User talk:Alarics

Spaces between parameters in citation templates

OK. Sorry, force of habit I guess. Quis separabit? 22:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks For cleaning up reference formats on David Cameron. --John (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC) You're welcome! -- Alarics (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I see you do a lot of work on ref formatting. I would invite you to try out my script, hoping that it can help you take out some of the donkey work. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC) And thanks again I've learned a few things just by reading some of your change logs, like this one: [1] Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC) You're very welcome, and thanks too -- Alarics (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for showing me the cite news template but how do you know about the author as it's never shown on the news page/link. D Eaketts (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Some news items have no author. In that case just leave the "author" parameter blank. Many others do give an author or authors (such as this one, where the author is Rory Carroll), in which case it is preferable, though not absolutely essential, to include the name(s) in the reference. Sometimes there is no author but a wire agency is credited, such as Reuters or Associated Press, and in that case it is desirable, though not absolutely essential, to include the name of the agency in the "agency" parameter. However, none of this is as important as including the name of the publication, the title of the article and the date of publication. Many thanks -- Alarics (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC) More surveillance news You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2013 mass surveillance scandal#Expand title and scope in light of WaPo stories. I'm contacting you because of your substantial contributions to the articles related to Edward Snowden. Nstrauss (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC) You are now a Rollbacker I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Source This is what the source (e.g. citation number 7) says. "To make the punishment harder, some schools make the student just sit there and wait for it to be over. Other schools will let the student do homework, or make them tidy up an area. Some students are forced to change their school uniform to their gym uniform and over and over again. Students are also caned at times."69.248.98.23 (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC) No, it doesn't. I've just clicked on http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/YourChildsWelfareAtSchool/DG_4016112 and it redirects to https://www.gov.uk/school-discipline-exclusions/discipline which does not contain any of the wording quoted. -- Alarics (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Talkback. Hello, Alarics. You have new messages at Somchai Sun's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC) David Cameron There is an attempt for the outright removal of the content on his "Historic visit to Jaffna". There is a discussion on this issue. Your opinion is needed.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Return of someone who shares some of your interests Morning Alarics. It would appear that an indefinitely blocked editor who shares some of your interests, made a day-long return to Wikipedia as an unregistered user in order to update his userpage and also make slightly more than a dozen edits on topics related to one of those interests. If you have a little spare time, you may wish to look over some of his contributions from that day and revert anything problematic that's not already been fixed. I don't particularly expect that IP to be used for block evasion in this way again, but if it is and it presents ongoing problems, one could mention it to the blocking administrator or to any of the several other administrators who declined the various unblock requests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Many thanks! I've tidied up one or two things. All good-faith stuff, no vandalism evident. -- Alarics (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC) "Companies are singular" Actually, this isn't necessarily true - it's perfectly acceptable to use the plural in British English. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Hm, apparently we've done this before. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Describing a company as "they" rather than "it" is alright in colloquial speech, but not in the formal written language that we use in an encyclopaedia. Even more unacceptable is calling it "it" in one paragraph and "they" in the next, within the same article. -- Alarics (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Intersting. I've found the word "they" in band articles, and when I've changed this to "it", the change has sometimes been reverted. Do you think there is an exception for bands, which are, in effect, organizations too ? Acabashi (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC) No need to answer - I've seen the discussion on this above. Acabashi (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Per First TransPennine Express‎‎ Hi. I've seen your edit summary (1 December) for this article: "Also: "publisher" should be the name of the company or organisation, not its web domain" - this is interesting - I've been tending to add .org.uk to Genuki in articles, particularly in Ext links. Can you point me to the guideline that mentions not adding the web domain - looks like I might have a huge job adjusting this in articles :) Acabashi (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Hello, see Template:Cite web under "publisher", and all the examples given there. Also, in WP:CIT#Examples, likewise the first example given under "cite web" shows "publisher= Goddard Institute for Space Studies", not "publisher= data.giss.nasa.gov", and similarly with all the other examples I can find, including for "cite press release" (further down the same page). (In the case of "cite news", where "publisher" is usually redundant, it is "work" or "newspaper" that needs to be the actual name and not the web domain.) I think the reader needs to know who the actual publisher or publication is. Readers who do want to know the web domain for some reason can always hover over the URL and see it. Note however that there are some exceptions where the web domain actually is what the website calls itself, for example: http://www.rail.co.uk/ . Unfortunately there is a bot (Reflinks, I think) which goes around filling out incomplete references automatically and uses the web domain information to populate the "publisher" field. I'm sure this is the only reason why this unhelpful phenomenon has become so common. -- Alarics (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Many thanks for your trouble over this, and for the advice which I will study, and through which will adapt. Acabashi (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC) December 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bitcoin 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: bitcoin-transactions-20131206-2yugy.html |title= China bans banks from bitcoin transactions |work=[[The Sydney Morning Herald}}</ref> A side-effect of this announcement was a subsidiary of the Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)  Done -- Alarics (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Use of rubber tubing as punishment Hi Alarics, just thought it amusing that you require a citation for this - I am the source, as it was done to me for not being able to remember the house masters and colours of all the houses! Still smarts! I understand this is one of those weird WP things - they don't allow personal reminiscences, and yet they don't require anonymous contributors to identify themselves! Go figure! Not worth contesting this - we'll all just follow the rules, illogical as they are! Regards, Jpaulm (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Hi Jpaulm, it's because the source has to be independently verifiable by other editors and readers, which personal reminiscences clearly are not. -- Alarics (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Yes, we don't really mind who adds information, so long as they satisfy the policies on verifiability and original research; and since personal reminiscencies might be biased, the policy of neutral point of view needs to be observed as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Elm Guest House child abuse scandal Hello Alarics. Thanks for your message a week ago, on 19 December 2013, regarding news sources for this. Apologies for not replying sooner, but I got sidetracked by a few other things in the run-up to Christmas. When "Ghmyrtle" removed content from the Daily Express alleging that there had been police intimidation, I accepted and understood the reason why the content was removed. I have since read more about reliable sources and understand that tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Express and the Daily Mail are not ideal news sources, particularly for contentious content and controversial claims. Another editor "Codeusirae" put the content back again, which has since been removed. If I make any further edits to the article on the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal, I