/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

I noticed that you removed the redlink [[Nicholas Clayton (Presbyterian)|Nicholas Clayton]] at Warrington Academy. In my view undoing a redlink means that you think that Wikipedia doesn't need an article on the topic. I should explain that in my view Clayton, being worth an article in the Dictionary of National Biography (s:Clayton, Nicholas (DNB00)) is probably worth an article here. If you disgree, we should discuss that. If there was some other reason you removed the redlink, we should go into that. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles. I've been doing a little dabbling with the Dissenting academies (in fact, I seriously revamped that page) and was delighted to find that Warrington Academy had been given some attention. I tidied up what you had done yesterday, and in the process removed a couple of redlinks. It has been over a year since I read the Red link page, so thanks for the nudge to do so again. I note it now says: "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles." I would tend to agree that most people mentioned in the DNB deserve an article, but I find too many redlinks distracting rather than useful. Do you intend to create an article for Clayton? Or have you requested that an article be written? If either is the case, I would not object to re-inserting the redlink for him. I notice that you did not mention my removal of the redlink on [[Henry Willoughby, 13th Baron Willoughby of Parham]]; I found and linked instead to an existing article that lists all the holders of the title Baron Willoughby of Parham; do you think Henry 13th deserves an article, and thus can be awarded a legitimate redlink? And more importantly, will you be filling in any more gaps on other Dissenting Academies? Your additions for Warrington are appreciated! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do follow WP:REDDEAL - finding redlinks "distracting" puts too much of a premium on the current state, in my view, because redlinks are the growth points; and that is the relevant editorial guideline. I mentioned the Clayton article separately because his prominence is such that reasonable people could disagree on whether he deserves an article. I'm just starting to work in this area, and might create the article once I see more of how he fits in (having placed the material on Wikisource already). I didn't want to confuse that issue with Willoughby of Parham, where I had done the work of adding the link by determining which of those he was. (Nicholas Clayton is someone else, so I had done work to disambiguate that link, also.) We tend to assume aristocrats are worth an article.

On a more positive note, I have just created Joseph Towers and discovered that he is of interest to you (Talk:Newington Green Unitarian Church#Dictionary of National Biography). We are just getting going on Wikisource with posting the DNB, intending to do the whole work eventually. It makes sense to me to give some priority to those DNB articles that are of interest to editors here, so I'm noting these mentions when I come across them. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had read WP:REDDEAL and was concentrating on the line "Always evaluate whether or not a red link is linking to a page that actually needs creation." Hence, as you say, reasonable disagreement re Clayton. If you think you might create the article, then fine, go ahead and reinsert the redlink. I have taken this as encouragement to add some redlinks myself, and have put William Coward (philanthropist) (1647 - 1738) and Charles Morton (educator) (1626-1698) into Dissenting academies, with requests at the bio page. I am so glad that other encyclopedias are being moved to Wikisource. Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Coward, he's in the DNB and may well get created: in fact today I was looking at him briefly. This raises a tangential issue, which is that I made him William Coward (merchant) in the DNB Epitome listing page (the one that links to that redlink), i.e. the master page out of the set I'm working from. Much disambiguation has to be going on over there to get the DNB (sub)project moving as far as checking who already has an article (it's around 27,000 names, no joke really). Anyway, nice talking to you, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB Epitome gives access to all those lists. Given what I know of your interests, quite a number of the "missing" may be related to them. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look into this article. It appears notable but a lot of the info is in Franch...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Swindled by Bee Wilson? I think you'd enjoy it. I'm halfway through and thought of you ;) Skittle (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of you to think of me...but why? I've heard of the author but not read that novel. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a novel, it's a history of food adulteration, with the emphasis so far being on 18th and 19th century Britain. It's very readable, and certain parts connected up with Round About a Pound a Week in my head. For example, the 1850 scandal where "a large number of orphans in Drouitt's Institute for pauper children died, as a result of their oatmeal being padded with barleymeal", and yet the same thing happened again and again: compare with the angry passages in Round about a pound a week, discussing the well-meaning suggestion that poor mothers should feed their children porridge. It's full of discussion and facts about how and why people let adulteration and short-changing get so bad, and it's fascinating. You'll love it. (I've left the project to a large extent, but I thought I'd better log in to leave this message. Mysterious messages from random IPs might give the wrong impression) Skittle (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BrainyBabe! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,632 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. John Minnion - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created s:Worthington, Hugh (DNB00), and s:Kentish, John (DNB00) existed already. Watch this space for the others. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hadn't been in the habit of looking at Wikisource. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that will be of interest to you is s:Jennings, David (DNB00), from the Kibworth clan, covering also John Jennings (tutor) who was Anna Barbauld's maternal grandfather (and putting a name, Jane or sometimes Jenny, to her mother). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

