User talk:Sirfurboy

I have hunted out my login details (not the easiest of tasks) as I find myself doing more than wiki-gnoming lately and guess I should therefore actually log in.

I claim these edits back to early 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.159.115.41

Thanks all for the kind messages on this talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a delightful surprise! -Austronesier (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and lovely to hear from you again. :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	No hard feelings. I value your disagreement Curbon7 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the protected areas. I'll take your word for it that they can't be expanded. Some you can expand to start class but I am aware that there are a lot of duds. Try to avoid mass templating me on my talk page though! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Dr. Blofeld, thanks for that. Twinkle throws in the templates, so I will see if I can find a way around that. I agree that many of these can be expanded. I have looked at all the Ceredigion SSSIs, and where they are co-extensive with a single named feature or otherwise notable I have left them alone. I will try to expand a few that can be expanded (the Aberporth - Carreg Wylan coastal one is by a beautiful bit of coastal path, and I think there is information on the marine features so hoping that one would be easy to expand). Anyway, apologies for all the templates! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right after a reset, WP:RedWarn gives you a pop-up that allows you to customize or cancel the warning sent . Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this project that Joe has invited me to. It's intended to be taylored for archaelogical articles, but I'm thinking of a similar guide for archaeogenetic articles in general. Though I'm still waiting for Tewdar to recover from his Halloween hangover before starting with it :) Austronesier (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, thanks. And I would certainly be interested in the archaeogenetics guide, which I think is long overdue. As for that reprobate, yes I enjoy his straight-talking style and clear insights. Having a bit of a discussion with someone we have both disagreed with before in another place (will leave it vague) but I recall Tewdar giving him what-for in the past. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier & Sirfurboy: thanks for the pings and humorous characterisations, although I'm actually immune to hangovers, and self-identify as a hoodlum, not a reprobate 😀. I've been a bit overwhelmed for a couple of weeks, but should be back in action in a couple of days hopefully. I'm looking forward to editing with you both again. All the best,  Tewdar  09:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I undo my PROD as you've improved the article? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries. I already removed it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's late here. I will do more tomorrow. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sirfurboy. Thought I'd take this to your talk page, as it makes more sense than continuing the same discussion across talk pages (and angry edit summaries!) on the many articles we've both made the same sorts of edits to.

Having logged back into Wikipedia after a week offline, I see you've been continuing to go through Greater London area articles that mention their relevant historic county in the lead. In some cases you've removed mention of the relevant historic county altogether ([1] [2] [3] [4]) for example. In others you have removed mention of "historic county" and the article instead reads that the place was once in a county ([5] [6] for example). In others you have written that the place "was in the historic county" "until 1965" ([7] [8] [9] [10] for example).

We both know that it was my edits to the Croydon article that triggered your edits across Greater London area articles...and your edits triggered a series of edits from me across Greater London articles. Rather than us following each other around, leaving angry talk page replies/edit summaries, and changing each other's edits to achieve our preferred wording, I thought we'd be better off discussing anything historic county-related in the same place. Hopefully this will bring some calm to what has been a rather heated disagreement! PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to have the discussion here. You can find it at the London Project here. [11]. The consensus and the guidelines are quite clear and I am merely fixing pages I have found that do not conform. I am not following you around as I already made clear. I am using Google to find the errors. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say I am disappointed with your response here. Thought it was a perfectly reasonable idea to discuss your mass editing of Greater London area articles on your talk page, instead of repeating the same discussion across different pages (as you again tried to do here [12]). You are mass editing. You are the common denominator. You say the "guidelines are quite clear" but your interpretation of them quite clearly differs from mine and that of plenty of other editors. I would argue that many of your edits "do not conform". The lead wording you are mass editing across Greater London articles, the majority of which neither I, you, nor Roger 8 Roger have had anything to do with, had been stable for years until they fell within the scope of your mass edits based on Google searches. What "consensus" do you claim there actually is, by the way? Is it that historic counties were abolished? Is it that they should be mentioned in a certain way? Is it that your interpretation of the guidelines is the correct one? There has been plenty of discussion about this, but no consensus. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sirfurboy, I was pinged so I'm here. I am also here because I think you're able to argue your point and discuss the issues constructively, unlike many editors on Wikipedia. I do not want to return to the Project page you suggest above - for this topic it is stale with rigid opinions set in stone. If you are willing to discuss, but not here, my talk page is free to use. I have a simple question. You say you are removing historic counties from a place's article lead because that accords with guidelines. The guidelines are [13]. They say: The lead (see also WP:LEAD) is the text before the first heading. It should not exceed four paragraphs and should normally cover the following:

• Geographic description
• Name of settlement: if in doubt follow WP:COMMONNAME; use translated names in national languages where recognised officially or in common use.
• etc
• Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county), and a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding

To me that is absolutely clear as day. I am not passing any opinion on why, if, how, right, wrong or whatever, about those guideline, I am just seeing what they say. For the settlement articles in which you have removed the HC from the lead, the current county, GL, is different from the HC. So, please tell me, why are you saying that guidelines allow you to do remove mention of the HC? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger, I don't say I am removing historic counties. The guidelines say they should be mentioned where different from current county. Guidelines also say that leads summarise main text so I tried removing them on a couple of pages that had no such history, and ended up putting in the history in the main text instead. But no, that is not my intent. My intent is to fix a minority of little visited pages that have been edited against guidelines and an established consensus largely unnoticed. But these are content discussions, not appropriate for my user talk page.

I will contribute on your page if you wish to host discussion there, but I would suggest any user talk discussion should be meta. We spoke about workshopping an RFC, and discussion about how you would go about the discussion is appropriate, but the content discussion itself should be either on guideline talk pages or the London project pages. There is an established consensus there (and my edits are in line with it), but any consensus can be challenged. We could certainly discuss on your talk page, but even if we found agreement, any edits we made against that project consensus would meet opposition. Ultimately the discussion has to be taken to the established fora. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've contiued on the Project London talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sirfurboy🏄 for resolving this issue and getting noticeable editors banned by the Admin-board. I left WP for nearly 2 years because of the endless edit wars by this user, to force HC into the lead. WP:NOTHERE was certainly qualified by years of bold edits whose only reason was to claim HC still exist with the same importance of those estibalished in 1965. Thank you, so much! 81.98.196.96 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a courtesy note that, following your request at WP:RFCLOSE, I have closed a proposed merge discussion on the talk page of Gallic Wars. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have reverted some of my recent assessments in WP Wales. Can we discuss? I may be persuaded by your opinion, but your reverts have also removed the articles from the WP Wales project in some cases rather than just disagreeing with the assessment. I've done 1000s over the past few days, and I'm sure they will not all be right (and it's subjective), but I have found there are very many Stub tags in articles that are no longer justifiable vs a Start assessment category on the Talk page. welsh (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss on the talk pages of the articles which is where content discussion should be. I only reverted a few that I have on my watchlist, but suspect that many of those 1000s you did probably are stub class too, if those were anything to judge by. Let's just look at Arun Midha. That page has 4 sentences, which is only one more than when it was created in 2010. There is very little there to justify the notability of the subject, and certainly nothing very much about him. The addition of one sentence is certainly not enough to justify moving from stub to start class, but let's look at the quality scale being used, which is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale. We have examples of stub and start class articles. A stub class article is here:[14] - notice that is a touch fuller than Arun Midha's page! (or indeed this version. See below that the quality scale examples seem confused[15] - still fuller though). So then, let's look at an example of a start class article, which is here: [16]. There is an error on the quality scale page, btw, where it says "as of March 2019", it links to May 2008, which is what it used to say until March 2019. If it is March 2019, the page is much fuller, so let's go with May 2008, as here. The difference is significant. Not only is this longer, it now has a lead too. It tells us about the subject and about his life, sets him in a context and is heavily linked to other information. It could do with more, but notability is well established, and it is clear who the subject is and we have a short potted history of his life (Arun Midha's is missing quite a lot of that btw). Simply labelling a page as start class when it has seen no improvement in over a decade is not really helpful. We can talk specifics on the talk pages. I have no problem with you putting back the WP Wales assessment - it was only my intention to revert back in the stub class into pages that are clearly stubs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your argument. And my treatment of Arun Midha was challengeable as it likely is missing significant content. Take Alys Williams (singer) as another example. My thinking was:

