User talk:Evan T Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Hello, Evan T Jones thanks for your contributions to Alwyn Ruddock and William Weston (explorer). I guess from your username you are the original author that inspired me to add these pages to wikipedia. I hope it was OK to start them and you like having your work mentioned on wikipedia! Anyway best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Msrasnw - I am indeed Dr Evan Jones (Bristol University). I had been planning on creating a Wikipedia entry, but you got there first. To be honest, this is the first time that I've done this, academics generally being wary of Wikipedia, largely because anyone can write over what you've done. Still, I thought I'd give it a go by experimenting with these pages, since I think they are potentially a useful way of reaching out to people outside of academia. If you can give me advice about any Wiki issues, I'd appreciate it. All the best - Evan Evan T Jones (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Jones, feel free to ask me anything. I don't know a lot but I can normally find things out. (I too am an academic , but a low quality one - but one that loves the whole Wikipedia idea. Write an article in a journal 20 people read it. Write a wikipedia entry 20,000 read it, - and the entry might grow and grow.) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Msrasnw, I guess I have a number of concerns that you might advise me of: 1) Do you know if it's possible to get the title of an entry changed? I'm particularly interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Giovanni_Antonio_Carbonaro I'd really like to get the name changed to 'Carbonariis' since this is how he appears in all the documents I've found, but this seems difficult to do. 2) Do you have any thoughts on dealing with vandalism? I note that I've spent quite some time over the last couple of days updating the 'John Cabot' page. It had some vandalism earlier today, which was then cleared up by some anonymous cleaner. On the other hand, while I appreciate that the nature of Wikipedia is that it's open for all to edit, I suppose I am a bit worried about idiots coming along and deleting reasoned and referenced analysis. This seems to be a particular problem with the 'John Cabot' page, which does, I believe, have a history of vanadalism / overwriting by people with political / nationalistic agendas - or who have just bought into the various myths with which this field abounds. Are there ways of attracting 'cleaners' to the site, who might at least delete vandalism, if not unreasoned and unreferenced analysis? I say this because, while I don't mind writing content for the site based on my expertise in the field, I'm really not prepared to spend all my time removing graffiti. Evan T Jones (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Jones, I think renaming is fairly straitforward. One uses the move tab (next to the history tab at the top of the page) One can see Help:Moving a page for more details. I think you might have a problem with this because you are still a bit new.

"Note that in order to be able to move pages yourself, you must be logged in and you must have an autoconfirmed account (i.e. you must have had the account for four days and made at least ten article edits with it)."

The vandalism is a different issue. I think one might be best to distinguish between vandalism - which is quick and easy to "undo" or just go to the history and edit the most recent ok version (eg your version) and then save it over the current vandalised version. The history tab is great and you can compare selected revisions easily. A bigger problem is with editors pushing their point of view - here reasoned debate and appeal to authoritative sources on the talk page is normally the best root. And if things get argumentative one can always leave the page for a while and a while come back later. I also should have mentioned that lots of people "watch" their pages and ones they like and so I think vandalism doesn't often last log on important well watched pages. Does that help?

Also here are a few good links that are recommended for newcomers:

(Msrasnw (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you - I'll have a go at moving the page shortlyEvan T Jones (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Jones, I have moved the page - hope is OK. To increase exposure of one's article you can try to get them on the front page, Did You Know is for new articles (or big expansions) or making it a feature article or on this day. Also having pages link to yuor page. You can see what links via (what links here) in the toolbox on the left. Eg [[1]]

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I've now edited the 'John Cabot' page to include links to the Carbonariis page. Best - Evan Evan T Jones (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol[edit]

Hi Evan, thanks for you additions to the History section. I did remove one phrase - "Never ones to let the law stand in the way of making a profit" as this represents a point of view. The History of Bristol article could also do with this material, possibly in a more expanded form. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jezhotwells, I'm happy with the removal of that literary flourish. I'll have a look at at the 'History of Bristol' page when I get a chance.

Extent of Cabot's claims?[edit]

Prof. Jones - I posted this question on the Cabot page, but it seems to make sense to ask you directly here, as well. There currently appears to be substantial flux in the area of Cabot-related scholarship. Given that flux, what is the current consensus (if any) on the extent of Cabot's claim on behalf of the English Crown? The entire Western Hemisphere? Some smaller territory? Does anyone know the exact wording of what was claimed? Is there an academically-accepted version of any writing containing the extent of the claim? Thanks. NorCalHistory (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol History etc[edit]

Hi, I see you have many significant and useful edits to Bristol, History of Bristol, the Cabots, William Weston (explorer), Richard Amerike today. I do not have your expertise in these areas but I am slightly concerned that some of the edits removed cited information from other sources which may not totally coincide with your published work, but can be useful to the reader to help them realise that there are always several views on these topics. In particular this edit removed some material and several sources and replaced them with multiple references to your own work. It may be better to include your own and the work of others enabling others to make judgements about the value of the different contributions and move closer to a neutral pint of view. There are also some reference formatting issues which I will look at.— Rod talk 20:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rodw,

