User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 47
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 |
DNB biographies
Hi, it seems that I am somewhat inadvertently working my way through your list of yet-to-be-created Royal Navy DNB articles! I'm currently writing up Policarpus Taylor, which I note is now more commonly spelt as Polycarpus Taylor, and also have a rough draft going for Sir Andrew Leake. When Wilson Rathborne is eventually created it might actually appear as Wilson Rathbone, too. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Whether intentional or not, I'm grateful for your time and trouble. That list was created from the list of DNB articles by John Knox Laughton, who was the major naval writer. When we reached the point of 80% of the old DNB topics represented here, that seemed to be a big milestone in terms of inclusion of its major content. But there are still some further interesting articles: I'm working on one such today. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Clay (chaplain), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek New Testament.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
"Polefield" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Polefield and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Polefield until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election
Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.
The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Charles Matthews. Thank you for creating Bridgewater Treatises. User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Great article.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
scope_creepTalk 18:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 52
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022
- New instant-access collections:
- SpringerLink and Springer Nature
- Project MUSE
- Taylor & Francis
- ASHA
- Loeb
- Feedback requested on this newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
"Zciweisakul notation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Zciweisakul notation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Zciweisakul notation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CiaPan (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 53
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022
- New collections:
- Edward Elgar
- E-Yearbook
- Corriere della Serra
- Wikilala
- Collections moved to Library Bundle:
- Ancestry
- New feature: Outage notification
- Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Sect Shinto
Hello, Charles Matthews. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sect Shinto, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Shrug. I created the redirect in 2005. Sect Shinto now exists. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale
Please undelete Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale. The deletion did not meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, so should have been listed at WP:RFD, and on it's own merits it seems like a reasonable redirect. The correct solution to the circular redirect is to unlink it, not delete things out-of-process. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Per WP:REDLINK, "Remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject". You make a process point, I make a policy point. The section Baron Ribblesdale#Barons Ribblesdale (1797) already had a redlink for the 3rd Baron. These Barons were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and would typically be considered notable for that reason alone. Charles Matthews (talk)
- Sigh. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not make the deletion any more appropriate. Here we go ... * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Sect Shinto
Hello, Charles Matthews. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sect Shinto".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Really odd process we have, considering you are referring to a redirect I created in 2005. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec22}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.
Keep me in mind if you need another classroom assistant next year. ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Charles Matthews!
Charles Matthews,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! Charles Matthews (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of List of poems for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of poems until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Mucube (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Lupton (16th-century writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heliogabalus.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 54
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022
- New collections:
- British Newspaper Archive
- Findmypast
- University of Michigan Press
- ACLS
- Duke University Press
- 1Lib1Ref 2023
- Spotlight: EDS Refine Results
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Welcome, Grand Allies
I am delighted to see an article on the Grand Allies at last. I have come across references to them in the Tanfield Railway and Causey Arch articles, but I was disappointed that they were not wikilinked. I even thought of starting an article on my own, but I was rather limited to online resources, and most of those seemed to be blogs and hobby sites - not meaning to be disparaging, but not quite what WP wants. You are very much better equipped than I am. Now I shall settle down and enjoy the article that I wished for. -- Verbarson talkedits 20:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Verbarson: I'm glad you like it - a complex topic. I came across it last year when I was writing about William Russell (banker). I hope I can do it some sort of justice. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
"Auld Licht" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Auld Licht and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 30 § Auld Licht until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The article Georg Michael Pachtler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lack of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Conversion of old Catholic Encyclopedia article, already deprodded by another editor. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The article Georg Michael Wittman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lack of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Conversion of old Catholic Encyclopedia article, already deprodded by another editor. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 55
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023
- New bundle partners:
- Newspapers.com
- Fold3
- 1Lib1Ref January report
- Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
"Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:John Kidgell
Hello, Charles Matthews. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Kidgell, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now John Kidgell. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Fram (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Fram: Well, I have been here for nearly 20 years now. If you have a problem with one of my recent edits, I shall try to rectify it in accordance with WP:NOR, a policy with which I'm familiar. Could you be more specific? My experiences with William Gellibrand (settler) are that WP:RS has to be applied very carefully, and I tend to use contorted language rather than cite low-class references. I will change that if necessary, but you are not telling me much. I suggest a talk page message for the article in question. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the newly created version of the article, you insert some sources which seem to be completely unverifiable (" South arm peninsula and convict trail" and "Pioneers of South Arm Tasmania, builders of the Anglican Church of St.Barnabas, Wiltshire, Lorraine. " are both impossible to find with the information given). But my comments were about the version now at draft. Something like "That the Rev. Joseph Gellibrand was married to Elizabeth Tice, and that William Gellibrand was their son, is confirmed by family records on p. 289 of the dissertation Tasmanian family and community reconstitution (2006) by Neil Kay Chick. (But where on p.290 it is stated that Thomas Lloyd Gellibrand was christened 1820 "by his grandfather, Joseph Gellibrand, pastor of the Edmonton, Middlesex, England Presbyterian congregation" that is clearly wrong", Joseph Gellibrand (died 1806) being his great-grandfather.) " should never be put in a mainspace article? The same goes for "If Joseph Gellibrand took up the place of minister at Edmonton c.1788, as the monumental inscription suggests, that is compatible with his being at Newington Green from 1785 to 1787; and if William Gellibrand preached there during that time, that is compatible with his being the son of Joseph Gellibrand. " That whole long section, trying to reconstruct the early life of the subject, is good for a primary source, not for enwiki though. Fram (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Fram:} To explain a bit more: I was working on Draft:William Clarke Gellibrand, and realised that the identity of his paternal grandfather was not simply verifiable. I'm not clear why, but to respect WP:V I built up information first there. I rewrote the information there, to clarify it there. And then I developed further material in Draft:William Gellibrand (settler). I can see that my creation of William Gellibrand (settler) just now was a mistake - I lost concentration because of dealing with some phone calls I had to deal with. I apologise for the confusion that has caused.
- You have a point about the language used in the (second or third) draft - these things are more suitable for hidden comments. I shall try to rewrite the existing draft, on the basis that the Chick reference validates the basic relatiionship. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Let me note a few further things. You made a cross-namespace move redraftifying my article displaying {{under construction}} before alerting me to a problem here. I don't think that is good practice. I was in the middle of editing that article, which is why there was an article remaining in mainspace that was puzzling (not least to me). You used a stock message here addressing me as a newbie, which I'm not and as you know since we've had many dealings before. I could have added {{in use}}, which is not my habit because I have found {{under construction}} is generally respected. I'm left wondering if {{in use}} would have been respected.
I do not see that you have respected WP:DRAFTIFY parts 3, in fact. Your comment about recent edits seem to imply that. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are an autopatrolled admin. You shouldn't put OR in the mainspace, no matter what tag you put on the article. "Under construction" isn't a get-out-of-jail card, neither is "in use". It is fine for incomplete pages, showing that e.g. a lack of cats, references, essential parts of content, ... will be added. It is not a way to keep OR in the mainspace. If, as was clear here (and as you indicated in your previous message), you are basically researching the subject in real time, writing down your thoughts and doubts, then you should do that in draftspace or a sandbox. That some bullet point of an essay wasn't followed when draftifying doesn't really bother me. Is there are actual, not wikilawyering, reason why you have an issue with the draftifying? Was my reasoning incorrect, didn't your page contain OR (and in the current mainspace version unverifiable sources)? Fram (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, I dealt with your comments on content on their merit. You are really not prepared to deal with my comments on process in the same way. I'll let others decide on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering here. The fact is that you could have simply left a message here with a note of the issue raised. WP:5P4. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that your ego has been bruised by having your article draftified. It apparently wasn't the respect you deserved somehow. I didn't leave a note as I thought you, who "have been here for nearly 20 years now", would know enough about "WP:NOR, a policy with which I'm familiar." that you didn't need being spoonfed what the issues were, and that a general template indicating that the issue was OR would be sufficient. I guess I was wrong. By the way, I have removed copyvio from your mainspace version of the article, and tagged it for cleanup as one of the three sources is completely unfindable from the info provided. There was apparently no specific tag for "source is unverifiable", so I used cleanup instead. Fram (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, I dealt with your comments on content on their merit. You are really not prepared to deal with my comments on process in the same way. I'll let others decide on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering here. The fact is that you could have simply left a message here with a note of the issue raised. WP:5P4. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
On the content of William Gellibrand (settler): the paras about Australia were imported verbatim and in good faith from St Barnabas Church and Cemetery, South Arm, Tasmania, to establish a section. I had every intention of working over them. There is a great deal more in the Sadler reference, which I looked at in the library yesterday.