• The article has basic structure: an infobox, categories, an image, references, categories, an intro para and some content.
• Sure it may not be complete (who knows - it's a living person), but (in my mind) it's a Start, length not being the ultimate decider. (I don't see the Stub template as a flag to editors that improvement is needed, but rather than the article is at a starting point but inadequate.)
• I am assessing WP Wales. Should it be in the Project? I judge yes. I judge Start assessment and copy that to the other project assessments on the Talk page.
• Given I've judged it as a Start article, I remove the Stub template from the article space.
• I've not looked at the edit history, as I'm assessing what I see in front of me today.

I will respect your reverts and maybe reinstate the WP Wales assessments. I value discussing the general point about when/how articles transition from Stub (inadequate) to Start (adequate). I am aware of the Quality Scale documentation - I have never relied on the examples but rather refer to the Basic and More Detailed Criteria definitions.

I have more I could share about moving articles from Stub to Start when it looks like little more information is available to avoid perpetual Stub status. I would welcome further discussion before you revert any more of my edits if you feel that necessary. welsh (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sirfurboy, just for transparency, I have made additions of my text that previously featured in "Welsh dragon" to Carnyx and European dragon. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sirfurboy. You may be interested in the following drafts, Draft:St Brynach Cross and Draft:Penmon crosses. I've been looking to create pages for notable Welsh artefacts, particularly ones that have relatively consistent names e.g Mold Cape, Moel Hebog, Nanteos Cup etc and using the category "Welsh artefacts", which I have also added to pre-existing articles. Titus Gold (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. On those others, Moel Hebog is a mountain near Beddgelert, so perhaps you mean an artefact found there? (Presumably the shield). The Nanteos Cup has a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch, thanks. :) Also thanks for your input elsewhere that potentially breaks a deadlock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V (Vlang) (Wukuendo) 09:29, March 13 2023 (UTC)

I presume you mean Draft:V_(programming_language). Clearly that is a draft and not in mainspace, so it is not a page of its own. Also, please used the article talk page where all editors can see and join in the discussion. That would be: Talk:List of programming languages by type. Finally, please stop edit warring and await consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to look at this page again, and have found a number of languages which are included on List of programming languages by type that don't have their own wikipedia page or meet the previously claimed criteria. Please refer to the Talk:List of programming languages by type.Wukuendo (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now they are cleaned up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I probably butchered that! Where about in Wales are you based/from? I'm an expat Scot in Ceredigion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you have it spot on, and yes it is! :) I'm in Aberystwyth, so also Ceredigion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I live down by the castle... will have to meet up for a pint. Ship and Castle? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a scary thought. Actually meeting someone I met online! :) Thanks for the invitation, although I am not really a pub person. I am more often found walking alone in Elenydd! Interesting though - being that close, I think some kind of meet up will inevitably be called for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making confrontational edits and seem to be targeting any proposals I make. There is no real logic behind keeping List of ports in England and Wales and it seems as though you have an agenda of keeping "England and Wales" formats wherever you can, suggesting a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concern. Please try to be more constructive rather than confrontational and frustrating discussions with unnecessary processes. Titus Gold (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your insertion of a second requested move discussion on that page, and placing it above the one I had opened was disruptive editing. As for an agenda, one might look at your 74 bold page moves so far this year, especially those targeting anything that puts the words England and Wales together, and wonder which editor here has the agenda. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before, bold moves are allowed if not likely to be controversial. I don't think it's constructive to look into other users editing history. I have been attempting to update many out of date groupings for Wales related articles, of course. In future, I welcome a comment on my talk page and more constructive and co-ordinated editing. This is something I can improve upon too. We have managed to make vast improvements working together on some pages, which I hope we can continue. Titus Gold (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I counted your page moves this year because I am frankly astounded that you have conducted hundreds of bold page moves, and not a single RM. You continue to make them despite an editor bringing this to your talk page just a couple of weeks ago,[17]. You agreed on that talk page to bear the need for discussion in mind but you continue to make moves without them. It is 74 this year (and we are only in March), but I didn't count further back. This year is not unusual. On that same talk page link, you see me asking (in another context) to slow down and allow for discussion and consensus to emerge. You are in a great hurry, and again just this week, a different editor pointed out that you make big changes and move on, leaving half a job. In your wake people have to pick up the pieces. This particular move discussion is a time sink that is distracting me from cleaning up history pages where you have (as you do) simply copy and pasted text from one page to another so that we say the same thing in lots of places. Many words but no new information, and inevitable inconsistency creeping in. And regarding the bold moves, examples of the clean up in your wake include this RM undoing one of your previous bold moves that was not spotted at the time: Talk:Britains (toy brand)#Requested move 23 March 2023. This happens a lot. So again, please slow down. Not everyone edits Wikipedia every hour of every day. Rather than mess up many pages, why not concentrate on improving a few? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed I've nominated English rule in Wales to Afd. I thought I should formally notify you, because I notice to made a lot of edits last month in an attempt to improve the article. The AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English rule in Wales. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I don't oppose it. I'll save the information I would copy to the more appropriate articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Purley, London you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ethnicity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Both of you are edit warring and need to discuss on the talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: I fail to see how reverting this entirely rationale-free revert[18] (which is in no way related to the disputed passage) constitutes edit warring. Restoring the status quo ante is about restoring the pre-dispute version of the contested part, not about brushing aside unrelated edits without an explanation as if they were vandalism. –Austronesier (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I'm sorry, I'm not following. Both users were editwarring. Neither edit was vandalism so neither was immune to WP:3RR. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: Please follow then and scrutinize the edit history. It was me who had a content dispute (admittedly bordering on edit warring) with the other editor about the addition of one sentence. @Sirfurboy then removed the passage contested by me, accompanied by a lengthy explanation in the talk page. Consider this his first revert. Subsequently, @Sirfurboy made two edits entirely unrelated to the content dispute. After that, @Chafique restored an older version of the page[19], thus reverting in full four edits unrelated to the content dispute without any substantial rationale. Then @Sirfurboy made his second(!) revert. IMHO, reverting unexplained reverts does not constitute edit-warring. –Austronesier (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf I have just returned from a day out to this. I see you don't subscribe to WP:DTTR. I have made 2 recent edits on that page so worries about 3RR seem rather premature (and unnecessary). The other user on the other hand, has made the following 7 reverts, the last of them being after you dropped this warning on my page.

[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] and [26].