will not include any further content from newspapers such as the Daily Express. I will include content from sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. I understand that as Wikipedians we have to go by what reliable sources state. On Wikipedia we obviously don't give our own personal opinions, but with regard to the allegations at Elm Guest House, I have a neutral and balanced point of view at the present time until there are further investigations. I simply don't know at this stage whether in the future it is going to be regarded as a more serious political scandal than the Profumo Affair. I don't know whether there was previously a cover-up of allegations by authorities or whether the claims of politicians abusing children are unsubstantiated allegations. We will have to wait for further developments and investigations. However, it was disturbing to watch a Channel 4 news report in September this year alleging that former Liberal MP Cyril Smith had abused children for decades and that opportunities to stop the abuse had been missed. The Crown Prosecution Service have admitted that Smith should have been charged with crimes during his lifetime. He is reported to have been a regular visitor to Elm Guest House, but we don't know at this stage whether he may have abused children there. For anybody reading this who may be interested, the 8 minute Channel 4 news report is currently available to watch at the link below: http://www.channel4.com/news/cyril-smith-child-abuse-mi5-rochdale-elm Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Jonathan King Thanks for your kind comment on my talk page. That's why I no longer edit - I was always getting blocked. But looking at the article I realized that the clever way of getting the agenda across is to be more subtle; remove any facts or links that put across his defence side or his "achievements" like that awful Sunday Times quote and links to his own book showing cuttings from papers and add opinions from the police and others condemning him. But I still won't edit (Dave just got blocked again) I'll leave it to you and the others. Sorry for drawing attention to your work. Erase this after reading.Pedohater (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC) It's fairly obvious from this and from the post on the article talk page that this user is in fact opposing the recent expansion on tlhe conviction, rather than applauding it. I strongly suspect editing on behalf of the subject: WP:COI DeCausa (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC) DeCausa, I am increasingly confused by all this -- who is "this user" whom you accuse of COI? If you mean "Pedohater", I have quite the opposite impression, though his/her comment above makes no sense to me. If you mean me, my rather small involvement in all this has been on behalf of a neutral and objective presentation of the facts, including the fact that some respectable commentators thought King was treated overharshly. -- Alarics (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC) I should have been clearer: I mean "Pedohater". IMHO, Pedohate's 2nd post on the article talk page and the above post attempts to attack the addition of material about the conviction by appearing to be in favour of it while sowing oblique hints of criticism. E.g: In the article post he complimented it for being "like a Daily Mail article". In the above post, he purports to be happy that "facts" (i.e. not "lies") supporting King's side have been removed. This is not the way someone claiming the POV he is claiming would write. I think the original postings thanking sevejral editors for joining "the crusade" was intended to make those editors think that their edits weren't NPOV. In your case, I think he's just made a mistake: as you say, you haven't made any additions to the conviction material. Btw, I've added back text about King's supporters, which I hope deals with your concern on that. Finally, I think Pedohater is linked to the subject and has a COI, inter alia because I detect (reading between the lines) real annoyance that, in his opinion, text about King's recent boks and films has been removed. I really don't think anyone but the subject would care that much. Hope th at clarifies: I certainly wasn't saying anything about you. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Copy of my points on the Talk Page. I see there have been other sock puppets at the article! I had no idea it would be such a minefield trying to edit an article. I'd not tried before and only fiddled with details although even then my edits were reverted. I won't bother again. To answer the editor who considers me a sock puppet, lovely words, just let me repeat why I made some of the small changes to the lead (thank heavens I didn't waste time doing more). I thought his first hit sold in several countries but will bow to your research that it only sold in two countries though even there I can't quite see why it needs saying. I assume all other wiki entries on other singers specify similar. I find "string" of releases and "novelty" records odd words to use in a factual encyclopedia but bow to superior literacy. I assume the 4 hits "in the 70s" avoid his productions or those which don't feature his vocals although, again, I can't work out why the 70s are specifically singled out unless it's to remove his 60s and 80s productions and cant see why it deserves mention anyway. Basic research shows he discovered Genesis and produced them independently long before placing them with Decca or even leaving university. Why he is described as "working for" companies he didn't work for and those companies that released his other independent releases are ignored I cannot understand. It's not even negative to him. It's just wrong. I would have thought any editor with a Book of Hit Singles could have verified that, or is that not online? I bow to superior editing experience that 10cc were far more significant than his Rocky Horror Show or other acts. I believed Wikipedia was meant to state facts and not opinions on quality or significance. He never presented Top of the Pops as far as I remember but was on every month doing a US chart rundown but I certainly won't be checking my old music magazines to find proof. And I quite understand that his Old Bailey convictions are a far better story than his acquittal and as such deserve mention in the lead if wikipedia is meant to be a tabloid site. As for further details lower down the article, I wont bother reading or checking as my changes - even if sources detailed and provided - would be bulk reverted by editors wanting a more accurate article. I'm sorry, I just dont have time to bother scanning magazine pages into e mail. I apologize if my edits are similar to anyone else's but I'm nobody's sock puppet and wouldnt dream of accusing any other editor of being one either although that appears to be the default position. As I leave I would suggest any editor genuinely wanting an accurate article gets his autobiography and finds confirmation or proof of lying for any significant facts, as I would suggest they should do for any person warranting an article on Wikipedia, if they really want to contribute properly. Finally might I politely comment that certain editors might think about developing good manners and not bulk erasing changes, made in good faith, or chucking accusations of vandalism about? People in glass houses...LudoVicar (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC) LudoVicar: I am not clear why you have pasted all the above on to my talk page. My involvement with the JK article has been minor -- e.g. I found a reliable source for his graduation year, and I reinstated mention of his TV and radio roles in the opening sentence as it seemed to me an important part of his career. I think I also reverted some changes made by another editor with an obvious POV against JK, in order to restore a semblance of neutrality. I have not been concerned with most of the details you are complaining about. -- Alarics (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry I just copied and pasted it to editors who seemed involved. I didn't know who did what, just that all my corrections were reverted by editors and felt they should take another look at why I'd made them as it was implied I was doing it on behalf of others.LudoVicar (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC) January 2014 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern (train operating company) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: 2004/2/extensions_130204 |archivedate=22 April 2004 |title= Franchising Program Continues Apace] |publisher= Strategic Rail Authority |date=13 February 2004}}</ref> Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)  Done -- Alarics (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) |author= It is good to see someone else preferring the "|author= " field and skipping the first and last name fields. The Harvard style is so archaic. I also prefer "|education= " to the use of alma mater. I hate when Latin is used to make something sound more important. Up until recently we had to have a link for the alma mater field in infoboxes so people could figure out what it meant. I always prefer simplicity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Glad I am not alone! -- Alarics (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 3RR warning Your recent editing history at Emma Kenny shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC) You might have looked into this case in more detail before leaving an automated message which in this case is entirely inappropriate. It is not I who am involved edit warring. I have explained to the other editor (in my edit summaries AND on his own talk page) what he needed to do to meet Wikipedia' rules for biographies of living persons, but he just keeps reverting back to his unsustainable position. It's not just me. Several other editors have attempted to put the article right. -- Alarics (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I'm with Alarics here. Not only did Alarics make two reverts - not three (or even the four which would trigger 3RR) - but both were valid reverts within WP:NOT3RR because of the BLP and sourcing issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Just for the record, I agree with Redrose. I've indef'd Petesmith2013. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC) UK Just a transubsatiation here of your kind welcomes! :) Welcome here, both Mabuska and Alarics. No 1....Britain is not England, or Scotland, or for that happens the six counties of Ulster that remained under the aegis of the crown. It is a concept, or rather more dully the bloody island itself. No 2...nice, putting a bit of patronising window dressing on here too,...No 3, if I push, I'll bloody push. That's what bloody history is. Greetings! Brendandh (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Where is your location located? We are told of the Bau Xi Gallery: Its location is one of the few commercial gallery spaces designed from the ground-up to exhibit artwork. The Toronto location (since 1976) is located directly across the street from the Art Gallery of Ontario on Dundas Street West, in the heart of downtown Toronto. In 2002 the Foster/White Gallery which is located in Seattle's Pioneer Square was purchased by the Huang Family. It's surprising that Wikipedia hasn't yet collapsed under the weight of malodorous slurry in its many promotional articles. If only this were instead an academic publisher! (Oh, perhaps not.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Ha ha ha! -- Alarics (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Merge discussion for LBC An article that you have been involved in editing, LBC, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Khairul Islam 00:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khairul Islam (talk • contribs) RevDeletion or supression requests Thanks for your comment at BLP/N. Please note however that it's normally a bad idea to make such requests at public noticeboards as it just draws more attention to the matter. You should either follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight if you believe Wikipedia:Oversight is justified (it probably is in a case like this) or follow the process at Wikipedia:REVDEL#How to request Revision Deletion if you don't think oversight/supression is justified but revdeletion is. You can do both if requesting oversight because it's possible an administrator will get to it first. It looks like you have an email address assigned to your account, so you should have no problems emailing oversighters or admins although you will have to reveal your email address by doing so. In any case, to try and avoid drawing more attention I've removed your request without an edit summary, and made a request for oversight via the email form. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC) The Off to Rio BLP award The Off to Rio BLP award For your efforts to prevent undue harm to living persons by highlighting inappropriate content on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you! (unless you are being satirical). Apparently I did it wrong (see previous section) but it was not at all obvious what one is supposed to do in such circumstances. -- Alarics (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Most people do it wrong, thus it's the thought that counts and I was not being satirical or even sarcastic. The award title is a play on words, since an enthusiast of Rio originally taught me the importance of caring about how we write about living persons, but sadly he cannot be with us today even though the newspapers tell us that "Rio" is very important at present. The other very slight humour is that I have a vague theory that you are not the sort of person that goes about waving little England flags from your car (or anywhere else) during the "World Cup season", and possibly you even find the whole thing mildly bizarre or even mildly annoying, but that is just guesswork. By the way, the size of your talkpage might be unduly huge again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC) David Cameron I need your opinion at two discussions which I have created since you have shared your opinion here.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I agree with the comments by Hazhk. -- Alarics (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks Hi. Thanks for stopping by on my talkpage and explaining which one is which, although user Sock already shared a bit of info, to get me accustomed with deadurl thing. So, that's out of the way. Now, in regards to BBC and The Guardian thing, I was a bit confused. For one, we as Wikipedians sometimes use publisher=The Guardian while the work can be The Observer. Same thing goes with The Independent which besides the original have The Independent on Sunday which is its subsidiary. BBC though have 3 subsidiaries, which includes: BBC Sport, BBC News, and BBC News Online, all of which have separate articles here. So, I hope you will understand my reasoning behind using publisher=BBC with works being one of the above.--Mishae (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) @Mishae: The Guardian is the name of the newspaper, and not its publisher. It is published by Guardian News and Media Limited, as is The Observer. The Independent and The Independent on Sunday are both published by Independent Print Ltd. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Well, according to this explanation publishers are in fact O.K. or I am not getting it again. Like, in my opinion work is used if there is a second source, like publisher is The Guardian while work is The Observer. Correct me if I am wrong again, but we need to cite every work. Like if The Observer have contributed to the article in the press, we need to include it, don't you all think that?--Mishae (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) The |newspaper= parameter is an alias for |work= - I tend to prefer the specific to the general, so for newspapers, I normally use |newspaper=. Now, regarding the documentation that you linked, it says publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). In the case of The Observer, the company that publishes the work being cited is Guardian News and Media Limited - not The Guardian. This publication could be cited as |newspaper=The Observer |publisher=Guardian News and Media. However, for The Guardian - where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work - we would use |newspaper=The Guardian alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC) In practice, "publisher" is not a helpful parameter in the case of mainstream newspapers or magazines, and it should be omitted. For example, what The Observer needs to disambiguate it is not the name of its publisher (which can change over time; the paper has existed since 1791, but only since 1993 has it been published by Guardian News and Media), but its city of publication, the traditional means of uniquely identifying a newspaper (to avoid confusion with papers called Observer in Uganda, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, Queensland, etc.). So it should be "newspaper=The Observer location=London" and leave the "publisher" parameter blank, or preferably delete it altogether. -- Alarics (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC) So, if we don't include publishers in the cite news templates what is their purpose?