User talk:Richard Keatinge/Archive 18

Bengali-Assamese languages

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Bengali-Assamese languages, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. It is observed that you are involved disruptively in Assam related articles for sometime for sack of tilting of consensus, without much productive contribution. This amounts to disruptive editing. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

See the relevant talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it saying anything as such.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This matter appears to be closed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels, Charles Eugster, Ian Liddell-Grainger. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 14:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have reinstated two links to authoritative opinion (not mine nor anyone affiliated to me) on matters discussed in the article, and a live link to the TED talk mentioned in the article. You may wish to discuss these changes on the relevant talk pages. I would also be favourably impressed if you were to strike through, or remove, your comments above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Ian Liddell-Grainger. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You either fail to understand why your edits have been reverted, or you have plainly chosen to ignore established guidelines. Please refrain from adding disguised external links (i.e. WP:SPAM) to prose. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to ask, have you actually read these edits? As I point out above, they include two links to authoritative judgement on the matters discussed in the article, and one link to the TED talk mentioned (replacing a dead link). In no way are they spam. I would appreciate it if you would self-revert; failing that, I will ask for another opinion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Richard, this is fast moving into the territory of tendentious editing on your part. I am left with increasing wonder at your apparent failure to comprehend what the real issue is here. You persist in using misleading external links in article texts – what is preventing you from using the sources they represent in proper citations? Please review WP:SPAMMER, and more importantly, WP:ELPOINTS.

With regard to Charles Eugster's TED Talk: the citation amply verifies the statement. Although the original URL is dead, it has been properly archived. Wikipedia's aim is to be encyclopedic, not to serve as a repository of links. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for a third party to help resolve our current impasse? In view of your threats, I would suggest an administrator. Or shall I ask on WP:3O? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Really, you see this as an impasse? I'm having trouble believing that you truly do not understand the issue here, which leads me to assume that yours is a concious decision to eschew established guidelines, or that you simply still haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with the aforementioned guidelines. Either way, the very first sentence in Wikipedia:External links states "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions," and if you feel that you need others to help interpret its significance, then please by all means go ahead. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's give it one more try, with the simplest possible version of one thread of this problem. At this diff, I have inserted, as a reference, a bare link to the University home page of an expert. The intention is to reference the fact that he is an expert on the particular matter discussed at that point by the article. This is of course an external link, and (published by the University of Cardiff) a reliable source.

Do you feel that this link is suitable as a reference? (To which I would answer, having reviewed the relevant guidelines, that it probably is, subject to consensus.)

Or that, in view of the reference at the end of the paragraph, which is from the Science Media Centre, we don't need a reference for his professorship and expertise at all? (Entirely possible, and not a point I would argue much further.)

Or that this external link in some way amounts to spam? (I cannot find any way of fitting the official page of a relevant academic, inserted by someone with no connections to him, into the spam guidelines.)

Constructive comments welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you tire easily, Richard? Are your energy levels nowhere near what they used to be? Congratulations on doing the absolute minimum to create something reminiscent of a proper citation.

Why, pray tell, does one need to know the identity of the subject whose expert opinion is given here? How does the inclusion of this expert's name alter his statement in any way? Are you so locked into this habit of Wikilinking that if there isn't a page to link to, your reaction is to create a misleading external link, or, when prodded, a bare URL wrapped in ref tags? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 04:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Extracting constructive meaning from the above, from your recent edit I take you to mean that you don't think that we need, in this context, to reinforce the fact of this expert being not only a hydrologist, but a particularly expert hydrologist. That we can rely on the reference to the Science Media Centre. OK, that's arguable and as I say above, I shan't bother to discuss it any further here, And I presume that this applies also to the other page where the good professor's name was mentioned.

That leaves us with this edit, in which you remove a live (Youtube) link to the TEDx talk mentioned in the text, and give us an archived link to the TEDx page. This has a picture of the subject on it, but not his name nor any link to the video. As it stands, it doesn't seem to verify the statement particularly well. (I presume that the original did have a video and description.) Again, I can't see how this can be fitted into the description of spam. I'd have thought that a live link would be useful. Possibly as an external

HMS Daring

Hi Richard Keating: Actually, we need as many variant spellings of a vessel's name as exist in the original sources. We are dealing with a time when spellings were not as standardized as they have become. I have seen letters from captains in which they vary their own names and those of their vessels. If you are a researcher and looking in the sources, looking for "Rein Deer" will miss sources under the title "Reindeer". I am a researcher by profession and in preparing these articles I try to serve the needs of researchers as well as those of people just skimming through. Having variants also makes the point about the extant variability and so signals something about the history of English, not just the history of HMS Daring. If a variant bothers you, please go to the source and verify that the variant does not appear in the source before removing it (I do make mistakes and typos), but please presume that there is a reason for the variation in the article. I would hate for someone to go the source, search under the variant, not find the item, and then remove the fact because it is "unsourced" and so "unverified". There are many editors on WP that are only too happy to remove information on the slightest pretext. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Herodotus

Why did you undo my edits? --ConfidentFungus (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Fall of Rome

OK, so, explain: what's the problem with this? Why revert it? What evidence have you that these two falls of Rome are not confused enough to warrant the notice?