I note that you did not bother drop a warning on his page, but berated me about taking this to talk; yet I had done so, at length: [27]. I made a point in that talk message that his reassertion of the material in the lead should not be restored per WP:ONUS. I did make one error though. I read this sixth revert of his on my phone while on a bus: [28] and thought it reverted in the challenged material he had already reverted in 5 times. It did not, although it did contain a retaliatory and unexplained revert of some unrelated cleanup. If I had read that more carefully I would not have reverted that one, so I apologise for that. As I say, I was on a bus reading on a phone (which is not my usual editing mode). Despite that, I can't say I am impressed by the above template being landed on my page, whilst letting off someone who has reverted in challenged material 5 times (challenged by two different editors, each with full talk page rationales). I think you have misread that situation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: I didn't warn them on their talk page because I assumed they had already been warned by one of you 2, otherwise I would have. You are correct that I misinterpreted the edit history because it was reverts back and forth. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Purley, London you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Purley, London for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an editing war and would appreciate your guidance and opinion. Please see the discussion on the talk page regarding cannabis under the heading personal life. I removed a statement after concern about it was raised and explained the reasons. The person who wrote the statement put the reference back in minutes later. If you feel I should have left the statement I will leave the reinserted statement about using cannabis when younger in. If you think it is something that might be an issue, could you please help me avoid a war. I did read one of the messages on this page that said it's possible to post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Where and how do I do this? Kiwatts (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go take a look. People reverting their challenged stuff back in is a constant problem, and we can refer them to WP:BRD to try to establish a consensus, but the best thing to remember is that there is no hurry - don't be tempted to constantly revert. A consensus eventually prevails. Using talk pages, a good hint is to try to be brief. State your case and try not to answer every message. Others will join a conversation more easily if they don't have a large volume of comments to read through. As for the edit itself, I will have comment there, but we can say bad or controversial things about the subject, but only if good secondary sources do. If the sources don't, then neither do we. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You are incorrect in your edit re Buckinghamshire and the 12 plus. It was called the 12 plus in Buckinghamshire from the 1960's until the 1990's and the Hansard link was the discussion in Parliament re changing the 12 plus to the 11 plus in 1995/1996. (Mabbs001 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)) Mabbs001 (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. When you start it, please post a source that demonstrate (1) that it was called that at that time and (2) that it was only Buckinghamshire that did so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise - and also I wasn't meaning to discount the need for further investigation. Just that there could be other explanations too. Although - I'm not entirely sure what the practical options are for investigating it further are. Btw, thanks and well done for biting the bullet and opening that thread. It's crossed my mind to do it a few times, but successfully getting across WP:CPUSH at that venue is not easy. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. Its probably not a big deal about the investigation anyway. You are right though, other explanations are available :) Thanks for the support and for stopping by. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William Street Bird. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note of thanks for bringing this to ANI. That forum can be a challenging place, and you have done myself, other editors and the Wales pages a considerable service. Hopefully, a period away from the Welsh area will enable TG to reflect, and begin to understand why their editing was of such concern to a wide range of editors. At least, one can live in hope. KJP1 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and for stopping by. And yes, if Titus Gold is reading here, I would reiterate what I said in the ANI: demonstrating an ability to edit collaboratively with a neutral point of view over a period is all that is required, and then I would be among the first to argue for a lifting of the ban. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing. Thanks for pulling things together to raise the issue formally. It needed to happen, judging from the huge animosity expressed from such a broad range of editors. Such a shame the small number of useful and constructive edits were dwarfed by the problematic ones. Amser i fynd ymlaen. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it is a shame. Maybe that can change. Diolch. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversal of my edit just now, I am Irish, have lived in England, (primarily London), for the past 49 years. I've even taught English for a time. My favourite poet is Dylan Thomas, (for his lyricism), and my first my first wife was Welsh, ergo you can be certain I know British English, including cockney, as spoken in the four countries of the realm. Nobody in Britain with any reasonable education says "had got"; it's either "got" or "had gotten". I note Google attributes "gotten" to North American English, but look it up in the Cambridge or Oxford dictionaries and you'll see I'm right. Mark^Dask 14:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content discussions should really be on the article talk page, but as this is about grammar rather than content, OK, I will answer. No, gotten is not the standard past participle in modern English, but dialect is a continuum and guides may be overly prescriptive. E.g. grammarly [29] states it is got in the UK - but you hear variations all the time in our globalised world. You are right the the OED lists usages of "had gotten", e.g.:

1653 H. Holcroft tr. Procopius War with Vandals ii. 46 in tr. Procopius Hist. Warres Justinian Maximinus..had gotten many of those mutiners with a design to usurp.

, but look at the dates on these. None of these are modern except one that is from an American source. So yes, it was correct, but is it considered correct now? Well Fowler tells me (and I checked this out before reversing your edit):

Some of the more significant differences are due to uses that disappeared in BrE but survived in AmE (such as the use of gotten as a past participle of get, and the use of theater and other spellings in -er)

- that from Pocket Fowler, Second edition, page 42. Also page 45. And indeed page 308 which says:

gotten. 1 Few uses mark out the Americanness of a person more readily than their natural use of got and gotten as alternative past participles of get. (These uses are also spreading to Australia and New Zealand, as some of the examples given below will show.) Gotten is no longer used in Britain (except in ill- gotten), although it was once in regular use.

I have an older Fowler somewhere I could check, but there is a simple solution, which is to recast the sentence. "he had become estranged..." or similar. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Using the information you provided in your corrected edit of mine, on the 11th. July, at 06:59, of my citing Lewisham as Edward Lanchesters's place of birth, (which I, in my turn, took from his page because it was stated by someone unknown to me), I've now put your provided information on Lanchesters's own page, and cited you in the Edit Summary as the information's provider). Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for letting me know. Happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod blp}} tag from Johnnie Lynn, which you proposed for deletion, as the article now includes one or more sources. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please feel free to nominate it for deletion with a regular {{prod}} or via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! ––FormalDude (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I don't intend to nominate for deletion at this time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sirfurboy. The new pages patrol team is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles and redirects needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help. I believe that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines. Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions. If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here. Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am trying to add some useful clues for the decryption of Linear-A using Dolkos' work. I used external links for the pictures of a pin and a ring which i describe specificaly (museum item number etc.) Was it the only error ? I need you to please specify what made you delete my additions so i fix them and do it properly. Thank you. 109.242.96.37 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. There were a few issues there, but worth having a chat about it on the talk page. I'll go and start a discussion there. You are welcome to contribute. Please note that you can access your edit from the page history here: [30] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You moved text added by @Hogyncymru: from Welsh dragon to Flag of Wales as the text is about the flag and not the dragon per se. I think it was right to move it, but is it even about the actual flag itself? I wonder if the text in question really belongs somewhere like Welsh nationalism? Dorsetonian (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good question. It may be WP:UNDUE in flag of Wales, and if you think so, feel free to just revert it from that article. I would be somewhat in agreement and would certainly not edit war to put it in. If you think it belongs in Welsh Nationalism, you could also bold move it there, and I would be supportive of that. No idea what the original editor will think - but I'm not trying to foist content onto a page where it doesn't belong. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I won't do anything immediately - it would be good to hear what Hogyncymru (already pinged) thinks. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, I know we are all busy, so please don't take this the wrong way. It's not referring to just you, but what had been going on previously. You have also given me (and others) lots of guidance, so you have my full respect. By the way, really don't like to be forced into the edit battle on V, because want to look at other programming language pages that are in draft.