--Mishae (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC) In 99% of cases it serves no purpose at all. Very occasionally it might be useful, e.g. when citing a rare or obscure or ancient publication that is long since defunct. -- Alarics (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Child abuse also see to Spanking Adding this to the see also section is relevant as spanking can be construed as child abuse if marks are left or if performed by a foster parent, in some jurisdictions. So, unless there is not any legitimate reason to not include the see also, I will add it back.Williamsville (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Yet, there can be a link. In the body of the article Caning is mentioned and that is clearly child abuse in all jurisdictions in the US and Canada, so I believe the see also should include child abuseWilliamsville (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC) While I understand your thinking as described on the talk page, you've not cited reliable sources to bolster your opinion. Child abuse includes: Non-accidental physical injury of a child inflicted by a parent or caretaker that ranges from superficial bruises and welts (http://www.preventchildabuseny.org/resources/about-child-abuse/) And: Physical. A non-accidental physical injury as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, hitting, burning or otherwise harming a child, that is inflicted by a parent, caregiver or other person who has responsibility for the child. Such injury is considered abuse regardless of whether the caregiver intended to hurt the child. - See more at: http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/learn/child-abuse-neglect/about-issue#sthash.mKcqtGX6.dpuf (http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org/learn/child-abuse-neglect/about-issue) Caning causes physical injury. The fact that it is illegal in all jurisdictions suggests that a link to the article in the see also section is called for so that the reader can determine whether the spanking is merely spanking or has crossed the line...caning is spanking??? seems very odd to me as it is illegal in the US and Canada. Child abuse vs punishment means: If the punishment harms the child (causes pain, leaves marks, etc., it could be considered excessive (NY State Foster parent manual). And, in all jurisdictions using a closed fist, knocking the child down, or using an object is considered abuse. Also: Corporal punishment is prohibited in all early childhood care and in day care for older children in 36 states (http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/usa.html). And finally, spanking is prohibited as a form of sentencing in the penal system and also in alternate care settings. Therefore adding the link the child abuse in the see also section is warranted.Williamsville (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Caning in Singapore Thank you for assisting me on editing the article, Alarics. I noticed that it relies too heavily on World Corporal Punishment Research (Corpun) in some parts and Corpun is not always up-to-date and accurate. In your opinion, is there anything we can do about this? 116.86.165.147 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Corpun happens to be the only place on the web that brings all this stuff together. In what respect is it not accurate? It cites its own sources carefully. But anyway I will look for some additional sources when I have more time. -- Alarics (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) The problem is that some of the sources Corpun uses are already outdated. For example, the legislation (which section of which Act/Regulations) it cites are no longer up-to-date. This is why I chose to cite directly from Singapore legislation (available on statutes.agc.gov.sg) instead of quoting Corpun. Besides, some parts of the Corpun article are based on insider information obtained some years ago (the page itself says 'last revised September 2012') and some news articles it cites are not very recent (some dating back to the 1970s and 1980s). 119.56.124.244 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Bad Grammar "In the summer of 1982" is US usage. British English has "in summer 1982". No it does not! That sounds like a translation from German to me. Quote your sources for this bad grammar. --Kiltpin (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I don't know where you got the idea that it is bad grammar. If you search Google you will find the phrase widely used by respectable sources. Why use four words where two will do? Examples among many millions: "the number of incidents of malpractice in the GCSE and A level in summer 2014". UK government. "London domain name to launch in summer 2014". BBC News. "Your guide to things to do in Warwickshire in summer 2014". Coventry Telegraph. "Honey Bees Return in Summer 2014". University of Sussex. "These extra services operated in Summer 2014". Dales bus services. "The Royal Ballet tours to Moscow, Taipei and Shanghai in Summer 2014". Royal Opera House. "A message for students expecting to graduate in Summer 2014". Sheffield University. "the number of employers that plan to freeze pay has risen modestly to 10% in summer 2014". Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. "We are currently accepting applications to start in summer 2014". Durham University. "Camouflage and gingham will be the prints du jour for Carven girls in summer 2014". Daily Telegraph. "India's tour of England in summer 2014". English Cricket Board. "Manchester United had one of their busiest transfer windows in recent memory in summer 2014". Manchester Evening News. "They'll play 13 dates in spring 2012". BBC Newsbeat. "In autumn 2003, 7.42 million people in employment in the UK were trade union members". Office for National Statistics. "360 table eggs from Finnish organic laying hens were collected in autumn 2003". Oxford Journals. "The provisional UK medical school intake figure in autumn 2003 was 7,559". Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration. "The survey was carried out across England and Scotland in Autumn 2003". Scottish Government. "Dematerialisation of UK Money Market Instruments (MMIs) is due to take effect in Autumn 2003". Bank of England. "In winter 2010 gritting became a political issue". The Guardian. "its banking sector spectacularly imploded in winter 2010". The Guardian. "11 of the UK's quirkiest events in summer 2014". Daily Mail. "In spring 2011, US energy group ExxonMobil made a horizontal test drill into shale rock". The Guardian. -- Alarics (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Widely used it may be, but correctly? Are you saying "the" and "of" is always incorrect in British English? Stephenjh (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Not incorrect, just completely unnecessary. - Alarics (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC) I'm all for concision but, do you have a source for that 'rule'? Stephenjh (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC) It's not a "rule", it's a question of what is common usage by respectable British writers. See the examples I have cited above from reliable sources including The Guardian, the government, the BBC, the Bank of England, and various universities. -- Alarics (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Well it must be a rule or not. If not, then either is acceptable. You haven't quoted any "respectable British writers" either, just organisations - who may or may not be making a mistake. For example one can find quotes by many of the same organisations stating the opposite, e.g. "The capital will gets its own domain name, .london, in the summer of 2014." BBC News "As the summer of 2014 draws to a close, along comes the very classy film adaptation of Gillian Flynn's brilliantly constructed psychological...". Daily Mail "ECB has announced the full international programme for the summer of 2015 which will see England host tours by New Zealand and Australia." English Cricket Board "Controlled Escalation: Himmler's Men in the Summer of 1941 and the Holocaust..." Oxford Journals "That was up almost 19.5 per cent on the Olympic summer of 2012..." London Evening Standard Etc... Are your "reliable sources" correct or incorrect (or reliable) then? Do they prefer to use either depending upon the context perhaps? Stephenjh (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Either is acceptable, although I think the shorter form may be more typically BrE and I think the longer form is more typically AmE. The main point is not that one can of course find counter-examples on both sides, but whether or not the shorter form is wrong. And the answer is no. If you think "in summer 1982" is wrong, you need to produce some evidence. -- Alarics (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Ah, but the onus is on you the editor to support your edit to the article with evidence. With no real support, your edit and justifications sound like original research. I don't think it's an American / British thing, I believe it's purely grammatical and there are occasions where the longer form is more correct. Stephenjh (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC) The concept of original research applies to the factual content of articles, not to questions of style. How would you define these alleged "occasions when the longer form is more correct"? Can you produce anything to back that up? Unless you do, we must conclude that either form is equally acceptable, as the examples I have quoted overwhelmingly suggest. In that case, the shorter form is preferable because more concise. I really don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this small stylistic point. -- Alarics (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Referencing Hello Alarics. Thank you for the work that you have done on a number of articles to improve the consistency of references and to explain to people how references are formatted correctly. I have been surprised recently when editing the article on Gary Lineker that each time I format the references properly to include the city of publication for a newspaper, the locations have been swiftly removed. I have tried to explain a number of times that as per the guidelines at WP:REFB, it states that it is always best to include the city of publication if not already part of the title of the newspaper. There is clearly more than one newspaper in the world called The Guardian and more than one newspaper called the Daily Telegraph. Wikipedia is not a British encyclopaedia. It is viewed throughout the world in different continents and the location of publication should therefore be included. The idea behind the removal of locations from the Lineker article seems to be that "London" is unnecessary and people can click on the links of the newspaper names to see which city they publish from. This idea is not in keeping with the guidelines which state that the city of publication should always be included. I have edited numerous articles over the past 18 months to include the city of publication in references and the Lineker article is certainly the first one that I have encountered where the locations have been removed each time after I have edited. If it could be possible for you to take a look at the article for Gary Lineker I would be grateful, as unfortunately my explanations each time are not heeded. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC) I will have a look at Gary Lineker when I have a bit more time. -- Alarics (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you Alarics. I have been somewhat bemused as to why on this article the locations have always been swiftly removed after I have put them in. As mentioned, the Gary Lineker article is the first one I have encountered where this has happened. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) London talk page Hello Alarics, I was wondering if you would like to contribute anything to the discussion currently taking place on the London talk page? I noticed you implicitly accepted my 'pre-eminent' edit back in January (by hyphenating 'preeminent') but now, the edit is unfortunately embroiled in controversy. How would you feel about a compromise i.e. a revert to the original 'prominence'? I apologize for involving you in this, but I feel London deserves a word that properly recognizes its pre-eminent or 'prominent' role in the world. Here's to hoping you agree (in the history, you can also see the current sources I provided to justify my word choice). NorthernFactoid (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)  Done -- Alarics (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC) CP vs. CA Just a comment on your reversion of one of my See Also's to Corporal punishment in the home. First, this was my first visit to CP article so I didn't know the history of adding Child abuse to the See Also's. I also added two See Also's (Corporal punishment in the home and School corporal punishment) to Child abuse for symmetry. Second, I agree with you, sort of. CA is different from CP (although the first sentence definitions in WP could lead you to think otherwise: "the physical...maltreatment...of a child" vs. "the use of physical force for the purpose of correction [of children]"). That is why I almost put a slug next to the reverted Child abuse, somewhat like this: Physical child abuse, for when corporal punishment of children becomes abusive or illegal In my opinion, See Also entries aren't strictly for hypernyms and hyponyms but for related terms as well. I leave it up to you whether you want to add something like the above, slugged See Also to CP. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Chevenix-Trench I think it is disingenuous to remove this man from the Fettes article. I notice you have edited a number of articles on corporal punishment and child abuse, by the way, I have not looked at your edits, but I am sure you are aware that the cover-up of child abuse has been rampant in the past few decades in the UK. Anyway, the upshot is that Fettes employed someone who got kicked out of Eton, without asking too many questions. This kind of behaviour makes one wonder what the hell else these places got up to, which they never talk about. (As bad as some of the churches!) The man had evidently been damaged by the war, in fact, I seem to recall he'd been a Japanese POW. I would also point you to the fact that a recently retired Fettes teacher wrote a flattering biography of C-T, which plays down his sadism. However, it would seem that he continued with his beatings while at Fettes. Covering this kind of thing up does no one any good, except the abusers. Yes, I am well aware that caning was normal practice, but Chevenix Trench seemed to have enjoyed it a little too much.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. Also, what's with the removal of the fact that said school produces a disproportionate number of judges? It does, both in relation to the number of its alumni, and the size of the legal profession. (1) It is not for Wikipedia to start making judgements about any alleged "cover-up of child abuse" beyond what is reported in reliable sources as established fact. I have not seen any evidence that this was so at Fettes. If there is any, by all means cite it. Certainly C-T used corporal punishment at Fettes, but any suggestion that he went beyond what was normal at the time would need to be supported by proper references. I removed the bit about him in the Fettes article because it did not refer specifically to Fettes and there was no similar attempt to characterise any other Fettes heads. He is already mentioned in the list of former headmasters, so he cannot be said to have been removed from the article. None of the others in the list is singled out for this kind of treatment. There is of course a separate article about C-T which goes into detail about the various claims that have been made about him. Nobody is covering anything up. Mark Peel's biography of C-T, which you describe as "flattering", is in some ways quite "warts and all" and points out that C-T's main problem was actually alcoholism. At all events, I think Peel's subjective view is just as valid as Paul Foot's subjective view, or probably more so (Foot had personal experience of C-T at Shrewsbury many years earlier but none of Fettes). (2) I don't doubt that Fettes has produced a lot of judges. I just thought the words "inordinate" and "disproportionate" were inappropriate and non-encyclopaedic. They sound like opinions rather than facts. What's wrong with the neutral "many"? -- Alarics (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Why would you want to sweep this under the carpet? I'm sick of reading puff pieces for various private schools, which give you nothing but information about their doctored exam pass rates. CT is completely relevant to the Fettes article. He wouldn't have ended up there if he hadn't have been kicked out of Eton. And then, it appears, he was kicked out of Fettes for the same thing. He was a damaged invididual, and the school covered up this behaviour in the same way numerous other institutions have. I've read Mark Peel's biography of CT. It's a whitewash. Actually, that's far too generous, it's a kind of hagiography. Peel had access to sources who were around at the time, but obviously the pay-off for that was that he avoided discussing the abuse. He writes it off by saying that the man was nice to his own children. The reason Fettes produces a lot of judges is because a lot of judges' children go there. Not because of academic achievements. Given the small size of the judiciary and the fact that the vast majority of people in Scotland have not attended private schools, I do not think it is POV to point this out.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC) It's not about sweeping anything under the carpet, it's about what is fact and what is merely anecdote or supposition, and what is appropriate in a Wikipedia article. We have to be fair and balanced. Mark Peel's book (which I have in front of me) does not dispute that C-T was somewhat damaged. So were many people in the war. If you actually read the book, Peel does not play down C-T's enthusiasm for corporal punishment. But he was far from alone in that, and it was perfectly legal at the time. You cannot go chucking around words like "abuse" and "sadism" without solid evidence, which we do not have. Nor should we judge the past by the standards of today. Where is the evidence for your assertion that he was kicked out of Fettes and the real reason covered up? He was seriously ill by 1978. He died before his term as headmaster had officialy come to an end. This is all covered in the WP article about him, to which the Fettes article of course links. I think it is WP:UNDUE to bung all this into the "History" section of the Fettes article as well, unless we are also going to put in equivalent slabs of material about other Fettes heads, which currently the Fettes article does not do. If you want to include detailed information about the number of judges the school produces you will need to cite a reliable source. Your personal opinion is not sufficient. -- Alarics (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC) London Paddington station London Paddington station, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. I'm not so sure who was/were the reviewer for the earlier GA reviews but do you know who is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 April 2015 @Vincent60030: Please remember to sign your posts. To your last q, see User talk:Redrose64#London Paddington station and WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Driverless tube trains Further to your edit on my content, I was wondering why it is necessary to have passenger walkways to evacuate passengers if the train breaks down if the trains are driverless - surely this happens already when there are drivers on the train — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC) References On the existing tubes, evacuation takes place from the front or back end of the train via the driver's cab and then along the tracks. (Building such a tube nowadays would be forbidden by health and safety.) It requires staff to organise and to lead and instruct the passengers. It is difficult and messy and frightening enough as it is. Imagine how much more panic-inducing if there were no staff at all on the train in an emergency situation with a seven-car train crammed with many hundreds of passengers. See this article by Christian Wolmar and this one also by Christian Wolmar and this article on London Reconnections and this one. -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Surely this could be overcome by having "train captains" on the tube as on the DLR - they wouldn't have to actually be driving the train? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC) That is in effect what the "driver" already is on the Victoria and Jubilee lines. He/she does not actually drive the train, a computer does. No reduction in staff numbers would be achieved. Unions could still bring service to a halt by calling a strike. To have no staff on the trains at all, as in Lille and Turin and Kuala Lumpur and other cities, you need to be building a new system from scratch, with passenger walkways throughout and platform-edge doors at all stations. You cannot do it with London's ancient deep-level tubes. -- Alarics (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC) But this would still mean that the possibility of a tube driver being traumatised because of a suicide/someone falling in front of the train was removed. It would also presumably remove the need for extra training for the drivers (compared to the "train captains"). I also don't understand why firstly this applies on sub-surface lines and secondly why it wouldn't be possible to have the passengers remain on the train until someone could be found to "rescue them" Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC) @Absolutelypuremilk: It is not for Wikipedia to speculate on why something can or cannot be done, nor on why something was done the way it was. We report on what others have already described. See the core content policies WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you want to suggest a new way of operating trains, write to Modern Railways or The Railway Magazine. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) @Redrose64: Alarics edited some of my earlier contribution (which spoke about use of driverless trains in other countries) as Alarics said that on deep-tube lines there are not emergency evacuation tunnels for passengers and so the experience of other countries is not relevant (which I agree with) but this doesn't apply to subsurface lines where these are not necessary - I was replying to his edit rather than suggesting a new way of doing things Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC) @Alarics: Would you be happy with e.g. Driverless operation has already been demonstrated safely on several railways around the world and on the DLR. However these lines have tunnels for the safe evacuation of passengers, whereas the deep Tube lines were built without these and therefore a "train captain" would be needed to evacuate passengers in case of an emergency. No, unless you want to quote some reliable source that is saying all these things. It's not for Wikipedia to speculate in that way or to appear to be arguing the case. You are straying into WP:OR. -- Alarics (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @Alarics:Yes, I meant with references: Driverless operation has already been demonstrated safely on several railways around the world and on the DLR. However these lines have tunnels for the safe evacuation of passengers, whereas the deep Tube lines were built without these and therefore a "train captain" would be needed to evacuate passengers in case of an emergency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 10:23, 18 August 2015 References The DLR trains are not driverless. There is a driver (who might actually have a different job title); they ride in one of the doorways. At each doorway there is a small control panel with a small number of buttons, warning lights and a key lock. To prevent misuse, these controls are only active when the driver's key is in the lock and turned to the appropriate position. To start the train, the driver presses a button to close all the doors except the one where he or she is standing; then presses another button which closes that door and engages the automatic controller. When the next station is reached and the train stops, the doors open automatically and the train then does nothing until the driver again presses a "close doors" button. At some stations, such as Canary Wharf, the driver doesn't use the controls by a door, but instead uses a full set of controls at the very front of the train, these are normally hidden under a lockable cover. Riding the DLR is best done from the front seat of the front carriage. If you sit in the front left-hand seat, and the driver needs to use the main control panel, you might get asked to move to a different seat. Start at Bank DLR station, go along the platform to the eastern end so that you can secure that front seat, wait for a train bound for Lewisham, then ride it. In the two tunnels, you will observe the continuous walkway against one side, something that is absent from other Underground lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I think we have a very different definition of what a driver does - I would say that someone who simply closes the doors is a train guard rather than a driver. Redrose64 would you be happy with the above suggestion or could you propose an alternative?Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) You are missing the point. A mainline guard is in charge of door-operation, but does not engage the power; the DLR train captain does'. Which is also the responsibility of a mainline driver. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I fail to see the difference here. Surely the automated system decides whether to drive or not once the doors are closed depending on if it senses that the way in front is clear, which the train driver on a current tube train does not do. In either case, could you suggest a revision to the content I have put above to clarify what you mean? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) The 'computer' drives the train whilst it is in motion- but is a slave device: whilst the captain's key is in the door control panel, it is immobilized. This is to ensure it cannot move with the doors open. Obviously. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Surely a mainline driver also could not leave until the doors have closed? I fail to see how the 'train captain' operating the doors makes them a driver in any meaningful sense Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) That's exactly the point. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) So to summarise: Mainline guard: In charge of opening/closing doors, Train captain: In charge of opening/closing doors. Mainline driver: Drives once doors are closed, Automated driving system: Drives once doors are closed Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC) What do you think that this guy is doing? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC) You said that train captains drive the train at certain stations, presumably this is what you mean - I have not actually been on the DLR but I have always seen it referred to as a driverless metro so I am trying to understand what you mean. e.g. http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featuredriverless-train-technology/ says this: "The next step from semi-automatic train operation, which automates some aspects of train operation but still requires a driver to be in the cab, is driverless train operation. This technology, in operation on the likes of London's DLR, involves the automatic handling of all aspects of train operation, with a trained human operator on board the train to handle customer service, ticket checking and to take control in the event of an emergency." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Eton College Hi, just to advise that your revert on the above may be incorrect - the name Simon Henderson is listed on the school's website as the principal. Regards Denisarona (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) My revert was because no source was cited, not because the information was necessarily wrong. -- Alarics (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Mahadeva Achchirama Children Home Is it possible you to fix the above copyvio problem?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Great Western Railway During the time you deleted it I was still working on London to Bristol and London to Penzance, replacing the London to Brighton part, so maybe next time you shouldn't be in such a rush to delete things and actually wait a few hours or sent a talk message to the user in question. I presume you have no idea about the routes on the GWR so that means im going to have to spend another 4 hours sorting that out. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Replied on your talk page. -- Alarics (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Have to laugh, maybe instead of getting annoyed about the truth, you should listen to my advice. END — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Alarics (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Archiving (talk page stalker) Hi there! I have just noticed that your talk page seems pretty long. Do you have the time to archive or need help? Vincent60030 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)  Done -- Alarics (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Like Good. Cheers! :) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC) GWR Pullman Once again I find you fiddling around with my edits on wiki, Im getting pretty fucked off with you to be honest. You have no actual positive influence on here you just read whatever is on google and add what you think, instead of actual facts. Considering that this is actually relevant information that might prove useful to some people, if not now then in the future I would strongly suggest you keep that long nose out of it! Devonexpressbus (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC) The GWR article does not "belong" to you. You really need to take note of what other, more experienced editors are saying to you. It's not just me. Also, please read WP:NOTTIMETABLE and WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE before you go any further. -- Alarics (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Elephant & Castle tube station has been nominated for Did You Know School shorts on Shorts The text was deleted because it was, to all intents and purposes completely unsupported and unreferenced. The one cite given was just a long rambling piece of continuation text shoved between two ref tags. I carried out a quick search for sources/discussion to try and determine whether school shorts were a specific thing, but most of what I found described the individual shorts required by specific schools, rather than an overall generic type. However, following your action, I've had a go at tidying up the text, adding proper citations, especially with Davidson's book on school uniform to hand (although he doesn't really talk much about school shorts as described in the text), and hope it reads better now. Much of the same information is retained, although I didn't see how the stuff about socks/stockings was relevant to shorts, so omitted that. Mabalu (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC) DYK for Elephant & Castle tube station Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks ! Thanks for your help with the S-train article. I hope the new longer lead is of better standard. This article had previously a German name, but as very similar semi-metro systems exists also outside German speaking countries did I suggest an English name instead. (And also the S-trains in Germany differ from each other, much depending on how large the city it serves is. I've never "taken over" a rather long article as this before, and I found it tiresome after a couple of hours. I quit without reading my text through, as I got sleepy. So I must thank you for all corrections. Well done ! grade repetition Hello, please read the page of Talk:Second grade. Fête Phung (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Moura Budberg What is Cite bews? Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC) A typo, obviously. -- Alarics (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Good faith revert Just so you know, in your revert here, you may not have known that you were restoring a COI edit, which the COI editor was trying to remove in good faith to be in compliance with WP:COI guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know. He did not explain that in his edit summary. -- Alarics (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Reference errors on 24 October Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows: On the Nan Chiau High School page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help) Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)  Done -- Alarics (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Alarics. 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) Merry Christmas! Hello Alarics: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message RfC Notice There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Asking assistance for Wiki editing Could you assist me with some information? 1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee? 2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page? 3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee? 4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor? 5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it? 6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing? 7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content? 8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos? 9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential. 10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories. 11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people? 12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing? Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page? 13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer? Abir Babu (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC) The answer to all these questions is that I don't know. I am rather mystified as to why you think I am the person to ask. -- Alarics (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC) FYI - I've already answered all of his questions on my user talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, Alarics. 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) Highbury Grove School Hi. Thanks for the heads up about the incomplete dates for the Islington Gazette article. I have inserted them, I hope correctly. Andrew (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC) School discipline I would like to know more about the English curriculum policy's for keeping children in after hours, the basic rights in school, so forth so on. Thank you for any help you can give me. Benb54 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I do not have any direct knowledge about this. I should imagine this information is easily fouond on the web. -- Alarics (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, Alarics. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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) ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, Alarics. 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) Date format Thank you for your recent corrections of date format, for example at Southland Academy. It seems a pointless exercise. The reference template formats today's date automatically in dd mmm yyyy format. To save yourself some work, you should get someone to change the operation of that widget. Rhadow (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Liverpool Pullman I have just made changes to the above page which you created. It is still a mess, with some strange changes made to dates since you last edited it, with lots of contradictory information. Thought I would let you know as you might have decent sources for the article. See Talk:Liverpool_Pullman and have a look at the recent changes I have made today to try and sort the mess out. Thanks.86.157.165.39 (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Singapore Singapore, an article you have significantly edited, has been nominated for Good Article. It seems possible for it to become a Good Article, though it needs tidying up. If you are interested in helping out, see the review: Talk:Singapore/GA3. SilkTork (talk) 16:13, 27 August 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Micheal Tarraga Hey, in the source that I linked for his birthday a official government doc is shown that states his birthday and the one of his twin brother as well as the birthday of his sister. And thus he was definitely born on the 7th October 1949. I was so happy that I found the exact birth date. I would like it to remain in the article... Would that be alright with you?