User:Pontificalibus/Archive/04

Indian Grand Prix

Source added.If more source is needed please tell so that I can provide them before unnecessarily deleting my edited article. Atanu das biswas (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Atanu das biswas, your English grammar is poor. Please learn English before commenting. Why do I say this? Look at your sentence here:"If more source is needed..."; that's incorrect English. The correct English version would be " If more sources are needed...". Thank you for your understanding. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pontificalibus. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

re-'transcendental imaging' the article was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal in 2011 and has been accepted by a third party for being on Philpapers (see referecne and link). That is acceptance of an idea in culture. The fact that it's a peer-reviewed academic journal proves that it has been validated by more than one person.

The link to the patent app. is for explanatory drawings and text validated by the UK Patent office as conforming to the guidelines for publication of a aptent app. That's a fourth party agreement.

It's an idea not a person, if 1+1=2 is validated and someone puts that on wikipedia it cannot be said to be self-promotion whennit is the statement and not the person put forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Web design @ RFPP

I have overturned the admins decision. If they continue right back again, please just take a stop by my talkpage and let me know, and i'll take care of it again. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tailored Fiber Placement

Hi Pontificalibus, now the article you have requested for speedy-deletion is written - how can I prevent this article for deletion ??? Ciao matthias --Erfurth (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pontificalibus. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 11:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No sources

Before I could add any sources they were reverted. They all have sources now. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. This is why content should be added with the sources already there, especially for fast moving current events.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

I have undone your change to the policy WP:NOTNEWS. It is not just "routine" things whose coverage may not qualify them for an encyclopedia article. Many nonroutine things, like "watercooler stories," "bear cub stuck in tree," crimes, or accidents are newsworthy but not of the enduring importance expected of the articles of encyclopedia articles. Please start a discussion on the talk page of the relevant policy page, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, to see if there is a consensus for the change you propose. Thanks. Edison (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, didn't occur to me but there is a discussion on this very issue already ongoing.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Where? Link? Edison (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where you said! Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTNEWS --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"ANTIhuman" TalkBack

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

I don't understand why this article ANTIhuman is in line for deletion, i have provided evidence of the information on the article.

The album is unreleased but i have found much information to provide this article.

Under these search terms listed on the deletion page: ("ANTIhuman" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ANTIhuman) i found evidence in the search.

( http://www.smnnews.com/2011/01/25/death-of-desire-issues-antihuman-album-update-2/ )

( http://www.smnnews.com/2011/01/25/death-of-desire-issues-antihuman-album-update-2/ )

This is the last link on the Google search page.

Bath Forum (hundred)

Thanks for starting Bath Forum (hundred). I've added the parishes but I'm having trouble identifying articles as links for Lyncombe & Woolley - any ideas?— Rod ^talk 19:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The parishes of Widcome and Lyncombe were merged more than a hundred years ago, so the area of Lyncombe is often lumped in with Widcombe nowadays, although it's a seperate electoral ward. I'll see about including some info in the Widcombe article or creating a new article. I linked Woolley to Charlcombe, although it could probably have its own article at some point.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind that most of the parishes that were mentioned in hundreds do not exist today and most of them have no proof whatsoever of even existing! Last year I came across a hundred named 'Berchelei' and there were no mentions of that hundred existing whatsoever. Somethings have died out with history, I guess. Jaguar (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that was Berkeley (hundred)? Until the 19th century they used to be quite random with their spellings.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Berchelei was near Liss in Hampshire or possibly Odiham. I have no idea where the name origin came from, but I hope to create an article for all of them soon. Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Lyncombe, Bath

Well done for your work on Lyncombe, Bath. I think it is probably eligible for Wikipedia:Did you know if you wanted to nominate it.— Rod ^talk 20:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've not done a DYK before so it would be good to try it. I'll see about expanding the article over the next day or two and try and think of a suitably interesting "hook". --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just remebered there's a Jane Austen connection, as she visited Lyncombe Spa, I'll work that in.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For the hook I would do something about Charles Milson finding the spring, calling himself a doctor and marketing a cure-all. It's well referenced and quite "interesting" in a way that might draw others to view the article.— Rod ^talk 20:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re You're welcome...