Yet, another aspect about this issue is the continous visible errors left on the article. Seeing them just left there, also pulls me in, as belive how an article looks (any article) is important too. I think what was done were just editing mistakes, but it has happened so many times, I'm really not sure at this point. Weird spacing, visible formatting problems, inconsistent or conflicting information or odd wording being shown, misspellings, tags, etc... It gives the impression that those who might be "opposed" to it or at least someone else's version of it, are so hasty to revert or tear down the work of others, that they don't care about the state or quality in which the article is left in. Just saying, please look at this aspect of the debate too. I'm trying to leave at least a presentable article, that the public can read. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Wukuendo (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Horst_Wessel".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that, but I am not involved in that dispute. I have never (to my knowledge) edited that page. I did read the sources earlier though, as well as the dispute history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You became involved somewhat obliquely, and this template doesn't say it's reserved exclusive for those directly involved. Apologies if this isn't how it's meant to be used though, I figured third-party opinions would be welcome. Feel free to ignore. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am watching it. I'll probably say something at some point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't sen a ref cited like that before in all my years here. Can you bring up another example? I'm not doubting it in any way just it'd be very useful for at least a few articles. Would the rp template also work in the context of chapters or is there a separate one there for such? Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, you can use it for chapters using the "at" parameter. Take a look at Template:Rp for more details. It can also be done as a parameter in Template:R. You can see it in use on, for instance, Welsh Dragon. I could bring up many other examples. But it is under used. The use of a colon before a page number in in-text citations is one of two ways this is done in academic referencing. See for instance [31] or [32] as just two guides. So it is a perfectly normal way to describe page numbers in a reference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DankJae is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DankJae 09:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grsecurity : Could you add the non-compliance with the GPL2 and the lawsuit section to one of the GPL articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.196.239 (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 31 December 2023 Aoidh talk contribs blocked 24.186.196.239 talk with an expiration time of 31 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion)

I'll pass, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shwmae! I've reverted and changed slightly the IPA for Penparcau to reflect the Standard Welsh pronunciation (as opposed to colloquial pronunciation). However, I am not at all dogmatic about this, and the colloquial pronuncuation is very common, so I think one could argue both ways. Either way, I'm happy for it to be whatever the consensus is :)

The only one I'd not really give weight is the less common Anglicized 'pen-park-ee' pronunciation.

Diolch, a dymuniadau gorau 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:859:8379:EBEB:EF99 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch, thanks. I'll leave what you put back as you removed the /m/ which I disagreed with. It would need a source for the /m/. I am not sure I have ever heard it pronounced that way. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'm' tends to intrude in Welsh (when spoken) where 'n' comes before 'p' (compare 'penblwydd hapus', which is often realised as 'pemblwydd hapus' when spoken quickly). However, I agree entirely with you after considering it further that it doesn't warrant inclusion, as it is not the standard pronunciation, but a more colloquial one. And if we included one colloquial pronunciation, the number would soon increase to an unwieldy degree! 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:859:8379:EBEB:EF99 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking and speculating, but do the sources comments (aside ours) at Talk:Snowdonia#Request to rename page to Welsh name Eryri being the dominant., and Talk:Brecon Beacons National Park#Bannau Brycheiniog name look similar? I get the impression, although not concrete in such accusation with such weak evidence, and not willing to escalate it from my side. But find it odd for a new single-edit editor to just have it suddenly prepared. Could indeed be someone new, but still odd. Not encouraging anything further unless you wish, nor wish for it to be seen as censoring the other side.

Also while we're on the topic, still not forgotten the bunch of students? all appearing at the same time at teaching of Welsh history, then completely disappearing within a few days of each other. But could be legitimate but still odd. Ofc, they do not seem to have caused any disruption afterwards. DankJae 13:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought the history ones can just be three students working together in real life at the same school. DankJae 13:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on these. Definitely worth keeping in mind, but as you say, there could be perfectly good explanations, and we don't want to chase new and enthusiastic editors away. I expect I would take a harder look if there were any disruption though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I was wondering if you had the time, if you could take a look at our conversation & consensus to see if i closed everything correctly per the Wikipedia rules. Thank you! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all looks fine. You could have added "withdrawn by nom." in the rationale, but that all seems pretty clear so it is not necessary. If you prefer, you can withdraw a nomination by simply striking through the nom. statement and an admin will close for you, but you saved them some work there. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information & tips. I appreciate the help! Here’s a Toblerone!

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to salvage the page :) Back in September it was a nice article, now it's a promotional mess... Broc (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and likewise. There were a run of edits recently and they were too many for me to look at all at once. Hopefully we will get there! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly tempted to WP:BOLD and revert back to that version, but I'll let it be for now. Thanks again for the efforts! Broc (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert if you do. It would be easier to fix that one than this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the greatest. Thanks for your diplomacy early on and for your patience and willingness to help and teach a newbie. I have been studying and even learned wikitext. I'm currently having fun and learning new things while working on the Unreferenced Articles WikiProject. Thank you!

Kiwatts (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, Kiwatts, and thanks very much for the goat, who will no doubt enjoy eating my roses. I am very glad you are enjoying your time on Wikipedia, and great work so far. Thanks for persevering with it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted an edit I had made, correctly I assume, to fix a harv no-target error. However, the error returned because a footnote points to Rasmussen 1988. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes. It became (Rasmussen, 1937) when another editor consulted their edition for the requested page number. I've fixed the in text citation now. Sorry for missing that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I just wanted to ask what your plan was with the whole county flags discussion. I know the topic can be a bit tiring, but now that there's some momentum I'm quite keen to try and find a resolution. The status quo is clearly not going to hold in the long-term, so we'd just be kicking the can to let the current discussion die out. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes, I can put together an RfC, but I am still not entirely clear what options we have consensus for. Should I base it on the 4 options? The wording might need tweaking too. I'll try to put together the candidate text. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to open a discussion about which flags we include in the encyclopedia before you open the RfC on infoboxes? As I said in the main discussion, I think it would be helpful to get that resolved before we open the RfC, as in my experience flag discussions tend to sprawl once they get going. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that will help keep the actual RfC discussion on point would be helpful, yes. Please go ahead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll get that worked up and aim to start it over the weekend. Let's say it runs for a week (which is possibly optimistic), that should give you time to prepare the RfC, which can run shortly after and be informed by the outcome of the first discussion.

I'm tempted to lay out the timeline at WT:UKGEO, so everyone's informed of what's happening. I've a feeling this will either be one of the best-orchestrated series of discussions in Wikipedia history or absolute carnage, can't wait to find out which! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best laid plans... my money will be on carnage! But good luck! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a reasonable person. Could you read the latest discussion on Stephen C. Meyer’s talk page where we are discussing the opposite of what I am recommending for Ken Ham? While I think Ken Ham deserves the term “Pseudoscientist”, I think that Stephen Meyer deserves the opposite where he has been listed as such, and I think that people are emotionally involved there, and I need someone who can take a look without their emotion in the way.

FYI: it’s a long read 😳 Chrisallen87 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long read is right. I took a look. I don't like this in the lead: He is an advocate of the pseudoscience of intelligent design. Not because I don't think ID is pseudoscientific. It is almost classically pseudoscientific, and the reason this is necessarily so comes down to the whole philosophy and epistemological basis of science. You can argue with the epistemology of science itself (c.f. Gordon Clark who argues against empiricism) but you can't say ID is scientific as science is defined. The reason I don't like that lead is because it is making an up front judgement in a lead that is supposed to be a summary. I'd think "He is an advocate of intelligent design" is sufficient, and especially as the wikilink takes the reader to a page that explains why ID is pseudoscientific. That would, in my view, read more neutrally. I suspect it would take a lot of work to remove the word though - the label "pseudoscientific" tends to engender long debates. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno how I missed what it said on that article about Malkinson not being freed as he didn't confess lol. Cheers for correcting 82.18.162.80 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You might want to consider a couple of other templates rather than simply removing information in such circumstances. If you find a statement is not verified by the reference, try adding: {{Failed verification|date=March 2024|reason=Your reason}}. Where the source does verify but there are other problems with it, you can use {{Better source needed|reason=Your reason|date=March 2024}}. In general it is better to give editors a chance to deal with any issues identified rather than removing information that is likely to be correct. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is A Wider Lens. Thank you. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sirfurboy, I hope your day is well.