s:Amory, Thomas (1701-1774) (DNB00). There is actually no separate article for Rochemont Barbauld. Looking around for him on the ODNB site, I did find various pupils at Palgrave Academy. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify my issue with your dyk hook here? Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Returned this thread to your talkpage. I think it ends here, see below.

On this refdesk thread about the Chinese sex imbalance, you accused either the OP or the first responder (me) of soapboxing. Could you explain why you thought either of us was advocating, opining, or recruiting, in a way that diminished the quality of the reference desk? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to clarify my WP:SOAPBOX comment. It was not addressed to you. It followed directly the post by 12thdegree that I considered to be an unnecessary repeated attempt to attract attention to an issue about which they have strong feelings (and continued to rant anyway). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I think "soapbox" is a harsh term in this case. Your state that your reasons are threefold: that the OP had asked a similar question earlier, that they have strong feelings about the issue, and that the question consisted of a rant. Let us take these in order.

1. It is permitted to re-ask a question. I think I have even done it myself, perhaps because I felt I had not expressed myself clearly enough in the first question, or because I realised, once having received a partial answer, that one aspect of the question needed to be teased out.

2. Strong feelings. When dealing with what might be millions of human deaths, I think strong feelings are understandable. I have strong feelings about the recent Haitian earthquake, and, for that matter, the loss of the Library of Alexandria. It doesn't seem realistic to ask our questioners to be devoid of emotion.

3. More to the point, was it a rant? With what language did the OP express this strong emotion? I quote:

If the number is 21 deaths out of 1000 and should be 16-17 deaths out of 1000 if there were no bias against female infants, then in terms of scale, the tragedy is one of the largest. Why is this not talked about more? Or are there reasons other than bias?

In other words, "If I have my facts X, Y, and Z correct, there is a large tragedy going on. Why is this not more news-worthy? Or are my facts correct? Am I leaving anything out of the equation?" I read this as intellectual puzzlement, based on what might be a human tragedy. A rant would be something more like:

There are millions of girls dying in China and nobody is doing anything! Why isn't there an article about it on Wikipedia? I cannot believe that there is such a cover-up of such a serious story! Your silence makes you complicit in GENOCIDE!!!