See the relevant talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Roll Call - Action Required

There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks against Chaipau by block evasion

Hi Richard Keatinge! This is indeed a revolting case of harassment by an individual who will never get it. FYI:[1] –Austronesier (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Mehrdad Izady

Hi, Hope you are doing well in these uncertain times. I was wondering why you consider Mehrdad Izady a unreliable source on Kurdish history? I feel his credentials clearly make him very credible. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Thank you

Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Good question, and thanks for your good wishes. Mehrdad Izady is indeed a credible individual. However, the book in question is not an academic discussion of the origins of the Kurds. It is, as the title indicates, a popular and concise handbook. It's perfectly appropriate for such a book to present oversimplified interpretations, reasonable enough and widely supposed but not actually certain, as fact. And that's what it does. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia to do so, I suggest. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Richard, how are you? Long time no speak. Are you still on Anglesey? Do you watch WP:FRINGE? Looks like the occasional thread there might be of interest. Guy (help!) 22:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Directing

• FYI: directing another editor to an AfD can be considered WP:VOTESTACK. Please allow the article's AfD to proceed organically and I will do the same. Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Life Mel Honey

WP:3RR you have now changed the article to your preferred version three times. I have taken a step back after the talk page conversations. Two editors have disagreed with your opinions on the talk page, and multiple other editors on the AfD have also not agreed with you. Please self revert your last change on the article to avoid report. WP:3RRNO Lets take a step back. I have implored you to allow the AfD process to make these determinations. Please stop. Lightburst (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

These matters are best discussed on the relevant talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheddar man article

I saw that you recently "reverted" one of my edits here. I was correcting an error in a ref tag, but I did not add the info in the edit, I just fixed the ref tag. So the reversion (which included the tag) is not an offence, etc to me.

This article has been on my watchlist for several years, because I did some gnome work on the refs, back when, filling in bare refs, etc. I would swear that I have seen this same info, regarding skin color, or whatever, pop up from time to time since then. Was this the issue with the entire reversion? Is this a regular "problem" that you have with this article? No problem if you don't have time to answer....(BTW, I visited Conwy Castle, decades ago. Lovely country!) Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to cut across your work! Yes, there is a recurrent denialism (based on misunderstanding of the New Scientist reference that you corrected) of the fact, per the actual scientific paper, that most modern Britons have about 10% ancestry from a population with dark skin. Thanks for your help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Flag of Grenada

Hi, and thanks for responding there. Bloom6132 wasn't very happy his preferred wording wasn't supported and is now insisting on an even longer version. Any further thoughts? --84.64.236.222 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You were nice to me when you gave the welcome message to me:). Anilgaming2007 (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. And, best wishes again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Alaric I

You have added a short reference to "Macgeorge 2002" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Duly added and installed, thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Alaric I

After reviewing some of your edits on the Alaric page, there are several issues that need to be addressed. First, there was a segment concerning his exploits in Greece, which you totally omitted without any real justification, other than "extensive rewrite." That is not an acceptable reason to completely re-categorize or dissolve a section. Some of your edits were good to be sure, but totally reorganizing the content in one fell swoop does not permit carte-blanche activity of this sort. Next, you failed to honor the citation format used throughout the rest of the page and now the citations are not consistent. In the future, I strongly recommend that you employ the citation format used throughout the page and that you take category deletions to the Talk page and seek consensus before eliminating them. UPDATE: Your good editorial work was retained, but a couple of the Zosimus observations amounted to informational notes and Gibbon has now been properly cited in keeping with the page's extant harv ref style. Also, many of your edits create confusion in one section in particular, so please address the "clarification" requests therein. Happy editing. --Obenritter (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Coneybury Henge you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Otago Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reduction of Lagos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whydah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ascoli Satriano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social War.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Protect the Peyronie’s disease cure

Please for the love of goodness leave some kind of statement on vibration. People are getting their dicks cut off and lives ruined because they don’t know. Common knowledge statements are allowed and my doctor told me to use a toothbrushes vibration and it worked. I’m just a typical person like you. You have the tools to fix this. I don’t. Fix it please.

You’ll save millions of lives. People have huge amounts of money all on people not knowing. Some people don’t want people to know I’d bet and you can imagine.

Please. I leave this up to you. Think about it. This is your world. Your reality. You are god. Do what’s good. Stoppingevil (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ilkka Syvänne Suggestion

If I'm not mistaken, you appear to be on a campaign to eliminate Ilkka Syvänne from WP? I recall we had a discussion late last year on the project page re the reliability of this author, but I'm not sure there was consensus on a final decision to implement this, unless I missed something? I only raise this to suggest that maybe it should go back to the project page, so that it is clear that a policy decision has been made to remove all references to this author. Regards.--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've left in the papers on which he's one of several authors. I have removed the books; by this point I feel that we had arrived at enough of a consensus to do so, and after leaving it for three months in case anyone felt like commenting further, I've done it. I look forward to any further comments or suggestions you may wish to make, of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman conquest of Anglesey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crop mark.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

moorish and romans.

The word "moorish" has nothing to do with dark-skin Africans at all. Rather, the word was only used in the middle ages for Muslims, whether the Arabs, the Indians, Sri Lanka, or other Muslims. Before the word "Muslim" entered the English language correctly, this word was used and you used the same word in the era of the Romans !! Sarazxs123 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Check the link; the Mauri were the original Moors and the name is a Romanized version of their own endonym. It long pre-dates the history of Islam. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

But it was wrote moorish, correct it at least to mauri. Sarazxs123 (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Now "from Mauretania". I hope that helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Scotch corner redirect

Sorry, I was too hasty in reverting the the redirect you made, and I've reinstated your edit now.Pipsally (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire

I added a whole section on legislation under Theodosius I think - hope - you will approve of. I'll be so pleased if you do. I dislike that we have had so much disagreement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC Talk:Persecution_of_Christians#RFC:Should_the_following_be_included

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am trying to keep things as simple as possible. Thank you again. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

New ANI

Trying to get this closed: [2] Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)