You beat me to that move by half a second. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 22:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Choir of Mainstockheim

Hello Pontificalibus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Choir of Mainstockheim, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the AFD will be closed today; I believe it would be more appropriate to allow it to run its course. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lyncombe, Bath

Hello! Your submission of Lyncombe, Bath at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lyncombe, Bath

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations on another fine article, and thanks for your many high-quality contributions. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, it's my belated first DYK but won't be my last.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Restored for now, but the "blessed village" still has unsourced pov claims Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Prior Park

Hi, I was wondering if I could pick your expert knowledge/brains? I've just put up an article on Prior Park and wondered if you had any sources which would help with the architecture section? We previously had an article on Prior Park Landscape Garden and one on Prior Park College but nothing specifically about the house. I've found a lot on the history but limited description of the architecture and wondered if you could help?— Rod ^talk 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look and see what I can find.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to help at Ely article improvements

As a previous editor of Ely, Cambridgeshire, you are cordially invited to assist in improving the Ely article at Ely article improvements --Senra (Talk) 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going on vacation now but will certainly chip in when I return. Wells might be a useful benchmark to follow, being a similar city and a Good Article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. Please add your name and thanks for the Wells suggestion --Senra (Talk) 15:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West, Bristol

Hi Pontificalibus. The above is now at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments/support that you may care to offer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1. Tx. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Pontificalibus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daichii Nuclear Disaster not Monju Fast Breeder or old german plants better secured holding there already

Changed to high letters some places and Quelle to Source today English not perfect and in talk box bad. enkidu speaks german also asked.

Can you help with exactly linking references in tables with already same inside german sources ? I wrote new emtry also before cleared fully without storing in View History also not worked out I did ask for edit help but if just deleted no one helps with content already right. Maybe just delete links with refenrence names in- side already or possible do yourself or ask inside for some help. I work on more places and will add fist more on this side also like Info from Spektrum Wissenschaften August and maybe changing whole entry but at the moment showing wrong entry before inside. Why at beginning info about ankles(feet"Füße") and telleing about higher values than Chornobyl in Fukushima in table 10 times higher at Chornobyl changed clearly wrong entries from anti-atomic power movement this theme not german wikipedia but blocking High Temperature Reactor... if you can read german just compare. Stefan64 interested in chess blocks also wrong expert UvM with Tritium from 3He nonsense and wrong explantions Areva Antares link... not addable looks like arranged from anti-atom-movement. Also linking Chornobyl in B4C side as main use... Official 0 deaths of nuclear disaster (radiaoactivity) from IAEA [email protected]. Areva helped a lot should also stand there for "thank you" with link. Information on deaths of quake&tsunami and from stopping reactor building on outgoing oil&gas&cóal additive escalative worldwide. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushimareport271011.html http://www.areva.com/EN/news-8775/earthquake-and-tsunami-in-japan.html http://www.asn.fr/ http://japon.asn.fr/ http://www.spektrum.de/artikel/1114591&_z=798888

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuklearkatastrophe_von_Fukushima http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahlungsbelastung_durch_die_Nuklearunf%C3%A4lle_von_Fukushima — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Uwe Böhm (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Ely, Cambridgeshire

Pontificalibus. I am notifying you of this peer review as you have recently edited the article.

--Senra (Talk) 01:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rowland Berkeley

I'm more than a little miffed by your very first edit to this new article. I did ask for help for the correct way to transfer the relevant stuff from the cotheridge court article which deserves the credit. You've Boldly removed the quotes and slapped on a citations required - is this the besssst you can do????!! Eddaido (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the appropriate talk page template here, I then deleted the quote template from the article as we don't quote other articles, we copy the content directly. See WP:SPLIT for info. The article does need more references.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, now I see that. Your edit summary was 'remove quote box' and (unlike some who seem to claim a link to almost direct access) I'm not all-seeing as well as not all-knowing and presumed you wrote there exactly what you had done, no more, no less (i.e. screwed up having removed my call for the attention of new page patrollers leaving me looking silly - as you do again in the para above). Next time just say what you've done. Eddaido (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited St Nicholas Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabbage Palm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pontificalibus. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pontificalibus. You have new messages at Talk:Tachash.
Message added 04:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

English Defence League

Hi Pont. Explain why you removed my link here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=477344015&oldid=477343776 from the English Defence League page. Peace =)IraqiLion (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I explained in the edit summary. uaf.org.uk is not a reliable source for descriptions of the EDL. We must write articles from a neutral point of view and as the UAF is in direct opposition to the EDL, the phrases they use to describe the EDL are likely to be biased. If you can find more neutral sources such as newspapers, academic papers, books etc that describe the EDL as a "white supremacist" group, then perhaps that description can be added in.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How do I overcome an obvious media bias in favour of the edl? Many newsagencies won't report on the racist activities of the edl as they are Islamaphobes. This is where wikipedia fails as you rely on western media reports before you believe something to be a fact. Neverthless, I am a fighter and will work hard to find the sources you need, despite the burdens set in my path. Peace =)IraqiLion (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

Cambridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Trinity Hall

List of churches in Cambridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Churches

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

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

Cambridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Conservative Party, Newnham and Henry I

Midsummer Common (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to King John

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Aalen

Hi, thanks a lot for all your fixes to the Aalen article. Just one thing remains unclear to me: In the Aalen#Economy and infrastructure section, the second sentence “With 13,946 (46.5 percent) employed in the manufacturing sector.” is not really a complete sentence, is it? Regards --dealerofsalvation 06:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, I fixed it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tenfu Tea Museum

I nominated 5 at once, and grouped this one in accidentally. I just noticed when I saw "...World's largest tea museum..." at the AfD discussion page. I did read BEFORE, before. :) I thought about the AfDs for a couple of days before acting. I googled these items and found almost nothing, even at news archives. I am very reluctant to click Chinese websites because during fact-checking and referencing, as few months ago, I got a virus simply by landing on malicious website.