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, having come here to provide greater knowledge to the world through my cache of source information on a narrow range of topics. I recognize that you are an experienced editor and ask your guidance on my "Latter Rain David Schoch" edit.

I understand that the cited non-fiction book is independently published, which is by-and-large frowned upon (and for good reason in many cases). However, please hear my argument for reverting to include this particular non-fiction book.

1) The non-fiction book referencing David Schoch and his church "Bethany Chapel" is a first-hand account of events from a currently living person who attended that church and interacted with David Schoch. It is a true story and identifies itself as such.

2) Wikipedia contains virtually no information on Latter Rain's David Schoch or his church Bethany Chapel.

3) I've uploaded source audio from David Schoch's Bethany Chapel church to YouTube, with further uploads in the works. The audio comes direct from Bethany Chapel (which hasn't existed in over 25 years). I possess audio cassettes from Bethany Chapel, complete with original labeling.

4) I've been cited in university-published scholarly research. I can provide further detail if that will sway you towards including my edit on David Schoch / Bethany Chapel, although I prefer remaining anonymous.

I ask that you consider these points and if you still disagree with reverting to include this non-fiction book as citation / bibliography, please let me know the best course of action to pass my knowledge of David Schoch / Bethany Chapel to Wikipedia and the world.

Thank you Sirfurboy and I look forward to your reply. APCMDG (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I completely understand where you are coming from, but I am sorry to say that I cannot support your proposed edit, which is fundamentally against what Wikipedia is. I have some suggestions for you below, but first, let me explain. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and thus it is a tertiary source. An encyclopaedia is not the place for publishing original research, and so a core policy here is WP:OR - that will link you to a page discussing original research. If you want to share knowledge from a cache of source information that is not peer reviewed, edited or published, then what you will be doing is original research. Note that this is often a very good thing to be doing - just not on Wikipedia. This is the wrong project for hosting such research. You could also read WP:NOT to understand that more. Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia, is a tertiary source and should be written from reliable independent secondary sources. If those don't exist, Wikipedia can't cover the subject. You mention research papers. These may be primary sources but they may be secondary sources. Those papers may be suitable in the article, but not a self published book. See also WP:SPS.

But your aims are laudable. You want to make information available to the world. There are a couple of ways you can do this. If you actually have a cache of information that is unpublished and expertise on a subject, you might want to consider whether there is a valid historical project here. Perhaps even a doctoral thesis in some cases. You mention being quoted by historians. Talk to them about your ideas. The very best way you could make this information known to the world would be to have it published - whether by yourself or by someone else. Once published, of course, Wikipedia could cover it.

The second thing you could look at is Wikibooks. That might be a more appropriate wikiproject for what you propose.

I hope that is helpful. Happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sirfurboy, your reply is very helpful. Yes a doctoral thesis is where my previous work was cited (and a chapter was devoted to that work). Thank you again, I'll develop a correct plan for making this information available. APCMDG (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Monadic plane has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Monadic plane until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's some kind of Cornish insult, then?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is just calling someone an idiot. Back in the days when I was learning Cornish we had great fun calling people that. It's been years since I heard it, but it shows up in the learner books. Welsh equivalent is probably twpsyn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. I always prefer the Scottish, or even the Cockney.... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more helpful phrases...  Tewdar  19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - those are the one's you don't see so much in the learner books! 😜 Although I do seem to recall that we found a wonderful term for a urinal in the dictionary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah! Surely, you're just taking the piss.... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Elon doing tickets for Venus yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I'll contribute to GoFundMe. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... *....that Lowndes Lane is barely a stone's throw from Stockport Crematorium? Curtain-twichers of Shaw Heath unite! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great to "get some fresh eyes" on the Shaw Heath tax-exile (but not when she's flirtatiously crossing and uncrossing her legs, of course). Maybe we can attract some more sockpuppets new users. After all, as you know, Wikipedia is a friendly place where we all work collaboratively for the good of the project! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been watching it, albeit with some bemusement. A little short of time right now but I would like to make some more substantive edits to reduce the news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just to drop a note to say that this essay is, very much, as you might have suspected, a write-up of your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination). I thought it was a very clear and valuable contribution to that discussion, and one I've found myself using in subsequent discussions, so I thought it was worth an essay :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I am very glad it was helpful. Best wishes as you develop the essay - just made some minor tweaks for you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WP:ANI#Talk:Ceredigion. Summer92 (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for boomerangs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I edited my own post on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX81, adding information to a quote that I wanted in and just hadn't copied in the first time. Being my own post on a talk page, I can put what I want to say in there (providing its compliant with site rules etc). You then reverted it, reinstating my edit later but nonetheless... No-one had replied to my post so there's no problem of invalidating answers to my post. Just couldn't work out why you'd stepped in to alter what I write in my compliant post on a talk page. Maybe you hadn't realised I was both the editor and author. ToaneeM (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I self reverted minutes after doing that. It looked like you were adding an address of a business to a paleopost (August 2023) on a talk page. On reviewing it, I realised that this business address was very old and thus unlikely to be actually spammy at all, and yes, it was in the article you had previously mentioned, which is why I self reverted and placed an apology there. Did you see that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, saw the apology - it was the logic behind stopping me editing my own words that I was after. You'd have to admit that on its own seems somewhere between wrong and alarming but I understand now, thanks :-)

Hello there, I saw that you reverted my edits on Lotus-eaters saying that it was not sourced. The two articles (Date-plum, and Ziziphus lotus) referenced on Wikipedia say it?!? Vincent Lextrait (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something for the article talk page, rather than here. But Wikipedia pages are never a reference for other Wikipedia pages. If another page asserts this, check out its references. If the references on that page bear out the information then it can go back in with a reference. That is, the same reference you just found to verify the information. If the other page doesn't have a reference either then it needs challenging there, not reintroduction here.

Looking at Date-plum and Ziziphus lotus particularly, both have references beside these sentences and in neither case does the reference verify the claim made. I hope that helps - but again, specific discussion of the sources and page content should be at the article talk pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I am often disappointed that interactions on Wikipedia sound more like playing cops and robbers rather than a collaborative encyclopedia, but I see that was not the case here. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert concerning me. Although accept the constant POV handling is getting to me, and was frustrated enough to put it on my userpage, but accept it was a mistake and regret it. While we are allowed to add such, in the end it led to this. I do have opinions but I ignore them in my editing as much as I can and open to corrections. I value Welsh and include it where I can inline with policy. I am not some anti-Welsh person as I’ve been told at Wici (hence my overreaction), but I am getting agitated by certain edits as well as politics, and now this against me.

I am apparently being stalked by single-purpose accounts, that was the third account to do so. And for edits to my userpage, something the average reader would never click, so just put whatever I felt at the time not expecting this, so they have some background connection to Wiki imo. I don’t wish for you or anyone else to get involved in my breakdown, so open to any sanctions, although fear how far those against me take it.

That account on WP:WALES is likely connected to the other account that posted to my usertalk yesterday, so likely the same person trying to get me.

Thanks for the help, even if we have disputes ourselves. DankJae 09:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am not convinced we have disputes, in any case. No-one ever agrees with anyone else all the time, and on those occasions we disagreed, that was always perfectly reasonable. It was very clear when I reverted that new editor that it was a single purpose attack account, and almost certainly a sock. As you say, no one finds their way to an issue like that, on pages like that, if they are brand new to Wikipedia. However, as I don't know who the master is, I can't take it to SPI. To be clear: in my view you have every right to express some frustration on your user page. I might not do it myself, but on that page we are saying something about ourself. We all have views and we are free to express those views (within certain bounds) on our user pages. As I said on the new user's talk page, that is perfectly fine. It is our editing that must be neutral. If no one can tell your actual views on a matter from the way you edit, you are doing it right. And I think you are doing it right. See WP:INSCRUTABLE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orpington Hospital was in Kent , Farnborough hospital as per its own website gives its address as kent, so please don’t remove.