--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 20:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Plural companies in British English Hello, you recently made a change (and have made other similar ones recently) stating that "companies are singular, etc.". MOS:PLURALS disagrees with you: Some collective nouns – such as team (and proper names of them), army, company, crowd, fleet, government, majority, mess, number, pack, and party – may refer either to a single entity or to the members that compose it. In British English, such words are sometimes treated as singular, but more often treated as plural, according to context. Rather than revert the whole change, I have changed back those parts affected by this (MOS:RETAIN), but am happy to follow WP:BRD if you think that's needed. Bazza (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I had not seen this as an issue in terms of MOS:RETAIN, which is about varieties of English, in particular British English vs. American English, and was unaware that my preferred style in this particular case is supposedly a more American version (I am not entirely convinced about that, but let's leave that aside). You maintain that MOS:PLURALS disagrees with me, but I think that is an oversimplification: it says that in BrEng "such words are sometimes treated as singular ... according to context", without explaining what "context" would involve here. My feeling is that in informal conversation people do tend to refer to companies and corporations as they/them/their and are/were ("the BBC need to get their act together"), but in formal written English (e.g. Wikipedia) this looks terribly sloppy, and it/its and is/was are to be preferred ("the BBC says it needs a further £500 million to meet its funding deficit"). All this may not matter much one way or the other in the great scheme of things, but what surely does matter is consistency within any given article, and that is what I have been primarily concerned with in my editing of, especially, railway articles. Time and again I come across articles where for example a given company is described as both "it" and "they" even within the same paragraph. To me this looks most unprofessional. In this regard I note that, in British Rail Class 802 as you have now left it, we read "Great Western Railway said it had arranged to procure ..." and "GWR was beginnning the process of ...", but "Hull Trains said they would buy ...." and "TransPennine Express operate ..." Worst of all, we have "TransPennine Express has branded their ...", which is inconsistent even within the same sentence, and should of course read either "has branded its" or "have branded their". Do you really find this satisfactory? -- Alarics (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC) @Alarics: Hello, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree about consistency, but not about writing using plurals being sloppy. For what the MOS ambiguously refers to as "context", I have sometimes used the name of the entity as a guide (as I have seen other people do as well): so, for example, if it commences with "the" I might well agree it should be singular. So, "the BBC is" as you state above looks OK to me, but "GWR have bought" looks much better than its singular equivalent. I don't get too precious about this when in discussion with fellow British English speakers like yourself, but would (and have) had more robust discourse about the Other Variety trying to impose their valid but different standards against MOS:ENGVAR and the like. For this article in particular there are two options: I'm happy to complete the exercise (which I interrupted to chat to you) to enforce consistency, but equally happy for you to revert my change back to the version you had produced. The call is yours. Regards Bazza (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC) @Bazza 7: Thanks. I have fixed the article now in the interests of consistency, but feel free to amend it further if you wish. -- Alarics (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC) ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Troccas Hi, could you take a look at my edit? I made some research :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) But you can't use "THE play" in that sense. I've changed it to "the game". -- Alarics (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Whoops Sorry, only saw the top half of your edits. CMD (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC) No worries. -- Alarics (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC) LGB Alliance inappropriate reversion of edit You have incorrectly reverted my edit of the LGB alliance in accordance with your comment on "neutral point of view". I would like to point out that there is an objective, neutral categorisation of what constitutes a hate group, when the overwhelming body of human right bodies agrees regardless of whether other people disagree. For instance, in wikipedia's article on the KKK, the article clearly states that they are a hate group. I am sure other people would disagree, just like other people would disagree about climate change but that does not change its objective reality. I have already cited many of the most prominent human rights groups that have clearly listed them as a hate group. The LGB alliance targets and systemically excludes transgender people, making them a hate group if you consider the transgender population as a protected category, which the highest body of human rights frameworks do. Therefore, please revert back my edit, and in line with recent research (see Global Project Against Hate and Extremism report), please do not integrate your biased view of what a hate group is within your editing practice in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBiology (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Your KKK analogy seems wildly offbeam. I don't think many people would disagree that the KKK is a hate group. For one thing, the LGB Alliance doesn't have a history of going around murdering people, as far as we know. I also strongly disagree with your suggestion that this is similar to the question of climate change. There is an overwhelming and well-documented scientific consensus about climate change. That clearly isn't so in the case of the LGB Alliance, because society at present is deeply divided on the sex/gender issue. Alarics (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Are you suggesting that there is not a medical/professional consensus that Gender identity is real, that Gender dysphoria is the distress caused by a mismatch between gender identiry and Sex assignment, and that the best practice for the treatment of gender dysphoria, at least among adults, is gender-affirming care? I understand that the consensus is not accepted by some politicians and op-ed writers - as is still the case with climate change - but consensus on these issues is clear. (This doesn't imply that every group disputing this consensus is a "hate group"; that's a term that can only be used when the sourcing is strong, IMO.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Exactly correct. The editor's bias and pretentious attitude to being corrected is clearly affecting their capacity to review correctly. There is a wide consensus on gender identity which the LGB Alliance is disputing. The LGB alliance is actively contributing to trans-exclusive and hostile legislation in the UK, and the gatekeeping of gender-affirming care to trans people. This is clearly a major contributor to high suicide rates amongst trans people, and in the UK the lack of gender-affirming care for trans people. This editor's lack of knowledge on hate groups is baffling. ObjectiveBiology (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile

I see you rolled my edit tp Jimmy Savile back ([2]). Are you arguing that this is somehow not an important defining characteristic worth mentioning in the shortdesc? — The Anome (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about how to treat this aspect of Savile's life, so I thought it was inadvisable to make that edit unilaterally without seeking consensus on the talk page. Alarics (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

A request

Dear Alarics, I am Nelson. I want to inform you that about the article Capital punishment in Singapore, there was this wiki editor named 136.158.17.174. He had been repeatedly adding in incorrect info about Singaporean death penalty, stating that the methods are firing squad, decapitation etc, even though it was solely the method of hanging, and he even added in sharia law and death sentence for adultery, which were clearly wrong in the context of Singapore's laws. It's not that I wish to take it against him or start some editing war, but I feel that his repeated vandalism and misinformation should be stemmed and he should be blocked from editing, since he was, from my observations, recalcitrant in this pattern of editing despite my advice to tell him not to do so and verified to him the accuracy of his claims. He did the same thing with another page Criminal law of Singapore. Although I believe in the freedom of editing, but I also believe it should not be misused or abused into spreading misinformation in Wikipedia.

However, I am not sure how to request for a block, so I need to seek your advice or any other way to solve this problem. Thank you. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Alarics (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 18:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not been involved in any edit war at Elon Musk, or anywhere else for that matter. Please withdraw this completely unfounded accusation. Alarics (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ref fixes

Regarding Avanti West Coast, should Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi be notified of the sourcing problems they introduced? It seems from their stacked User talk, they've been warned of their problematic edits and consistently ignores them, yet this problem seems to be the only thing they've been notified of, apart from all the bot reminders of CS1 errors. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 20:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

He or she clearly takes no notice of anything anybody says. And I see they have been at it for 11 years! So I don't think it is worth spending time or energy on this. Fortunately the problems mostly seem to be relatively minor matters of form, like WP:OVERLINK or consistently failing to provide an edit summary, rather than matters of content, like introducing substantive errors of fact. Arguably, a great many of his/her edits are merely unnecessary rather than particularly damaging. -- Alarics (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)