My rationale is that the creator tends to produce articles that are below the line in terms of inclusion criteria. He then walks away, expecting others to source them. I raised this, and other concerns (copyvios) at his talk, only to be met with obfuscation, deletion of the post, and more such articles being created. So, I thought challenging the articles with AfD would push them one way or the other. Also, where my words were unpersuasive, this might demonstrate to the creator that such articles can be challenged. See also: User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive30#AfD. Best wishes, and sorry for the trouble. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, the articles are now hopefully in better shape. I can see the user has not been particularly responsive to your concerns, so yes, maybe they'll learn by our actions.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your report at UAA

Your report at WP:UAA is technically correct and normally should result in either a block or changed username, but I think Bell Pottinger Inc. was directed to create an obvious role account fro reporting libel and defamation. This came after the Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to that. As you don't seem 100% sure, and I couldn't find anything about this account on the case page, I appended it to their SPI case so someone more familiar with the situation can confirm or deny this account's permissibility. cheers --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably fine. I can't remember where it was that I thought I had read that, though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Drive-In

User:Milowent's point at the AFD got me thinking as well. As the sources he found show a regional, if not world-wide or country-wide notability, I have used his searches and provided a contectual and sourced mention at Johnstown, Pennsylvania#Landmarks... one of the few places where it makes sense to send readers seeking such knowledge. Seem okay with you? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge - references

Hello, There was no need to replace the "work" parameter with the "newspaper" parameter in all those "cite news" template references. Either parameter is valid and works equally well, see WP:Cite news under 1.3.1. Essential parameters.

Also, you appear to have deleted "location" in some of those refs. Why did you do that? The rule is that the city of publication should be stated when it is not part of the name of the publication. See WP:Cite news under 1.3.2. Optional parameters. -- Alarics (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I felt it best to user "newspaper" for newspapers as I think it's less confusing. Template:Cite news documentation states "newspaper" is an essential parameter with an option to name it "journal", "magazine", "periodical", or "work" if more appropriate. That documentation also sates that for location "e.g., Toronto for The Globe and Mail. Should be included if the city of publication is not part of the name of the newspaper." I there would not include "London" for e.g. The Telegraph as it's a national newspaper. I'd give the location of London for the Evening Standard, but not national titles as that might confuse readers into thinking they were London newspapers.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they *are* London newspapers for the purpose of citing them. This is standard practice, especially in an international setting. A reader outside the UK might not know that they see themselves as "national" newspapers, a slightly nebulous concept anyway and one which doesn't exist in many other parts of the world. There is a Daily Telegraph in Sydney and a The Guardian in Dar-es-Salaam ... -- Alarics (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy the notion that it's standard practice to cite these as London newspapers. In fact, a look over various UK featured articles shows no consistency whatsoever. The principle aim at Cambridge should therefore be internal consistency, which is what I am trying to work toward at the moment, and of course the top priority, which is to make things easy to understand for our readers. For someone not familiar with the UK newspaper industry, your convention would not differentiate "Evening Standard (London)" and "The Daily Telegraph (London)". Maybe you can add "UK" for the location if you think readers will have a problem differentiating The Daily Telegraph from The Daily Telegraph (Australia)? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Evening Standard is now called the London Evening Standard, so the problem doesn't arise there. But in any case there is no real distinction between the Standard and the Telegraph in this respect. Newspapers have always been defined -- within the newspaper industry itself, and by librarians and so on -- by their city (not country) of publication, not by their circulation area or supposed area of news coverage. (As it happens, the London Evening Standard carries quite a lot of UK-level news and comment.) Thus, people in New York always refer to "The Times of London" to distinguish it from "The Times", which as far as they are concerned is The New York Times. (On the other hand, if people in Los Angeles say "The Times" they mean the Los Angeles Times.) None of the London-based so-called "national" papers (and which "nation" are we talking about? England? the UK?) circulates as widely in provincial England as in the south-east, because there are competing morning papers in Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol, etc. Their penetration in Scotland is even less. So it is not a question of national boundaries. Adding "UK" instead of "London" would be completely wrong. The Daily Telegraph in Sydney isn't an Australian paper, it's a Sydney paper. The reason why featured articles "show no consistency whatever" is that WP doesn't lay down hard-and-fast rules about these things, possibly because many WP editors are unfamiliar with practice in the real world. -- Alarics (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also: in your edit summary where you have reverted back to the (I must say quite wrong) practice of not stating the place of publication, you say "it's not for national publications where it might confuse". The instructions do not at any point say it is not for national publications. It is absolutely for "national" publications, accepting for the moment that there is such a thing. What the instructions say is: "Should be included if the city of publication is not part of the name of the newspaper." That seems crystal clear to me. Whether a newspaper is deemed to be, or regards itself as, a "national" newspaper is neither here nor there. No confusion arises. -- Alarics (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree over this, I'm not going to the argue the toss any more. I'll edit the Template:Cite news documentation to specify "city", rather than "place", as I believe it is currently anything other than crystal clear. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I have responded on the Talk page. I was going to leave a response on the Talk page, I guess I didn't get round to doing so fast enough. My personal preference is to situate the political response immediately after the victims section; are you amenable to this change?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Immunology