Hockenden a hamlet of Orpington is in the Swanley boundary and Swanley is in Kent.

You have also removed clubs from the Pettswood page.

orpington was in Kent now Greater London however due to boundaries , Hockenden is swanley. Box32 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...was in Kent - as was the whole of Orpington. But it's not now, is it. Why add Kent to the hospital heading? I don't know what you are saying regarding Hockendon or Swanley. I have not edited those pages. I have not removed anything about clubs from the Pett's Wood page, although I think others have. Your club is probably not notable, but I did not remove it. Please discuss specific edits on the article talk pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orpington Hospital when built was in Kent, and as the NHS website it’s in Kent. So for it’s own website to say it’s in get then it’s should state kent. Box32 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Postal counties do not exist. You can write any county you like in a postal address. The post office no longer use them.

2. The hospital is in the London Borough and thus in Greater London. It has not been in Kent since 1965.

3. Wikipedia policy is clear. See WP:UKCOUNTIES:

Editors must be mindful of fostering and/or introducing anachronism into former county articles. Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.

4. I asked you to discuss this on the article talk page. There you will get input from other editors. This is not the page to continue this discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24361882.orpington-district-amateur-boxing-clubs-pre-wwii-history/

? Box32 (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on the talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue I have is I have actual historic papers handed to down to me as part of a collection in scrap book which are primary and secondary sources, however some don’t have dates or titles! But I have the physical papers articles / so what do I do in this case ? 2A02:C7C:52A1:1200:107B:C2ED:16A2:D125 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a cache of unpublished historical material, these are all primary sources. If you want to take these sources and synthesise them into something, what you will be doing is original research. Per that link, we don't do that on Wikipedia, but even so, original research is a good thing in its correct context. Assuming you are Box32, posting while logged out, then I refer you to what I tod you before about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is the wrong place to publish original research, but if the original research is published somewhere, then Wikipedia can cover it. I don't know if there is an appropriate place you could put this in Wikibooks, but those would accept original research. But ideally you would find a way to publish this to the world, whether it be through working with an academic institution, writing a book, or submitting the information to some edited journal. In this case, perhaps a local historical society? Croydon has the Bourne Society - but I am not sure what the equivalent for Orpington would be. But if you presented the information to such a society, they could edit and publish, and then you would have created the secondary source from which an article could be based. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

I have no problem with your recent edit to the first sentence of the lead except that it introduces some repetition with the final paragraph of the lead.

Happy to discuss here or on the article Talk page if you prefer. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more I delve into these, see Old College, Aberystwyth expansion, the more I think either:

• they warrant their own article;
• they need a separate section in the Old College article.

What do you think? Sufficiently notable in their own right, or a section would be enough? Incidentally, the story behind their design, and the outrage they caused among the college's dons, is quite entertaining. Hope you are keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Do you happen to know to what use the university now puts the Old College? The article peters out around 2012/15 when they had plans to make a cultural and post-grad centre, and applied for £19M of Lottery funding? Did they get that, and if so what did they do with it? This suggests some ambitious plans, but where have they got to? KJP1 (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is create an article section, let it grow organically and then perhaps split off as a new page when you feel it merits it. Definitely deserves a section though. As to the uses: it is being redeveloped now, so those plans are still afoot, but it is taking a long time. Pretty sure they did get the grant funding. I doubt they would be proceeding without it, but I'll have to hunt out the evidence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's right. I'll start by working up the Old College page, and see where that goes. Incidentally, the existing History there was rather confused, and confusing, but I hope it's straightened out. The plans suggest an important heritage/cultural centre, of considerable significance to the town and to Wales more widely, so it will certainly need further expansion, as and when they progress. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am annoyed when a page or section is incomprehensible to me or when I recognise it would be incomprehensible to me if I were not well versed in the subject. [...] Wikipedia is there to make difficult stuff understandable and to make knowledge available to all. I therefore will challenge stuff that is just incomprehensible, even if it is sourced.

I like that. Makes me wonder if you've an opinion on the Wikipedia mathematics articles: I see people complain about them sometimes on, e.g., Reddit, for being uselessly incomprehensible & filled to-the-brim with Jargonese; but (at least on the mathematics sub-Reddit) the majority opinion often ends up along the lines of "well, Wikipedia isn't a textbook; it's fine as long as an expert can use it to get a quick overview of a concept s/he isn't familiar with or needs a refresher on" -- ...which seems a bit wrong-headed, t'me!

On the other hand, I can see an argument for "a Wiki page on an advanced topic simply won't be able to get an entirely-unversed reader up to speed", too. Not sure where the line ought be drawn, but my feeling is that we've got it too far on the "incomprehensible" side, a bit... (I'm hardly an expert--just a Numerical Dilettante™--but I find that even when I'm familiar with a perhaps-late-undergrad-level technique, the page will still be hopelessly advanced!)

Anyway, it's not really important, heh--just got reminded when reading your "Editing Philosophy" section, there. Really just wanted to drop by & say that the Lucy Letby Talk-page is now the second time I've seen you around on WP; and both times, I've thought: "hey, here's a fella who makes a lot of sense." Don't think it's unappreciated!

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, and especially for the kind comments. Yes, I agree with you regarding the mathematics articles - too far on the incomprehensible side is quite right. A Wikipedia page does have space to go beyond a paper encyclopaedia. Whereas an old style encyclopaedia should only present information for a general audience, it is certainly possible to include some advanced information on a Wikipedia page that would require quite a lot of background to understand. I mean, bear in mind that most readers won't even understand what integrals and differentials - so any page that includes such symbols is over the heads of many readers, presenting what looks like gobbledygook. But I would argue that such information is just fine in the body of the article.

Where maths articles often (but not always) fall down is in the lead. At a glance, Fermat's Last Theorem looks good. An understandable lead but the section "Equivalent statements of the theorem" containing stuff that makes some people want to cry. Betti's theorem has a short lead in English, but I fear the general reader who just wants to know what this is will perhaps be lost by "the work done by the set P through the displacements produced by the set Q is equal to the work done by the set Q through the displacements produced by the set P." And then there are some truly opaque articles, such as Strong monad. And if that doesn't want to make you cry, you have no soul! :)

I haven't, to date, edited many mathematics pages. I did once completely rewrite Mathematicism from scratch. This is how it used to look [33]. But that was as much history as it was Mathematics. I expect if I tried editing the maths pages I would break all the integral signs! Anyway, thanks again for stopping by, and for your input at the Lucy Letby page. Happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new Mathematicism page is fantastic, especially as compared to the old! Re: Strong monad, your comment reminds me of what my (ex-)wife (☹️) commented in re my father: I was helping her with her physics coursework and, becoming confused on an item therein, said something like "oh, hm, that's not right... we might have to ask Joe."

Ex-wife: "Can't believe he decided to major in physics. People who love math like that have no souls."

Made me laugh. It's true: something ain't right with 'em, I say...! (:P)

---

Also... heyyyy there, amigo!... *ahem* well, apropos of nothing, but: couple o' questions for you, if you've the time (as you've been here quite a bit longer than I have!):

(#1)

• Suppose one finds an editor reverting changes made by other users on a page -- not "three in a day", just spaced out over a year or two as others find the page and attempt to change it. Attempting to engage the editor in discussion is, so far, ignored.
  • What's the "Wikidiomatic" way to proceed if a dialog can't be established? Request for Comment, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard...?