That is what I understand as a rant. I might even remove it. But more likely I would give even such intemperate language, which this OP did not use, the benefit of the doubt, and attempt a rational answer, or leave the field clear for others to do so. The guidelines at the top of each reference desk say to volunteers: "Be polite and assume good faith, especially with users new to Wikipedia." I don't think your "WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you." was a helpful contribution, either to the discussion itself, or to making the OP feel welcome and more likely to contribute to the project. I would respectfully request that you consider striking through your comment. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX is a policy. You may think it a harsh one and you may interpret my mere mentioning it to be an accusation. With respect to your opinion and request I am retracting the comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the policy; it was your reference to it in this case that I thought harsh. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration in your decision to remove the comment. However, the absolute redaction makes the following comment (from the OP, as it happens) nonsensical, replying to something that is no longer there. It seems more helpful to the flow of discussion on the refdesk to keep the comment visible but struck through. Nil Einne took that route here, in the same discussion, again in response to something I had pointed out. Would you consider reinstating your comment with a strike-through, or replacing it with a [placeholder comment], as recommended in the Talk page guidelines? BrainyBabe (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh or not, we must agree the policy cannot be struck out. I disagree that there is cause to conclude from a guideline as you do that something would be served by reopening my comment. Your ref. desk post containing the word "soapboxing" is intelligible enough as it stands. The OP's expression "I don't care about your opinion" is less than endearing but it also is not nonsensical. Thus I don't see that any relevant discussion flow needs mending. That's all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that the policy be struck out. My refdesk post ("I don't see your statement above as soapboxing") may be intelligible to regulars and contributors such as ourselves, but it hangs in mid-air for those not used to such discussions, namely for many of the readers and visitors for whom Wikipedia provides the library-like refdesk service. I could continue to analyse this, but as you say the matter ends here, I will raise it on the refdesk talkpage for more general views. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raised here. (Also taking this opportunity to amend my own comment immediately above, having re-read the conversation. I never suggested that the policy be "struck out" or amended, but rather that your invocation of it, in the missing Chinese girls thread, be struck out or replaced.) BrainyBabe (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me - this is an very interesting topic (my father used to go to the Poet's Road US synagogue in his youth) - someone really needs to produce a history of the Jewish community in this part of London but I am not aware of anything mnuch above the anecdotal level. The English Heritage book 'Jewish heritage in England' alas only deals with buildings still in existence. Btw I was just looking at Paul following Guido Fawkes's attack on him, so made my trivial correction. Looks as if Guido has something particular up his sleeve about this fellow. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both. I've followed up the Guido info by adding to Lord Paul. Re Newington Green, can you suggest a Wiki-project where I could post a request for additions about the Poet's Road synagogue? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bollocks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bollocks. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tcp-ip (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, BrainyBabe, my user name is Ericthebrainiac and I am currently single. I am looking for somebody with a brain like mine who enjoys soap operas, the occasional fast food, music and knowledge. I just want to know if you want to go on a date with me because I do love soaps, knowledge, fast food and music. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are my type, please talk to me on my talk page and maybe we would get together online or where I live in Edna, Texas. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you live? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 41° 10' 15" NET 02:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BrainyBabe, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 41° 31' 45" NET 02:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lady, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi. First of all, forget any typing mistake. I have been translating to Spanish Bride kidnapping which , by the way, it´s a very interesting article and a great job (with all the sources and stuff...) and I was wondering if you (as one of the main editors of the article) or someone has consider to promote it to the category of good article or (who knows) a featured article. I appreciate your attention and I apologize again for my bad (written) english. Thanks a lot and I wait for your answer.--Wikiléptico (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, buenas dias. Your English is much better than my Spanish, and I also am a poor typist, so you have no need to apologise. I am flattered that you consider Bride kidnapping worthy of translation. It is true that I have edited it, but not for some time. My main role really was in encouraging User talk:Ibsensgirl. I suggest you leave a message for her; if she checks in to Wikipedia even less frequently than I do these days, you may wish to email her as well. I don't know if she has that option activated, but it is a possibility. Good luck. If you have any specific question about the article, feel free to ask me. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll follow your advise.Of course in case of any question I will take advantage of your generous offer. Bb.--Wikiléptico (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response. I've added the page to my watchlist. However, please note my login patterns are very irregular and I often won't be there to revert vandalism to it. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wandering Jew.

The Wandering Jew, A Poem in 4 Cantos by Percy Bysshe Shelley. Published for the Shelley Society by Reeves and Turner, London 1877.