I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 09:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'm curious about why you write about Corporations

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

[email protected]

Victor Grigas (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Bath Forum (Hundred)

The discussion on moving from Foo (hundred) to either Hundred of Foo or Foo Hundred took place a while ago - I'm just carrying out the moves. It is taking a while because it's a long process and any help would be wonderful! Some articles should be [[Foo], some should be Hundred of Foo and others should be Foo Hundred. Because in many cases all three terms have been used in sources, the preference would be to use the form most commonly used. Initially in making the moves I am taking what the article says. Now and again if it's not clear I will do some research. Also, if someone who knows the hundred very well sees that it has been moved inappropriately, that's great. They can move it to the right name. But, under Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and plain common sense!) it is not appropriate to use disambiguation brackets if there is a suitable alternative as the general reader would not be searching for "Bath Forum (Hundred)" they would be searching for "Bath Forum" or "Hundred of Bath Forum" or "Bath Forum Hundred". See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Boroughs and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_12#Hundreds. And also note the policies and guidelines I link to when making the moves - WP:Common name, WP:Precise and WP:NCCS. If you're unclear on what they are saying - essentially they are saying "if it's possible to avoid using brackets, then do so", and "try to use the same format if possible, but follow what sources say, and use natural language" and "use the format most readers are familiar with and which is found in the sources". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wim Crusio

Hello. I don't understand what is happening with the page and / or archiving at Talk:Wim Crusio. I removed unhelpful comments by an IP who is now blocked. And now similar comments have been restored. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Mindfulness-based stress reduction article

There have been many improvements to the Mindfulness-based stress reduction article since you added the "refimprove" and "self-published" tags back in September 2010. Would you be able to have another look and consider removing those tages? This article is getting about 7000 page views per month. Thanks! Ianlavoie (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

FuGENE

Hi. Is FuGENE notable? If so, maybe you could add non-commercial references to make this clear. If the only references come from a retailer of the product, how can the article be interpreted as anything but promotional? I've added it to your sandbox content. Deb (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's more like it - thanks.Deb (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2011 M5 motorway crash 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:

• should have foreseen smoke from the display might drift and mix with fog to form thick smog.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25316055|title=Geoffrey Counsell cleared over M5
• police]] were all consulted before the event but "no objection of any kind was raised".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/fireworks-contractor-geoffrey-counsell-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Cassandra" IP-sock

Hi there, regarding my removal of a post by the self-styled "Cassandra" at Talk:List of monarchs of Northumbria, this is an IP-hopping sockpuppet who has sustained a campaign of forum posting on the talk pages of a large variety of articles. These posts push POVs which are not necessarily evident to anyone unfamiliar with their long history. I and some other user have tried engaging with them over a long course of time to ask them to stop their activities, with great difficulty as they constantly hop IPs, but to no avail. It's also difficult to enact sanctions on them because of their IP-hopping. If you're interested, a summary of their latest activities and the difficulty in countering them is here and there are several links therein which expand on the history. The talk page of Scottish Gaelic is under semi-protection due to their continued posting there. I could give you chapter and verse on the full two years. The use of the terms "Scot-land" and "Eng-land" in this particular post are a common handle for their POV (I'd have difficulty outlinining what exactly they may mean by it though) and the real reason for the post, rather than a genuine concern for the article, which they could easily have amended themself. In the last few weeks I have given up trying to engage but, per advice, am largely simply following a pattern of "revert, ignore" if the post is POV-pushing. I hope that explains my removal of the post and I'd appreciate if you were now happy to revert your reversion. Cheers, Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have dealt with a single-issue obsessive like this before myself and I know it can be a frustrating process. What's really needed in cases such as yours is a temporary subject-specific IP range block. I don't know if that's something that is possible on here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJohnston (the admin whose talk page I linked above for a recent thread) implemented a range block back in November 2012 for a couple of weeks, the activity resuming immediately after the block expired. A longer and more targeted block was implemented immediately but activity resumed again, though a few weeks after the block was lifted this time. Rather than blocking again, Ed was of the opinion that WP:SPI was the way to go but since then has been of the opinion that this may achieve little as he "(doesn't) see any admin action that is worth taking" as a result and that to "'Revert, Block, Ignore'" may be the approach. I don't know if blocks can be done on a subject-specific basis and the sock has started to shoe-horn the same opinions into the talk pages of ostensibly very distantly related articles, e.g. Talk:Confirmation bias. I'm happy enough to just keep an eye out and simply remove any forum posts I spot, though I can think of better usage of time! Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2014 (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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Afd