As for my ego - it is funny, considering all that has happened since 2003 here, that anyone should think it could be bruised. Really, though, if I actually were a newbie, I could find your approach off-putting. In fact it is bad for business, and this point has been made to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Ernest Hobson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:SPORTBASIC.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stradling, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Edward Stradling, Thomas Stradling and John Stradling.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"Non-singular" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Non-singular has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 25 § Non-singular until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Native oppositors against Japanese regime(WW2) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 § Native oppositors against Japanese regime(WW2) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 56
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023
- New partner:
- Perlego
- Library access tips and tricks
- Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Charles Matthews! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) |  |
20 years
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For 20 years of dealing with the wonderfully important (and the ridiculously nonsensical) things that Wikipedia can be, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. - jc37 21:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC) |
Congratulations! : )
You make me feel like such a newbie : ) - jc37 21:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Errr, not the intended effect? Charles Matthews (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- lol. It's a good thing (I think)
- There are days, wandering these pag-ed halls that I sometimes feel like such an old-timer. So I guess you have the (dubious?) distinction of making me feel not quite so old.
- And now writing that out, now I feel like I might owe you an apology - lol
- Anyway, I'm only one Wikipedian, so I spose it may not mean much, but the barnstar was sincere. Thank you for all that you do : ) - jc37 06:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The article Marcus Diadochus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The article says "Nothing is known of him but his name at the head of a "Sermon against the Arians"". This doesn't sound super notable.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Sir John Fellowes, 1st Baronet
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sir John Fellowes, 1st Baronet, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 57
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023
- Suggestion improvements
- Favorite collections tips
- Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Spelling variations on Gerard Legh
As the author of this article, I thought you should be consulted before I edited it to address some spelling variations that I wasn't sure how best to incorporate (or whether to incorporate them at all), or perhaps let you do it instead (should it be desirable to do so). In reviewing this copy of The Accedence of Armorie, edition of 1597, I see that the title contains two differences from the 1562 version (at least as cited by Internet Archive and in the Wikipedia article; the Oxford English Dictionary gives "Armorie" rather than "Armory" with date of 1562 under "sardonyx"). Easy enough to state that the title is variously spelled "Accedens/Accedence" and "Armory/Armorie". But the author's name is also spelled "Leigh" in the 1597 edition. Since he died not long after publishing the 1562 edition, I don't know whether this is a proper emendation or a hypercorrection. As a result, I don't know whether it should also be noted in the article—although I suspect it should. I consider myself a dabbler in heraldry, so I've never read this work before, and know nothing about the author besides what's in his article. So I'd like to ask your advice before making any additions concerning these variations, and perhaps defer to you if you'd like to incorporate them in some way, or think it would be a mistake to do so. P Aculeius (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: So the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls him "Legh [Leigh], Gerard". I think the name variant Leigh can be mentioned. As for the book, I'm seeing interesting hits in JSTOR for "Accedens of Armory". In particular Robert Dudley and the Inner Temple Revels, The Historical Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 365-378 by Marie Axton. (Why no article for her? Important scholar.)
- What's in the ODNB about Legh is fairly tentative. It could be buttressed by some recent scholarship, maybe. The author's intention in the book might be a more worthwhile discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Draft:Marie Axton now exists. The Gorboduc section gives a brief version of the relevance of Legh's book. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's really impressive for one day's work—or at least it is to me! The level of scholarship goes far beyond my technical interest in heraldry, or the extent of my knowledge of late Tudor intrigues—and I will have to think very carefully about how or what to add to the Legh article, although I suggest that perhaps you would be the right person to do so, as you can appreciate the importance of the masque included in The Accedens of Armory to history better than I can, in light of the fact that it seems to have been overlooked until recent times.
- For that matter, I would have to take your word for what the draft says, as the details here are beyond my meagre scholarship—I haven't read any of the papers or discussions involved. But the draft certainly looks ready for mainspace, even if it's not complete or polished by your standards; just skimming it, it looks better than most "finished" articles I've read.