(#2)

• I went through ~20x more of friend Houseplant's news-media links (because something is wrong with me) and counted up how many actually supported the position they were adduced as supporting, and how many didn't, and wrote up a reply outlining this finding...
• ...however, since discussion appears largely over with therein, and since s/he hasn't responded to my other two comments arguing similar points, I'm not sure it's worth posting -- don't want ol' Housie to feel harassed or to beat a dead horse.
  • How do these things work -- is it like "an admin [or whatever] will read through it all & decide based on argumentation" (in which case it might be worth adding the comment, so as to ensure awareness that the links aren't necessarily as strong an argument as they might appear)? Or perhaps more "in practice it's basically majority vote, no need to continue, consensus is clear already"?

Cheers -- I 'preciate it, if you've input; I appreciate the friendly & interesting reply above, even if not!

Himaldrmann (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I was amused by the anecdote. You ask a couple of questions:

1. This is a common problem and can be quite frustrating. There is not a one size fits all solution, but my usual goto is to try to build a consensus despite the editor's non-engagement. Start in the talk page and see who else agrees with your edits. On quiet articles you may find no one responds, but you may be able to ask a question on a related wikiproject page, but if that's not an option, you can request editor assistance, see WP:ASSIST. There may be other places to get help in specific cases, by going to a noticeboard, such as WP:FTN where a fringe theory is being pushed. Just ask for eyes on the article. Editors will then read the talk pages and make their own decisions. But avoid the administrator boards unless you are very confident that there is clear wrongdoing.
   If you can get an editor or two engaged and form a consensus for an edit, you can then add it, and if the other editor keeps reverting to their version despite the consensus on a talk page, and if they still refuse to talk, then you can now raise that with an admin. Finding a friendly admin editing in the area works well, but this might be the point you would make a trip to the admin noticeboard. But make sure you have the consensus first.
   If you cannot form a consensus using the above means for any reason, then you do have the option of the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I would generally go to an RfC. The downside of an RfC is that it will take a month. Also RfCs can go wildly out of control. But they will bring in more editors and form a solid consensus. If you are thinking of writing an RfC, feel free to run your question past me or other editors that have done one before. An RfC question must be neutrally phrased. You don't make your case for your preferred option in the RfC question. You respond to your own RfC after you ask the question. See WP:RFC. I am no RfC expert, but I have seen how they can be derailed, so may be able to offer advice, or point you to more experienced voices.
2. As you say, HpH has stopped posting for now. I disengaged from that a while ago as I felt like I had already written quite enough to the RfC. HpH writes a lot, and sometimes this works for them and sometimes it doesn't. Because when you write too much, people don't read what is written, and just go off a general impression. It is unnecessary to answer every single point they make, or to look at all of their 237 linked articles, because even if you do so, no one is going to read it all, and HpH is clearly not going to be dissuaded from their settled preconception. I think the discussion elicited the key takeaway when HpH stated that their view was that we should not use wording that suggests she is convicted by a court, because that is not strong enough. Something you also noticed.
   I wrote my source analysis (and folded away all the detail so people would read the analysis) to answer a specific claim that sources were saying something, even though we had no such analysis. HpH's "analysis" is all just an objection to mine because they were already persuaded of what sources must be saying. There is a word for that, and the word is not "analysis".
   As to how it works: the RfC closer (who may not be an admin) must, sadly, read the whole RfC. This is why HpH's section is unfortunate, and why disengaging with it will be appreciated by the closer. However they won't take a view on that analysis, nor on mine, except inasmuch as the analysis supports arguments in the survey section, which may remain unanswered. It is emphatically not a vote, and survey responses that just say "option E" with no basis for that would be low weighted by a closer. It is the arguments that are evaluated, and unrebutted arguments should be weighted more strongly. It would be a bold closer who would close for a minority view based only on arguments, but that does happen where the minority arguments are clearly superior. It is often the case that the side with the most votes will also have the best arguments. There is a certain amount of judgement by the closer, and closes sometimes go through a review process as it is not an exact science. But in general the best arguments win.

Take care and happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, on point 1, if the issue is the one you are discussing at Talk:Intension, then you are correct, I believe, on all points. This is a very rare case where "sibling with 2 X chromosomes" is better than "female sibling". But as you note the extremely small but probably non zero population of sisters in Ancient Greece that did not have two X chromosomes, another solution in this case would be to simply change the example for a different one. I'll stick the page on watch though, as it is an interesting subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I, ah, *cough* was perhaps secretly hoping you'd take a gander & alert me if I was just completely off-base, heh. (I tried engaging on the user's talk page before "publicly" giving my interpretation, just in case I was confused about intension vs. extension / the point of the example / some such thing; but when the only response was an edit revert, I began to be worried... but it does look like they're willing to talk, though! Hopefully, my game-but-lame attempts at another example will show I'm not trying to be a pisser about it, so to speak—)

In recognition of your service, I am pleased to be present at the momentous occasion wherein...:

Himaldrmann presents you with:

The Perfecta of Wisdom™

↢ Barnstar of Wisdom ♔ Owl of Wise Words ↣

✧ This highly-coveted award is given, in sincere appreciation, only to those who both: consistently display a towering—yet clear-headed—intellect, such as the normie may only dream of; and (with a few wise words, judiciously applied) have: helpfully advised another user (e.g. noted genius "Humble" Himaldr), mediated a conflict, and/or destroyed monstrously bad arguments... with icy-cool ease. ✧

Or, in some rare cases—the legendary "Sirfurboy", they say—: all three!

(...I couldn't seem to get the "subst" thing to work, so I tried to spruce the images up this way, heh. Please feel free to remove it if you feel it clutters up the page—just my little thank-you for your help navigating Wikipedia / the pleasant conversation / the cogent arguments! :)

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks. I think I'll leave it right there! I am glad I was able to help. Take care. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As clearly explained in the article Danny, the Champion of the World:

• "William tells Danny a bedtime story sequence of a "Big Friendly Giant" who captures good dreams and blows them into children's bedrooms at night. Dahl would later use the same concept in the full-length novel The BFG." Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the talk page of the article for all editors to see. If you want to put the category back, that is fine. I don't think it is very helpful as a category but don't object. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Are you crazy hospitals are not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, they are not recognized by that WikiProject only by Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. If you do not believe me look at the articles that belong to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies. Catfurball (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they were. You have confused WikiProjects and delsorts. The delsort is correct, and removing it is disruptive. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link that rfc for me? Praiawart (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It is here: [34] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oronike Odeleye in response to the sources I highlighted for WP:GNG. I've noticed in AfD discussions that editors argue that interviews are primary sources but I don't see that anywhere as a generic policy and WP:Interviews#Notability suggests it can be context specific, especially if an interview is in a reputable source with an interviewer who asks thoughtful questions with their own analysis. The NPR interview I think meets some of the notability guidelines. The interviewee is discussing a secondary subject with Odeleye, and the interviewer's questions are designed to draw out Odeleye's thoughts about that subject. In summary, the interviewer in a reliable source has taken note of the Odeleye, is not connected to Odeleye, and offers some of her own secondary analysis and challenges the Odeleye about the subject to which she is speaking. The CBC Radio story has similarities to the NPR interview but does a bit more synthesis of what Odeleye says rather than always quoting her directly. I acknowledge there is some grey here but don't understand why these two stories wouldn't at least partially count towards notability. Thanks again for your comment as it brought up an issue I'd been seeing in AfD discussions and had been thinking about. Nnev66 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for dropping by. Yes, notability guidelines are a nit of a mishmash of various policies and other guidelines, and sometimes pinning things down is tricky. You have found WP:INTERVIEWS, which does cover this. Some confusion on the terminology here though. For notability the sources must have significant coverage of the subject, and be:

1. independent
2. reliable
3. secondary

Interviews are, to my mind, usually reliable. As long as the interviewee is not lying, and the interviewer reports the interview carefully and honestly, reliability is not an issue. But in a biography, if the subject of the article is talking about themself in an interview, then the information is not independent of the subject. It is from the subject. And yes, it is also primary. This is all in the above essay.