Hi there. Just a note that you inadvertently didn't sign your !vote here, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out, fixed now --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Staplers

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Good work on finding those excellent sources for Staplers. I found some other material -- for example, that the name is based on the wool trade there -- but didn't spot your sources and so appreciate your diligence and expertise. Andrew D. (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please further explain...

Your coment arrived after I started working on this comment.

I think you are asserting the same point others asserted, that we can't have a BLP, when we don't know mundane milestones of the individual's life. Do you think policy backs up this assertion? As I pointed out, in the AFD, we know NOTHING about False Geber, other than he was the first person to describe how to purify Sulfuric Acid.

Isaac Asimov included him in his Biography of the 1000 most important scientists, in history, saying this is one of the key discoveries in the history of Chemistry, as it was the first description of the purification of a strong acid, crucial in the industrial applications of chemistry.

As I pointed out, in the AFD, this cutter cost $50,000,000. As In ictu oculi and I argued, in the AFD, the decision of the Coast Guard to honor Poroo by naming a $50,000,000 vessel after him conveys notability on him, as it is a significant kind of peer review.

You wrote: "...the contents of this article could belong equally well in an article about the ship named after him..." Hmmm. Forgive me, but I am going to ask you to seriously reconsider this position.

I am going to invite you to think about how readers use the wikipedia. What the bi-directional links that the wikipedia uses means is that, properly written, the wikipedia could allow our readers to traverse the Universe of human knowledge in really exciting, innovative, idiosyncratic fashion. Your suggestion that everything in the Jacob Poroo article could be a subsection, or a footnote, in the not yet written article about the cutters, is based on the frankly unwarranted assumption that 100 percent of our readers will be primarily, or entirely, interested in the cutter, and their interest in Poroo, himself, would be peripheral, or non-existent.

You seem to have overlooked the likelihood that some of our readers will be unintererested in the cutter. A reader could be coming to the wikipedia because they were interested in, for example, heroes. Imagine a student, in Alaska, whose teacher asks his or her class, to report back to the class about someone who who performed a heroic act, in Alaska. Similarly, a teacher in Florida could ask his or her class to report back on heroes born in Florida.

I ask why those students shouldn't be able to jump from the article on Jacob Poroo, directly to other articles on other Floridian heroes, or individuals who performed a heroic act, in Alaska.

Alternately, a reader interested in heroes who died from burns should be able to jump from the article on Jacob Poroo, to other articles on the facet of human knowledge they are interested in. It is a disservice to our readers to obfuscate knowledge by merging related topics into articles that actually cover two independent notable topics.

I know you argued Poroo didn't meet our notability criteria, because we don't know whether he was married, or where he went to school. But I doubt you could find passages in our policies that back up this argument.

Wikipedia decision making is supposed to follow collegial discussion, where a consensus is reached. But do we really see a genuine discussion in AFD where respondents re-state a position, that has already had counter-arguments offered, without addressing those counter-arguments?.

I'd say no, that is not a consensus.

There are AFD where only a few people, or perhaps only one person, is arguing for keep. I've seen AFD where it is clear to me that everyone of those voicing delete, who actually read the keep arguments, didn't bother offering an explanation, because they thought the refutation "went without saying". Yeah, it never goes without saying.

AFD should be seen as an educational tool. I've seen promising newbies go rogue, after becoming bitter, when thy think an AFD, or series of AFD were unfair, because no one answered what they thought were convincing counter-arguments. Even if every experienced contributor thought it was obvious why their counter-arguments were nonsense, it was still important to explain to them.

Another reason why it is important to take counter-arguments seriously, to make an effort to read them, or start to read them, to make the effort to try to understand the counter-argument, and to make the effort to articulate the counter-counter-argument, is that the majority position can be wrong. Consider Abolition, in the Antebullum South. It was probably considered a wacky fringe opinion, by the majority, one not worth a meaningful rebutal.

I wrote an essay, nothing is obvious. In it I describe how often I see people with entrenched opinions they think are so obvious they do not require explanation get really angry, when asked to explain themselves. I contend that if we think something is simple and obvious, but when we set ourselves the task of explaining it, we can't, then that thing is neither simple or obvious. Further, I contend, when we can't explain something we thought was obvious, we should see that as a strong sign our idea isn't even true. The Antebullum notion that Abolition was obviously wrong; that it was obvious that those with African ancestory were not capable of high intellectual achievement, is clearly nonsense now. I believe any intelligent person, in the Antebullum South, who was really fair-minded, and an independent thinker, who made a genuine effort to refute the arguments for abolishing slavery, would have found they couldn't do so, and would have changed their mind.