- Really, I only came here because I wondered about the variant spellings of Legh's name and the title of his book, which I only noticed when identifying him as the earliest source provided for "sardonyx" as the gem-equivalent of the heraldic colour sanguine according to the Oxford English Dictionary in a discussion for Wiktionary, after I found the 1597 printing online and read what it had to say about sanguine and tenné... you might say that I was doing some wikignoming due to my interest in heraldry. But having read the new article, I'm not at all confident about how best to incorporate any of it into the Legh article. I think that would be better left up to an editor who's read the papers in question and knows which ones to cite and how. P Aculeius (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: Thanks for the compliment. I just sit at a desk, use search engines, and collate what I find. In relation to Accedens of Armory, what is indicated is that the author's intention was probably mostly political and precise, rather than just a general idea of providing an introduction to heraldry. But saying so in terms might infringe against WP:OR. You should go ahead and edit Gerard Legh as you see fit, and I'll get round to expanding the article at some later point. (These days I use the DrawShield heraldry software, see my uploads to Commons: another whole business.) Charles Matthews (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Anderson baronets of St Ives (1629) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Seems to lack all notability. If notable, would be more logical to have an article on the one baronet, where this can redirect to.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am opposing this PROD. See Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. This is a classic case. There is good information on all baronetcies in Cokayne, The Complete Baronetage, which is an ongoing project on Wikisource. The article has one standard reference already. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Anderson baronets of St Ives (1629) for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson baronets of St Ives (1629) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Fram (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on John Francis Campbell
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page John Francis Campbell, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on James Franck Bright
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page James Franck Bright, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Philberds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kimbolton.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Green baronets of Wakefield (1886)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Green baronets of Wakefield (1886), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 58
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023
- New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
- Tech tip: Filters
- Wikimania presentation
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Robertson (bookseller), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paisley.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:John Fenwick (radical)
Hello, Charles Matthews. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Fenwick (radical), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:William Clarke Gellibrand
Hello, Charles Matthews. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:William Clarke Gellibrand, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: John Fenwick (radical) has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)"Unit normal" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Unit normal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § Unit normal until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
"Unit normal vector" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Unit normal vector has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § Unit normal vector until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
"Rademacher function" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Rademacher function has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13 § Rademacher function until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
"Nadar(caste)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Nadar(caste) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 15 § Nadar(caste) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
"Philip Dunne(writer)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Philip Dunne(writer) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 17 § Philip Dunne(writer) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Charles, I just wanted to drop a quick courtesy note to explain why I reverted your edit of Anthony R. Dickinson (removing the "may not be notable academic" tag). In short, there are two Tony Dickinsons! It seems there has been a long-running confusion in which Anthony R. Dickinson was presumed to be the FRS and all such links/templates were pointed to that article. In fact, it's a totally different person. The FRS is really Tony Dickinson. I think I have cleaned up all the templates and "backlinks" etc now, but I might have missed something. With thanks, 45154james (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @45154james: Thanks for the clarification. I have fixed up the Wikidata item also. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 59
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
- Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
- Tech tip: Library access methods
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
For 777777777 GET (Special:Diff/777777777). Bet you didn't even know it was special! jp×g🗯️ 22:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
- Correct. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
"General Roothaan" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect General Roothaan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § General Roothaan until a consensus is reached. — Moriwen (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Hubert Crackanthorpe
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hubert Crackanthorpe, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings!
.JPG)
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Five years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! Charles Matthews (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Yevdokiya Bakunina
Hello, Charles Matthews. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yevdokiya Bakunina, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- This draft arose from some student training, and turned out to be unverifiable. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Diego Ruiz de Montoya
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Diego Ruiz de Montoya requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Richard Peacocke
Hi, I'm looking at writing up Vice-Admiral Richard Peacocke, and saw that the article name already exists as a redirect for Richard Pococke, created by yourself. "Peacocke" doesn't appear once in the article, and I was wondering whether the redirect is most useful there, or if the title could be used without disambiguation for the other article? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: That redirect is used on Ashtiname of Muhammad. You can create a new article from it, but please pipe the wikilink from that page when you do so. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
London meetup bicententary
FYI, the 200th London Meetup is happening tomorrow, Sunday 14 January. You may be interested as you were present at the very first one (pictured)! Note that it is now at Penderel's Oak on High Holborn by the Great Turnstile. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I remember it well. I was the first one to go up to Jimbo and introduce myself. (I said I had won the Jimmy Wales look-alike competition.) Charles Matthews (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Louise Nicholson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article is a revived version of a previously deleted article for similar reasons. This piece is largely self-promotional, relating to a person that is neither "notable", not "high profile" per Wikipedia's guidelines. 3 out of 4 paragraphs of "career" have no source. Most sources are indirect and anecdotal.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
An issue for you to consider
Hello, Charles. As part of some editing I did earlier today, I came across this edit summary which mentions a reputable organisation of which I am myself a member. The ACS is The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. I have spoken to three of my colleagues in the meantime and we all agree that these odious remarks are lies which defame our reputation. The ACS is not a tabloid newspaper and we do not "discredit" people who write about cricket. Indeed, so far as the work in question is concerned, we serialised it in several issues of our quarterly journal in 2006! If that is discrediting someone's work, what must we do to show approval?