I left a note about this on the Shelley talk page. I see that you've done some editing of the Shelley page, so maybe you can fit this widely unknown poem into the article somewhere. If not, I'll get around to it at some point.-- I Never Cry 01:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but, having looked at the page, there isn't realy anything I can add. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I added it to the Major Works section.-- I NEVER CRY 02:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo—you have made an effective contribution here. I perceived the waffle in this and related articles but (as a mere infidel) could not really face sorting it out. I'm almost resolved from now on to stay well clear of articles about theology and Hong Kong films! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your kind words. Fortunately I have never been addicted to Hong Kong films! BrainyBabe (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrainyBabe, nice to meet you at the BL yesterday. I've added the idea of the Radio 4 patrol to the WikiProject BBC talk page if you want to chime in on it. It's a funny idea, but it could actually be pretty cool. —Tom Morris 11:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Essex_Street_Chapel Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the DYK rules - the first part of the hook needs a ref (maybe 2) right by the fact. The general refs are ok, but a bit messy - don't you have page numbers? If the ODNB was in refs, you could shorten those ones a lot. There's a bare url. Sort the bare url & the hook refs & I'll pass it. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All paragraphs now have sourcing. There are no page numbers for the main source book, which dates from 1959 but has been uploaded to the organisation's website, each chapter on a separate page. You say the first part of the hook needs a ref or two. It reads: "... that Essex Hall, where in 1774 Theophilus Lindsey established the first such congregation in England, still serves as the headquarters for the the British Unitarians?" In the first History subsection, I've added an explanatory sentence with ref ("This was the first time in England that a church had formed around explicitly Unitarian beliefs", which summarises the end of chapter 2) to flesh out what I'd thought was clear within the text, but perhaps wasn't explicit enough. That the building still serves as the denomination's HQ is covered at the end of the middle paragraph of the "Essex Hall" section. Also, I've been able to copyedit out the 2nd "the", which I wasn't able to do earlier today. Hope this is up to scratch. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new ((help me)) request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I am stuck with the formatting of Essex Street Chapel, especially the ref tags. How can I make the different chapters of my main source book show up correctly? BrainyBabe (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The easy answer is to avoid cite templates and ref names & just use "Smith, p.5" with the book in a "references" section. You are not supposed to mix the cite templates & ref names anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was trying to get to grips with the cite template, but maybe I'd better avoid it. Thanks anyway, and thanks for your interest in my DYK attempt. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Essex Street Chapel, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Essex Hall, where, in 1774, Theophilus Lindsey established the first such congregation in England, still serves as the headquarters for the British Unitarians? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you were there, would you like to write me a short piece about it for the Wikimedia UK newsletter? Charles Matthews (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I was thinking, what could I write for you? I had post-flu, and only dragged myself to the BL for the final couple of hours, at which only one curator was present. I had a couple of pleasant conversations, but wasn't really "there". Sorry to be unhelpful this time. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For flawless editing in the Biblical Unitarianism article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are too kind. I went back and found a few more things to tweak! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrainyBabe and thanks for starting that page! I'm guessing you too heard the Women's Hour bit today about her biography and started the page.