I encourage you to step up your game. If you are going to participate in AFD discussions could you please make a fair-minded effort to take the counter-arguments offered into account?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We don't have that here. The US military/Coastguard are not independent of the subject. I never claimed we needed details of whether he was married or went to school. An obituary or profile mainly focusing on this notable act would suffice if it was published by an independent source.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Bird Island 2: Revenge of Bird Island

Hey so remember the Bird Island thing? I finally got that book from the library and the sum total of what it says about the Bird Island in Pearl and Hermes is that it is bare. Useless. I'm really glad I didn't fork out actual money for the e-book version, lol. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, at least we don't need to write an article about the unique types of seagrass found there or something. Thanks so much for checking and letting me know anyway. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Pontificalibus|<font style="color:#555555"><strong>Pontificalibus</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) : Pontificalibus (talk)

to

[[User:Pontificalibus|<strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus</strong>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) : Pontificalibus (talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Fullrun Tyre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fullrun Tyre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fullrun Tyre 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. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Urban75, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spice Girl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you help with a dispute on an article?

I hope this is the right place to contact you. Since you have participated in the talk for the article September_2,_1692_letter_by_Cotton_Mather, I was hoping you could please weigh in on the several disputes going on right now in Talk:September_2,_1692_letter_by_Cotton_Mather between Lewismr and me. I do not want to get into a head-to-head with another editor, but I am increasingly concerned that he is doing original research, and I am frustrated that he keeps undoing my initial attempts to work to improve the article to adhere more closely to the Wikipedia Style Guide. I don't edit a whole lot, but enough to know that the current state of the article is problematic. I've already listed it for a Third Opinion, but I was hoping you might weigh in with your experience to help resolve this. Thank you! Ogram (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask, @Ogram: is a seperate article on this one letter even appropriate? I am very unfamilair with this period of American history, and also I can't easily see in the given sources whether there are works disucssing this physical letter in detail, rather than the more general communciation between these two people. We don't for example have an article on File:Leicester's letter to Elizabeth I.jpg despite it being discussed in multiple sources.--Pontificalibus 13:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree: I don't think that an article about this specific document is appropriate for the same reasons. I know personally that the article contains original research. In the Talk, I have listed multiple secondary sources by established historians who only discuss the importance of the exchange between those two people, but they take only a page or two to do so. None of these mention anything about the physical letter. Ogram (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case the article is best deleted or left as a redirect follwing a merge, in my opinion. I'm not sure if there are any suitable merge targets you have in mind? I once dealt with an editor who turned Tachash from a stub to a 220Kb exegisis. After much effort it was eventually deleted and made into a protected redirect. I'm not suggesting the creator of this article is going to do anything like that, but I feel OR articles like this should probably be nipped in the bud because of WP:OWNERSHIP issues.--Pontificalibus 17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Reading the WP:OWNERSHIP article, I think that and WP:OR are at the heart of the issue. I will raise the topic of deletion on the Talk page. I'm pretty sure it will result in a lot of push-back from the prime editor of this article, though, so if you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Ogram (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Repl.it

I thought that a consensus was reached, if not, what do the Keep, Draft, and speedy deletion bullet points mean in the articles of deletion? Mosrod ^Talk 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mosrod: Deletion discussions are typically listed for seven days or more, during which any editor can give an opinion, usually begining with Keep, Delete etc to summarise their argument (see WP:AFDFORMAT). After seven days an adminstrator then assesses all the contributions to the deletion discussion and decides whether there is a consensus to keep or delete the article. Sometimes if a consensus is not clear it may be listed for a further seven days to get more contributors. This is why the deletion tempalte should not be removed from the article during this time, because it directs anyone interested in the article to contribute to the ongoing discussion. The full procedure is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Pontificalibus 13:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know about this, sorry for deleting it. Mosrod ^Talk 15:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Could I delete the warning on my talk page, since this was a misunderstanding? Mosrod ^Talk 23:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mosrod:Sure, you can remove whatever you want from your own talk page.--Pontificalibus 10:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 100 Years of Nine Lessons and Carols, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Wood and John Joubert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

about merging/unmerging

Per your edit: please !vote in the article's talk page in the merge discussion.Staszek Lem (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As I was saying...

