pages, created the articles either side). I then ran the "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" and placed inline citations next to the text in the Wikipedia article. So far so normal! But I did all this to help two editors who are locked in an argument over sources. It would help the project if you could take a look at talk:John the Fearless#Unsourced information added to sourced sentence and give yet another opinion on what is the appropriate course of action over including mistresses, bastards using an article by Charles Cawley as the cited source. -- PBS (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look but again may have to think about the best response. David Brooks (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think you're doing fine and nobody disagrees with your guidance so far. All I could add is "+1". I'll keep an eye on it because there is still no consensus on Cawley as a reference. I kind of wish we had access to de Barante, Zeller and Petit, although that is a masochistic thought; there aren't enough lifetimes to chase down all the secondary sources in EB. Some nits though: in the list of children, there's no need for a {{cn}} on Joanna's dying young or Anne or her marriage (both in EB), but on the other hand the b/d dates of the unlinked children must have come from another source. Not sure how to handle that accurately. And I'll validate the new Page space pages for you; I see a few transcription errors :-) David Brooks (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Cameron (1781–1850), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shorncliffe. 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) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Mythical Man-Month 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:

• humorous song based on [[99 Bottles of Beer]] has been around on notice boards since at least 2000 ({{cite web| author=Anonymous |year=2000 |url=http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/QuotesProgramming.html |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation overkill John the Fearless

Would you care to clarify whether or not Medlands is an unreliable source, since Victar is having some issues.[59] And did you not say once a reliable source was added that Medlands could be removed?

Once again, I started a discussion which was summarily ignored and after waiting over a week, I removed excess sources(mostly 19th cent & Medlands). Victar suddenly arrives to revert me, without even using the talk page, then he dictates on the talk page what the consensus will be. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Hanoverian Waterloo Medal

Category:Recipients of the Hanoverian Waterloo Medal, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. EricSerge (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

European Theater of Operations, United States Army

Quick courtesy note: I have moved this page back to this title because the full name of the command really was 'European Theater of Operations, United States Army.' The 'United States Army' bit is not a disambiguator!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

German occupation of northeastern France during World War I

Hi, you moved this page in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. Is "northeastern" not AMENG? If not, Northeastern University will no doubt be very upset. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to V sign may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 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:

• *AU: {{http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s2193276.htm?site=science/k2 Karl S. Kruszelnicki]. [http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s655611.htm Arrow Up Yours & Plague 1] [http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul Barlow

Hi PBS. I'm sorry to inform you that Paul Barlow has died... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note

Thanks for the note - my post was over 2 1/2 years ago and I really can't remember it or why it was cut and paste; I am however an Admin and don't need lecturing on procedures! B Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 17:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Alps (Europe)

A Swiss? has renamed the article Southern Alps to Southern Alps (New Zealand). Would any sensible person object to my changing Alps to Alps (Europe), there are lots of other Alps around the place even in the Japanese language hah. Would you support Southern Alps (New Zealand) being changed back to just Southern Alps? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diana, Princess of Wales 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:

• Irish, Scottish and [[British-American]] descent.<ref>{{harvnb|Williamson|1981a|p=192–199}}; {{harvnb|Williamson|1981b|p=192–199}.</ref> She was born into the British noble [[Spencer family]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English Civil War 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Amerijuanican

Said user seems to be getting into an edit war on the Article The War of 1812. Would you mind taking a look? I value your opinion on this matter Tirronan (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

For everyone's information, I have taken the matter regarding this editor's disruptive behaviour on this and other articles to the admins (again). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FEdit_warring.23User:Amerijuanican_reported_by_User:HLGallon_.28Result:_.29 HLGallon (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

UnbiasedVictory

Our favorite sock puppet is back and already raising Cain. The user is now named Nacho wifi. Tirronan (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

English Civil War

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Yuppie Word

Hello there! I note your edit to the Yuppie page. Thanks for that. I have altered it slightly to reflect the fact that the "yuppie" word was not used in Britain throughout the 1980s. Its usage began circa 1983 (possibly 1982) and it was becoming prominent in 1984. The term was acknowledged as being of American origin.

All good wishes - and thank you again,

(Etheldavis (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

Yuppie 2

Thanks for that. The use of the word "yuppie" in the 1980 Chicago Magazine article is interesting, but in the UK the type of people referred to in that article had no such title and were simply referred to as "gentrifying" previously working class areas. The yuppie term caught hold in the UK (as it did in the USA) after the arrival of Ronald Reagan as American President, when the term went wide and was used to describe those making hay in the financial climates engendered by the Reagan (and Thatcher) administrations (rather as the term "hippie" gained currency some time after it first appeared). In 1980, the UK was in recession and the appearance of the yuppie term in a local Chicago publication appears to have gone unnoticed, certainly by the Press and other media. Of course, this was pre-World Wide Web. I am studying the rise and changing application of the term in the UK for my 1980s blog (I have access to a large media archive via my work), and will keep you appraised of my findings. Thanks again.

(Etheldavis (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC))

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Single-entry bulleted list

I saw the change your AWB avatar made to Désiré Charnay. I personally have been going in the opposite direction, removing the * from places where the article is essentially a copy and EB1911 is the only entry in the References section. Two reasons: I just dislike the look of a single-entry bulleted list, stylistically (I just became aware that this is an ongoing dispute by conversations in an entirely different context). And I think the lack of a bullet emphasizes that the article is, indeed, a copy with little or no extra information. I don't know how many articles you have edited in that way; are we pulling in opposite directions? David Brooks (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Replying to your reply on my page. David Brooks (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki email

I replied to your email (thanks, btw, and apologies for the delay) but it bounced undeliverable from a bigfoot.com address. I tried emailing you through WP a few minutes ago, but presumably that uses the same address. If nothing comes through, let me know and I'll set up a burner mailbox. I'll be away for a couple of days though. David Brooks (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)