I'm doing a PhD on a mildly related subject (mentioned on R4) and took to browsing as I was listening. I gathered a load of information but don't have time to synthesize and add it to the page, I am happy to send you the links, and even all the text, if you have the time to do it?? (As someone with a degree in garden history, I was surprised there wasn't already a page for Colvin, but there you go...!) If you do want it, just let me know how to get it to you. (I'll try to remember to check back here for reply!) Cheers! --gobears87 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct that I was listening to Woman's Hour; you may have noticed the suggestion above to extract maximum information from Radio 4. I have been following, and improving, the Colvin articles for some time, and the interview was the kick-start to get Brenda's article going. It's quite basic, because I don't have the biography. I am unsure about your kind offer: why not put the links and titles of resources on the talk page? How much text are you talking about, and where is it from? (You didn't say the subject of your PhD.) BrainyBabe (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was trying to keep it short. :o) The PhD topic is on my user page - it's reconstruction of blitzed cities in Britain post WWII. I'll go ahead with the links as suggested (talk page), which will also answer where the text is from. BTW one is embedded text but I managed to get it from the source info, so sharing it is easiest by email or some pm method. The amount? So far the text I've collected is 3 pgs at font 12pt... When you say "the Colvin articles", what does that include? (I was wondering if Brenda was related to the architectural historian Sir Howard Colvin, but have not managed to find out.) --gobears87 (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "the Colvin articles", I meant those related to Brenda's ilustrious lineage. I've brought them together now at Colvin family, and have moved my notes to the talk page there. I haven't found a connection between her and Howard Colvin, nor to Mary Colvin (1907–1988), director of the Women's Royal Army Corps and president of the British Horse Society. These connections seem likely, which provides guidance for what to look out for, but that's all it is. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks - didn't see the Colvin stuff on your userpage :) And thanks again for getting the Brenda ball rolling! --gobears87 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one would have seen the Colvin (Brenda or family) on my userpage till I moved the articles from private-ish sandbox to very public mainspace! I'm glad you find the Brenda article of interest. Any improvements you or your colleagues can make would be very welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few open issues on the Lesbian talk page, including the Djuna Barnes book. I lost my place in our discussion. Can you clarify what you'd like to see as an ideal in the literature section? Thanks. Talk:Lesbian#Literature_addition --Moni3 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get my head around the contradiction you tagged in Newington Green. I know it's badly worded and doesn't exactly scan well, but is there an actual contradiction? Can you have a look, and leave a note on the talk page for me? Cheers Worm^TT 14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll respond on the article talkpage. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I shouldn't really have to do this, because it's like praising someone for doing the job they're getting paid to do, but I appreciate that we worked together to improve the content of the Lesbian article. Too often I feel like I'm forced to WP:OWN an article because the editors who propose changes refuse to read sources or become familiar with Wiki policies. This worked and I'm grateful for it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gracious note, and I appreciate it. I sometimes wonder if I ought to bother trying to work on articles that appear to be owned; this interaction boosts my faith that it is possible, and can be productive. Even people who get paid like praise! And this is the never-ending job we all *aren't* being paid to do. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In the past, you expressed interest in the topic of Agora and the use of critical SPS over at Talk:Agora_(film)#Critique_of_film. If you are still interested, please join the discussion over at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Agora_and_SPS. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the links you suggest, but can't find the discussion, sorry. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I saw your page on the Lawrence family. I used the sources. Very helpful! Paul B (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrainyBabe, and thanks for your note (and the additions to the article). Sussex has quite a few Unitarian churches, almost all of which are listed buildings and hence definitely notable in the WP sense: I plan to write articles at some point on the ones in Horsham (soon - it's "brewing" in a userpage sandbox), Ditchling and Lewes, and possibly Hastings if I can find enough sources (that one isn't listed). I am quite interested in writing about Sussex Nonconformist places of worship in general: see the redlinks in the template I created for an idea of what I plan to write in the future! I took a photo of Croydon Unitarian Church a couple of weeks ago as well when I had some time to hang around there, but it's not as architecturally interesting as some of the others. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Where is this template of which you speak? You mention sources. There is the Unitarian History Society, and presumably parallel organisations for other denominations. They exist to answer queries such as yours. Good luck! I don't have any particular access to sources, but I might jump in to help with article flow, as I did for Billingshurst (which I kept wanting to call Billingsgate by mistake). BrainyBabe (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That website looks useful as a starting point for sources – thanks. Copyediting/prose checking is always gladly welcomed; I tend to write quite spontaneously, focusing on a few sentences at a time, and a natural flow is not always easy to maintain. The template is here: Template:Sussex Nonconformism (and is used on the bottom of the appropriate articles). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in Robert Tyrwhitt. I have just started a related article on the SPKS; which is not a major institution, but comes up at a certain point on the timeline. As with Theological Repository which I was looking at last week, identifying contributors and then giving them articles where possible (e.g. from the DNB) is a decent way to get some of the historical background. The reference I'm using from Thomas Belsham has given me enough of a start to get an article together; but I certainly wasn't able to identify all of the members of the Society he mentions. Any input you have on this issue would be welcome. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I'm not sure I have any particular input. It is so easy to get tangled in the names! Is SPKS part of, or connected to, The Unitarian Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue by the Distribution of Books? (See British and Foreign Unitarian Association.) Usually, for obvious reasons, known as the Unitarian Book Society. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy whose ancestry you corrected on the wikipedia reference desk :) I agree with your correction, in the paragraph I used the word in error, not once, but twice, and after having otherwise edited the paragraph and reread it a couple of times. do you want to know a dirty little secret? you're the only person to ever have anything to point out to me in my diction (i.e. something real and genuine), which I take away and make my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.156.225.56 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OP. It is a common error, and I can well believe that it might be overlooked in proof-reading. Thank you for saying my correction has given you something to take away. Maybe you can pass on the favour one day! BrainyBabe (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Mary Wollstonecraft family tree. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It appears that some of the information in the Claire Clairmont article may be incorrect, however, especially regarding Charles Gaulis. https://sites.google.com/site/maryjanesdaughter/home/mary-jane-s-daughter has a detailed explanation. Apparently Charles Gaulis was actually Charles Clairmont's father, but not Claire Clairmont's. Kaldari (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt attention. I have added somewhat to that article. I wonder if Tory peer Charles Trefusis, 19th Baron Clinton knew of the family connection? Wrong side of the blanket. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Margaret King at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - Yk³ talk · contrib 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Margaret King, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in later life Margaret King, a favoured pupil of early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, offered maternal care and advice to her governess's daughter Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Lille Graah at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but I didn't actually nominate that article. I reviewed it and it seemed fine to me, AGF on the Norwegian sources. I nominated Elizabeth Robins Pennell the same day, which no one has yet commented on. BrainyBabe (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Robins Pennell, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that art critic and cookbook collector Elizabeth Robins Pennell wrote the first independent biography of proto-feminist Mary Wollstonecraft? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 16:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You started the article List of American gentlemen's clubs four years ago, and since then it's grown into a great list article. Now, though nobody's objected before, some people are trying to change its title to "List of North American private social clubs." There's an ongoing discussion on that article's talk page. I thought you might want to put in your two cents. Clubwiki (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed this, sorry. I don't have a strong view and won't comments, but thanks for inviting me. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just to let you know, I have started an article on Ditchling Unitarian Chapel, which (judging by the amount of source material I've amassed) could turn out to be a biggie. I can't do much on it for the next 24 hours, but any comments/tweaks will be gratefully received during its development. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks impressive! Have you been in touch with its current members? A church is a living entity, as much as any other group of people, and is not only its history or its building (though you are doing well with these). I'll be happy to come by again later and tweak, once you've done your main work. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very true. An ideal scenario would be that the congregation or a member has produced a (properly researched and referenced) church history/guidebook: I have always found these publications to be excellent sources for the "social"/community history of a church (like the admirable booklet my own church produced for the Millennium). I haven't found any such book yet for the Ditchling chapel, so a visit may be in order next time I'm over that way (it's only about 2 miles down the road!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		To BrainyBabe, for many contributions to biographical articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you are not? I don't know what has happened to the Ref Desks' Sign Bot. 00:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