So what of that NPR interview? well it is always true of any source that the issue of primary or secondary sourcing largely depends on the question asked. Where discussing subjects other than the interviewee, it can indeed be secondary information. But for notability, what we want for the biography is the stuff about the interviewee. So although it can contain secondary information, the information required to show notability of the subject is neither secondary nor independent. {pb}WP:INTERVIEW does say A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. That is good advice. The interviews do not themselves count towards GNG (which specifically looks for independent sources), but they can create a presumption of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You edit details frequently on many schools including mine, why? 2601:156:8000:1090:0:0:0:72BC (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, and for noticing. I watch the list of schools nominated for deletion, and that included yours. See the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcester Preparatory School (2nd nomination). In deletion discussions I research the subject, and if we keep the article, I try to improve the articles with information found in the discussion. I also then watch the pages thereafter. That is why I edited your school. There are a few schools in which I have interest because they intersect with history projects I am working on. That is why I started watching the deletion discussions. In any case, it is always satisfying when a school history can be expanded into an encyclopaedic page. Not always possible sadly. Nice to see you, and take care. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For helping quell the edit warring here. I appreciate it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Bizatch § Why did you propose Bizatch for deletion?

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In your edit of the above subject, when ' Kent ' was removed, you wrote that "...thus Greater London is the county ". Please could you explain how that can be so, since Greater London stopped being a county in 1965 ? Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will be better off raising this on the appropriate page and pinging me in if you wish. I am unclear which page you are referring to. In any case, you are wrong. Greater London was created as the ceremonial county in 1965, and persists as such. For instance, look at [35]. You are confusing it with the County of London, which it replaced. Have a read of Greater London. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ' Ceremonial County ', which is vastly different, not one of the 92 UK counties which has judicial, political, or administrative functions.

As it says on Wikipaedia's own London page:-

" Within London, both the City of London and the City of Westminster have city status. The City of London and the remainder of Greater London are both counties for the purposes of Lieutenancies..."

And from Wikipedia's ' Greater London page:-

"...It contains 33 local government districts: the 32 London boroughs, which form a ' ceremonial ' county also called Greater London, and the City of London...."

Having worked in the City of London for years, please believe me when I say I quite appreciate the difference between the three.

You made the edit on the 31st May, this year, under ' Old Jail Biggin Hill '.

The distinction really needs to be made.

Thank you. Heath St John (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the edit in question is this [36]. If you don't know why the old text was wrong, then you have not appreciated the situation in London at all. There were indeed administrative counties created in 1888. We thus had two kinds of county - administrative counties and ceremonial counties. However, London does not have administrative counties. The administrative division of London is into London boroughs. Nevertheless the London boroughs sit within Greater London, the ceremonial county. So Westerham is administratively in the London Borough of Bromley, and in the ceremonial county of Greater London. I removed the word "Kent". Westerham is not in the Kent adminstrative county nor the Kent ceremonial county. The edit is correct. Note also that WP:UKTOWNS says, in the section on the lead:

County: use the ceremonial county (England, Wales and Northern Ireland only) where not clear from the administrative district.

I chose not to replace Kent with Greater London, because "Biggin Hill, Westerham, in the London Borough of Bromley." does make it clear that this is in the county of Great London, because it is in the London Borough of Bromley (the administrative district). What do you think should be changed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, (my intention here is to, as have you, let the truth speak as I see it), on a seemingly-unrelated yet to me critical matter. It is only what others have recorded in their own transactions with other people.

Where is what people of all times, low and high, have often been willing givers of ?: i.e., any grace; affability; agreeability of tone.

I record this here in no way to cause rancour in someone with whom I have, up to now, been in disagreement. And I say " Disagreement " because although I should ordinarily have written " Conversation ", the tone I referred to just now makes that description more accurate.

Lastly on this point, conversation for me is just that, nothing more, when I speak to some with whom I, till now, disagree.

But the modern way is to me disagreeable; the understanding seems to be, (I don't share it), that when a question arrives between people, naturally a sort-of defensive bumptiousness is the normal response. It doesn't have to be that way, you know.

Now, on to the question.

Now that you've stated, in ' print ', so to speak, that your intention is to indicate that it lies in Bromley, I can accept it. And why so readily ?: firstly, because it's true; secondly, no research on my part is needed because I live there.

For the record, this, too, is true. The reason why this matter is blurred to some is because Bromley, the London Borough, has land in Kent. (The Old Jail, by the way is not in Biggin Hill but is in Berry's Green). It's in the only part of Bromley which has the Kentish postcode ' TN (Tunbridge)16 ...'.

Also, for electoral purposes, to confuse further, Westerham Hill, Kent, (not the village), is included in the Darwin Ward, in (Bromley, London); Bromley's largest ward.

So, for the now clear reason you've given, I can accept it.

I'm pleased to have learned because of this conversation the City status of Westminster, and about the Lieutenancies for ceremonial counties.

Also, thanks for now stating that you understand that " Great(er) London " is not one of the traditional counties of the country.

I think that's all.

Thanks for whatever clarifications your vigilances over the years must have contrbuted to the site. I'm sure they must be very many. Like most, including myself, you have probably felt what a thankless task, however personally enjoyable, it can often be.

Regards to you. Heath St John (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the modern way is to me disagreeable; Whilst I deny I have been at all disagreeable, if you think that defensive bumptiousness is a modern thing, you need to read more history. To take one example among many, look at what Newton did regarding Hook. Worried that Hook might gain credit for being the first to articulate the inverse square law of the strength of a force of gravity holding the planets in motion, he had Hook's papers removed from the Royal Institution and his portrait destroyed. His rancorous debates withe Leibniz were something else. Or lets observe Shakespeare. "Believe it, my lord, in mine own direct knowledge, without any malice, but to speak of him as my kinsman, he's a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise-breaker, the owner of no one good quality worthy your lordship's entertainment." And if that is still too modern, take a look at what Unferth had to say to Beowulf. Or how about Paul, writing to the Galatians, saying "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" and arguing against the circumcision party with "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" Or have a look at the bear pit that was the Roman senate. Cicero, for one example among very very many, defended Sestius by accusing Clodius of incest. You just have to look at their names. "Fatty" was not exactly a name given with the greatest respect.

The reason why this matter is blurred to some is because Bromley, the London Borough, has land in Kent. This is incorrect. The London Borough, by definition, is entirely within the ceremonial county of Greater London. There is an enduring misconception about this, which you allude to with the "Kentish postcode". People still write Kent as the county on their letters, and in Croydon they still write Surrey. But the Post Office does not use counties at all. You do not need to write a county on a letter, and you can write any county you like. It is ignored. Neither do postcodes signify any identity with a county. The Shrewsbury (SY) postcode traverses not just Shropshire but Powys too, all the way to Ceredigion. Postcodes are a sorting and routing code, and that is all. The London Borough of Bromley is in the county of Greater London in its entirety. Since 1965, the lands that were in Kent are now in Greater London. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly it's always a part of mankind's ready chatacter. I meant it's now prevailing; ready to volunteer in a moment, which to me is a phenomenon of more recent times..

Yes, I see my mistake in writing that.

This gain in knowledge for each of us is one of the pleasant things I was hoping to find more of on Wikipaedia.

Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]