My friends and I agreed that, as a first step, I should approach the responsible party to seek an explanation. However, he appears to have become inactive and I wonder if this could be because he has been held to account by yourself for his many failures to observe WP:PRESERVE, something that we as cricket writers were already well aware of? Although we research and publish our own material, we want WP:CRIC to succeed because of the site's wide circulation which may encourage more cricket fans to become researchers. That will only happen if WP:CRIC's members work together and respect both each other and the site's policies. This individual, however, drives people away. We could, with research, provide a long list of condescending, belittling, and bullying edit summary comments which have targeted mainly new editors, including two I know personally who now refuse to edit this site (and one of them is a journalist who happens to be very adept at research and writing).
As you can see, the edit summary I found was written on 2 August 2021. If it had been a one-off, we could perhaps believe that it was done in momentary frustration, but it was not a one-off. In fact, he used the same summary SIXTEEN times on that day, and perhaps on other days too. As far as we are concerned, it is completely unacceptable, and it is the tip of an iceberg. That editor has made countless insults over many years and we are left wondering how he can have got away with it for so long.
Is there any way you, as an administrator, can revert or erase insulting edit summaries? We are not concerned about removal of the source from the article because so much goes unsourced that it does not matter to us as readers. If he had deleted the citation and made no comment we would not even notice, but he cannot be allowed to summarise his edits by insulting other people.
We are grateful to you for the action you have already taken and, if you can help us with this matter, that would be appreciated even more. I should mention that I have very limited availability at present because of a new work project (I have taken a day off today) but I will keep an eye on my watchlist. Thank you for your time and, whatever you decide (or are permitted) to do, all of us wish you the very best for 2024. Batagur baska (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Batagur baska: Thanks for getting in touch.
- Let me explain first that edit summaries are not something that normal editing can change. Any modification would require something like developer access.
- Let me also say that I don't assume User:Blue Square Thing has left Wikipedia: something they wrote above the section you mention on User talk:Blue Square Thing suggests only a break. Of course it was not my intention to make the editor leave.
- If at some future point Blue Square Thing returns to editing, and you wish to pursue the matter you raise about use of edit summaries, you should have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, and the way conduct disputes can be handled. I'd be happy to advise. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, Charles. That is fair enough. I did expect that removing a summary would be problematic. I'll set the issue aside for now and see what develops. Thank you for your time and best wishes. Batagur baska (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Accident of birth for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accident of birth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 60
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
- Three new partners
- Google Scholar integration
- How to track partner suggestions
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Synaus
An article that you have been involved in editing—Synaus—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
"Kirchenlexicon" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Kirchenlexicon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § Kirchenlexicon until a consensus is reached. — Moriwen (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
"Logarithmic sine" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Logarithmic sine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § Logarithmic sine until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
"Logarithmic tangent" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Logarithmic tangent has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § Logarithmic tangent until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Shabbethai Panzieri for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbethai Panzieri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.JMWt (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 61
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
- Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
- 1Lib1Ref results
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Charles Matthews, since you created the article, I was wondering if this image would be an option to add to the article. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
_(14763808204).jpg){kind=link}
- @Lotje: I have cleaned up that image, and used it to replace File:St Roberts Chapel Knaresborough Bewick.jpg in the article. Since the definition of the image is better, this may be a good idea. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
ITMA
Despite my chucking bricks in your direction, please allow me to say how much I admire you as an editor. Tim riley talk 20:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. The ITMA page will ultimately see some improvement. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Since you created the article, please can you arrange to correct an error in the current version? Paragraph one states "Nonsuch Palace (SNIP) was completed in 1538." But paragraph five states "Construction had been substantially carried out by 1541, but it took several more years to complete." I lack the knowledge to correct it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMBryant (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JMBryant: Thank you for pointing out this error. It was introduced in March 2023. My contribution was a redirect in 2004. Still, I have fixed it - all in day's work. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"Category of tangles" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Category of tangles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Category of tangles until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Ethics Workshop Participation Request
Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Your edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domvile_baronets_(1815_creation)&diff=next&oldid=1201901806) left a partial reference: <ref>{{Who's Who|title=Domvile, Sir
Can you fix it? Thanks. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, thx. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Talk:Chinese opening for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Chinese opening until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Linziyu1823 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Unitarian trick
Hi Charles, there's a comment over at Talk:Unitarian_trick#Complex general linear group regarding an addition of yours. Could you take a look? Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)