As I was saying on the edit, the word "acts" in "Associated acts" in infoboxes for music group-related articles makes it look like we're talking about dramatic arts rather than music, that's why I performed my edit. It was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, including yours. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fandelasketchup: I assume you're referring to this edit. The things is "associated_acts" is a defined parameter in the Template:Infobox person. "associated_band" which you changed it to is not a valid paramter and so will have the effect of displaying nothing. If you want it to be possible to change the text dispalyed in the article from "Associated acts" to "Associated bands" you need to propose a change to the template at Template talk:Infobox person.--Pontificalibus 14:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Again, the word "acts" in "Associated acts" in infoboxes for music group-related articles makes it look like we're talking about dramatic arts rather than music, that's why I performed my edit. It's like using "persons" instead of "people" in the disclaimer beginning "All persons, events..." at the end of movies/films. That's incorrect, unless we talk about grammatical persons (first, second or third) --Fandelasketchup (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fandelasketchup: The word "act" is a synonym for "performing group", so it's perfectly proper to say "associated acts" i.e. "associated performing groups" in a musician's infobox. In any case, as I said before, if you want to change a descriptor in an infobox you have to change the infobox code itself, you can't simply change the word in an individual article, because unless it is defined in the infobox code it won't display anything at all.--Pontificalibus 05:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pontificalibus: Oh, I didn't know that. I always thought that by calling musicians/bands "acts" people were confusing music with dramatic arts, sorry. My confusion arose because each part of a theatrical play (and, by extension, of a TV series episode) is also called an "act". For example in modern TV series we would have a teaser scene, followed by the opening credits, followed or not by a commercial break which would lead into what would be called "Act 1" of the eopisode, then another commercial break, then "Act 2" and, after that, sometimes we would get a final commercial break before the closing credits. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pontificalibus:Also note my specific reference to "TV series" as opposed to series via streaming, which, since they don't have commercial breaks (unless one talks about series on Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Video), it would be impossible to determine when an "act" begins or ends without having the script for that specific episode, since the script itself would indicate some things, like "OPENING CREDITS", "COMMERCIAL BREAK" and "CLOSING CREDITS". Well, it would ALMOST always be the case, but I also forgot that Amazon Video, Netflix and Hulu would mention something like "(theme)" or similar on the closed captions when the opening credits begin. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1843 meteorology

A tag has been placed on Category:1843 meteorology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Joanna Walsh

Hello Pontificalibus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Joanna Walsh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: clearly claims significance . Thank you. SoWhy 07:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Derwent House

Greetings, and thanks for your comments at the Derwent House AFD discussion. I am still trying to find sources to allow the creation of Chiselhurst Conservation Area, possibly a list article: List of conservation areas of Bromeley. I actually had typed up a change of !vote to "Delete" but got tied up and the discussion was closed. I have not worked in the area of conservation outside the U.S. but it just seems an insane thought that so much is put into conservation, even protection by statute, and that it would escape mention in secondary sources, so I just keep looking to find "what was missed". In the U.S. we have watchdog sources that follow and record such things, especially the legislature, and then it will usually be covered somewhere in a secondary source. There are local or regional sources that will report on historical subjects and history writers that will certainly write about it. I just have not made a connection yet-- but it seems there should be one. I have not examined it but I found The History of Chislehurst: Its Church, Manors, and Parish so there are historic writings. Work interrupts so I will have to look later. Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500:Individual Conservation Areas (see here) in England are not really of national significance, and we don't tend to have seperate articles for them. They are really just a form of local development control i.e. Zoning#United_Kingdom that restrict what can be built so as to retain the character of the existing built environment (e.g. several streets of houses built in the 1920s for example). Typically you won't find any sources specfically addressing a Conservation Area other than "Conservation Area Appraisals" written by municipal governemnt officers and/or local residents groups. These are often useful for expanding articles on the relevant towns or neighbourhoods. It seems the articles London Borough of Bromley, Bromley and Chiselhurst etc could all benefit from expansion in this way. ----Pontificalibus 15:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Magnus Johnston

Hello, Pontificalibus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Magnus Johnston.

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 by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of David Flood (organist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Flood (organist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Flood (organist) 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. StickyWicket (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Employers' Federation of Hong Kong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AIA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Theakstone