It may be that I got a bit irritated by that section: there were so many statements that have no foundation. Indeed, at one point one of my earlier articles was cited in support of a statement for which there is not a shred of evidence. e.g. 'New exploration voyages were launched by Venetian John Cabot, who in 1497 made landfall in some unknown spot of North America, and subsequently by sailors underwritten by Bristol merchants Walter & his son Robert Colley (Cowley) who moved to Dublin in abt. 1500 and King Henry VII until 1508.' I don't know where the latter part of that sentence comes from.

I have similar problems with the statement:The situation only improved when, a few years later, Iberian fishermen (mainly Azoreans and Basques) were hired to lead the Bristol fleet to new banks off Newfoundland.[1]

The problem I have with this 1995 newspaper opinion piece is that no evidence is provided and, on multiple levels, it is misconceived. For instance, the Iceland fisheries were not exhausted: a statement that would surprise any Iceland historian (some of whom I know well) and there is plenty of evidence that I discuss in a peer-reviewed article (available online) that England expanded its fisheries in the early 16C. There is also zero evidence that Iberian fishermen were 'hired' by Bristol to lead them to the New World and, as the customs account data shows, Bristol's economy was in fact booming in the late 15C. History is meant to be 'evidence based' but none is provided here. This is why I did not take the newspaper column seriously. It is not about whether I agree about the interpretation of evidence (historians do disagree about such matters), it's about whether there is evidence to disagree with in the first place. Please understand here that I'm not being parochial: one of the key findings of our research has been to show that Iberia was very important to Bristol's discovery ambitions and commercial development in this period. It is just that, as the 1492/3 map shows (and that IS based on hard quantifiable evidence), it was because Bristol merchants were expanding their trade direct to Spain.

This all said, I am happy to look again at specific statements where a more nuanced approach may be needed - or where it may be appropriate to say something like 'X has said this...but the following evidence suggests it is incorrect.' It's just a matter of balance, in that there isn't room in a Wikipedia page to discuss every misconceived claim someone may have committed to print in the past.

All the best - Evan

Thanks for the response. As I said I do not have the in depth knowledge of this particular period to argue for or against the specific points you have made but I like the the approach of 'X has said this...but the following evidence suggests it is incorrect.' as the wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth. I would suggest just doing a personal check that material and citations are being added because they help the reader understand the concept rather than for self promotion. I removed a couple of statements eg "Winner of the Economic History Society's "T.S. Ashton Prize" in 2001;" & "This short book provides an up-to-date account of the voyages, based on the research of the "Cabot Project", aimed at a general audience." which could (easily) be interpreted as "self promotional". Just one other thought - some of the images/maps you have uploaded eg File:1499 voyage.png and File:Bristol trade routes1492.png may be challenged as having unclear copyright status. Although they may be your own work if they have been published in the new book or on the project web site the copyright may be owned by Cabot Project Publications. To avoid any possible problems have a read of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and see if any of those approaches are suitable. Thanks for improving the wp articles on this era of Bristol history and if I can help with any of the (sometimes arcane) wikipedia ways of working let me know.— Rod talk 08:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rodw,

I'm very happy to see anything that might be interpreted as self-promotional removed. If I see anything else like that, I'll edit out. I will also have another look at some of the entries to provide more supporting evidence and fuller citations. That said, thinking about the newspaper article that was being cited, I think it is important to recognise that a short and old newspaper article written by someone who has done no research on a topic shouldn't be treated as a serious 'verified source' in the same way that you might treat an anonymously peer-reviewed article in a major academic journal.

Re the copyright issues: the figures I added are my own work and are my copyright. So I am free to make them Wikipedia Commons.

All the best - Evan

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Evan T Jones. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Evan T Jones. 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)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalicho (February 3)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by StraussInTheHouse was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Might be notable, but some non-Frobisher/Best-related sources would be good for establishing notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SITH (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Evan T Jones! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SITH (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalicho (March 23)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mgbo120 was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Break the content into sections. It reads like essay right now
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 20:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalicho has been accepted[edit]

Kalicho, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 10:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Forlorn Hope Estate has been accepted[edit]

Forlorn Hope Estate, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Malindi Museum Heritage Complex[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Malindi Museum Heritage Complex requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://museums.or.ke/malindi-cultural-complex/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — SamX [talk · contribs] 13:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SamX, I'm aware that I took this from the National Museums of Kenya site - albeit this was done on the suggestion of the Museum Director, Doris Kamuye, who wrote the page I took the text from. The plan was that I create a basic page and then her staff / or volunteers could update / expand it over time. But I take your point - I'll edit the page sufficiently to avoid any issues re copyright... Evan T Jones (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. If you received permission from someone to add the text to Wikipedia, they'll need to release the text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license or another compatible license, as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In the meantime, just edit[ing] the page isn't enough, as close paraphrasing is still considered a copyright violation—you'll need to completely rewrite it in your own words or wait until the donation has been processed through the proper channels. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have completely reorganised the page, dividing it into three main sections. This is written in my own words - albeit certain words and phrases that relate to factual or technical matters are inevitably the same as the source material. The History section in particular is quite factual and the facts are drawn from the Museums page, which has been properly cited. While some of the information can also be found elsewhere (e.g. newspaper articles), it seems best to cite the Museum page since it is the most authoritative source on the subject. Evan T Jones (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are definitely an improvement, but I'm not sure if they're enough to address close paraphrasing concerns. An administrator with experience in copyright cleanup will probably check the page in the next day or so to determine whether it should be deleted, so I'll defer to their judgement. If the article isn't deleted outright, the administrator might trim portions that have close paraphrasing issues and selectively remove copyright-violating revisions from the page's history or blank the article with the {{copyvio}} template and list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for further evaluation. I'll link to this discussion from the article's talk page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I might have a further look at it later. But deleting the page entirely would be a bad way forward, I think. It's a museum - it deserves a page!
My hope is that people from Kenya will develop the page, ideally using material from a broader range of authoritative secondary sources. Unfortunately, I can't do that myself, since I'm in the UK now and don't have access to the relevant printed sources. Evan T Jones (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have seen by now, the article hasn't been deleted, although the revisions not in keeping with Wikipedia's copyright policy have been removed from the page's history. If you want to include the copyrighted text you can still follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, although it may take a little while for the donation to be processed. Thanks for addressing the concerns! — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that all looks fine Evan T Jones (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shirley Jones (artist) has been accepted[edit]

Shirley Jones (artist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, sorry this sat so long in the queue as she is obviously notable. I think it may have been because no one wanted to do the cleanup on it - sorry in advance for the maintenance tags. I'm also going to point WP:WIRED at it so we can get some non-COI contributors in there. Thanks for writing the article and taking care about your COI. -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! It was only a few hours in the queue, so I'm not complaining!
I might do some further edits now, but I'll confine these to the addition of further supporting information / material - such as images that I will upload to Wikimedia and then embed in the article. I'll continue to avoid creating copy that reflects value judgments about Shirley Jones or her work. Evan T Jones (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh haha, I must have hit the "random new article" button that shows up after accepting a draft without even thinking about it - I've been going through the very back of the queue and thought it had been more than four months! Thanks for adding more info/material. You can do this on the Talk page if you like, to avoid any COI guilt. -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've just added a few categories in response to a request for more to be added. But I can't see that requires a COI declaration. I wanted to be open about all this, but I'm assuming I don't have to make a COI declaration every time I do some minor tweak? Evan T Jones (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider adding categories to be an uncontroversial addition, no COI problems there, for the vast majority of categories. If you have sources to add but don't want to write anything from them yourself for COI reasons, that's the kind of thing it's helpful to put on the talk page. Then someone else can expand the article from that source without having to go looking as hard. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: one of the main things I'll be doing now is making source material more accessible - either via Wikimedia or archive.org. Both will allow editors to access material that would be tricky to track down otherwise. Evan T Jones (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Taylor (librarian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Fleming (historian)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Peter Fleming (historian), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Peter Fleming (historian)[edit]

Hello Evan T Jones, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Peter Fleming (historian), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fleming (historian).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MicrobiologyMarcus}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 00:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Marcus,
I knew this article was problematic, especially in the lack of written sources about Peter Fleming that I could cite. On the other hand, I wanted to create a page that would make it easier to identify his significant (but sometimes obscurely published) contributions on Bristol history. That was why the bibliography was so long. Professor Fleming has really been the leading historian working on Bristol's medieval history over the last couple of decades.
By way of disclaimers, I note that, while I've known Peter for over twenty years, he was at a different university to me and he has never been someone I would call a 'friend'. I have only ever engaged with him in a professional capacity. I was not asked by him or anyone else to create this page. I created it since I felt it would be useful to those with an interest in Bristol's history, who might use the bibliography, in particular, to identify his work.
Unfortunately, Peter had to retire early a few years ago. He is no longer able to conduct research or write. In time I expect there will be biographical accounts written about him and his contribution to scholarship. These could then be drawn on to flesh out the biographical section of the Wikipedia page. However, I thought it might be worth creating a basic page now that could be augmented later.
If you or other members of the Wikipedia community have any thoughts about the best way forward here, I would appreciate it. The main thing to understand is that my primary concern is with the scholarship and trying to make sure that it is readily identifiable and accessible.
Best wishes - Evan Evan T Jones (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evan_T_Jones&oldid=1215646690"