Thank you for your interest, but you're wrong about Theakstone's bank: he worked for the Bank of England from 5 January 1832 and was transferred to the Portsmouth branch on 5 June 1834, where he remained. The Bank of England set up branches in some provincial towns and cities from 1826; after the 1844 act that made it the sole issuer of government banknotes in England and Wales, it reduced the branch activity, but kept some branches in places such as Portsmouth where there were important government departments (ie, the Navy) to do business with. It also had some private client work there, and it was a £100 transaction by one of these private clients, a "woollen draper" named Job Haslehurst, that was eventually proceeded on by the courts; a much bigger embezzlement by Theakstone of £1000 from the Bank's own reserves was not proceeded on, probably because of the damage to the reputation of the bank as a safe haven for money that would have arisen. (In the Portsmouth branch notebooks, there is evidence that Theakstone took a further £2000 in the months leading up to his discovery, but returned that later.) I know what I'm talking about here because I wrote the article in The Cricket Statistician that is quoted, and I went through the original Bank of England files in their archive, as well as the newspaper archives. I've been dutifully reluctant to edit the Theakstone article on WP because of my interest in the subject and my knowledge of it: I did so this time because there was a danger the article would be deleted (the cricket project is going through one of its deletionist phases currently) and to remove wrong information. The Theakstone case was a bit of a "nine days' wonder" in 1861, and there was a lot of coverage in newspapers, most of it syndicated and not all of it correct. The original Bank of England files, mostly written by their own investigators and legal team, make fascinating reading, as their principal concern all the way through is their own reputation. Johnlp (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnlp:That's interesting, thanks for the clarification. I guess nowadays news syndication involves verbatim copying, but back then things had to be done by hand allowing for various omissions and alterations. I guess you didn't have any luck finding out when he died? There appears to be no death entry in the civil registration indices, nor probate records. It's possible he changed his name after completing his sentence I suppose, but its noted in some reports that he wasn't expected to survive his time inside due to his obvious ill-health in the dock.----Pontificalibus 14:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

After I'd written the piece for The Cricket Statistician, an ACS member alerted me to a blog on ancestry.com by someone claiming to be a distant relation to Theakstone, and the blogger wrote that his death date was unknown – and that it wasn't known if he had survived his sentence. One of his sons has a CricketArchive entry as a club player and umpire. It doesn't help that his surname seemed to be fairly mobile between Theakstone and Theakston even during his period of fleeting infamy: I went with "Theakstone" because that was the majority verdict, but only by about 60:40. His father was a fairly well-known sculptor, and again the name was somewhat variable. The news syndication is usually pretty good by mid-Victorian times and the original that the IoW paper copied from (The Standard) got Bank of England correct in its 1 May report of the arrest (it refers to "Branch Bank of England", but that is a fairly usual construction in a period when the concept of banks having branches was not normal). Johnlp (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnlp:Just saw this in the Hampshire Telegraph & Naval Chronicle from 20 March 1861 regarding the reward offered for his capture, and which explains where the bank confusion orginated: "...In the advertisements and placards, Theakston was described as being connected with the National and Provincial Bank, which is a mis statement, as the defaulter was by no means connected with that establishment, and the statement has since been officially corrected." --Pontificalibus 15:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Theakstone's prison record, which I have just found, indicates that he was released from prison on licence on 18 October 1864, having served three years and three months of his four-year sentence. The record doesn't say which prison he was sent to. I suspect, with the Isle of Wight paper, that the usual cut-and-paste syndication left them a line short in the column, a cardinal sin in newspapers of this period, so they reinserted a line from the earliest cutting they had on Theakstone, unaware that it had been subsequently corrected. I'll change our reference to a different, more professional newspaper! Johnlp (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Would very much appreciate your collaborative help. Zennie (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Test edit

Hello. I need to apologize for this page [1],, which wound up in the article space (main space) by accident. You correctly tagged it for speedy deletion. It was actually meant to be one of my sandbox pages - temporarily. I'm an experienced editor [2] so you can imagine that something like this is disturbing disconcerting to for me. Just wanted to let you know the circumstances. Also, obviously this was a good call on your part. Regards ----Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I figured you created it there by mistake. --Pontificalibus 11:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:MikeAtherton.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MikeAtherton.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic

Hello, Pontificalibus,

Thank you for creating Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, but please consider expanding it to include the entity's history, influence, etc. A simple mention of its existence is not enough for a Wikipedia article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious

chorister path

Thank you for quality articles around Bath and church music, such as St Thomas à Becket Church, Widcombe, West Somerset Coast Path and Lyncombe, Bath, for categories such as Category:Choristers of the Choir of King's College, Cambridge and populating them, for adding detail and nuance to Stephen Cleobury, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2320 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Gerda Arendt:, it's always nice to know someone notices my edits. And thank you for taking the time to show appreciation to others with this award.----Pontificalibus 12:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. I noticed you recently when you thanked me for a revert, - a rare thing ;) - The time I spend on the award, however, is pure pleasure time. Going to sing Magnificat and much more, - a good season. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Cisternostomy

Thank you for pointing out the problems with Cisternostomy I clearly didn't show due diligence when accepting it. Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong:. It's fine, for articles like this it's not always possible to determine whether it would be likely to survive AfD or not, so let's see what other editors think.----Pontificalibus 16:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Allan Clayton

Hello Pontificalibus,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Allan Clayton for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Methodist Churches in Leicester

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester about the timing of the closure, which strikes me as premature. Without commenting on the merits of the decision, I send this because I noticed you wished to make a comment at exactly the same time it was closed, an indicator that the AfD had not run its course.Djflem (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Daddy Mann" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Daddy Mann. Since you had some involvement with the Daddy Mann redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cinder mines by country

A tag has been placed on Category:Cinder mines by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Winona, Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermodal transport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)