SineBot, last I checked (which was a while ago) has a limited tolerance for editors who it thinks should know what they're doing by now, and above some edit-count threshold just ignores us. I was hoping for some sort of "opt-in" at the time, but slakr has a good point about not jumping in on what other experienced editors are doing, and letting them sort out their own mistakes. What we really need is a personal messenger, like the "always prompt for a non-blank edit summary" gadget to help as we get more forgetful... :) Franamax (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Yes, it was just forgetfulness, which I have now rectified. Is there a reason why you didn't sign here, Bielle? My irony-meter is in the workshop being recalibrated, so I hesitate to guess. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a review of the deletion decision as a matter of urgency doktorb _words^deeds 01:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of this. A link would help. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response I am obviously very disappointed by this decision. The assertion that I did not read the article is highly misleading, not to mention offensive. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years, and have followed the rules and regulations throughout these years. To suggest that I did not follow the regulations is complete bunkum. Using the evidence present in the article, I made a choice based on what I thought was a fairly obvious case - it STILL breaks our rules on blogs, recentism, notability, and bias. The "keep" votes are from people who have an immense level of conflict of interest, and therefore skew the vote something rotten. I am very disappointed that this entire episode has been carried out at my expense, rather than at the article itself. This response will be copied to as many concerned editors in this matter. doktorb _words^deeds 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for copying this here. I appreciate that this is a generalised response, and as such will not take its conclusions and accusations as specifically targeted at me. Nonetheless, I must ask you to please note that I have not at any point accused you of not reading the article. Your current talkpage shows no sign of previous XfDs raising such controversy and ridicule, which is one of the factors that enabled me to continue to WP:AGF. I have asked you, twice, whether you had read the sources to the article prior to creating your AfD, and I note that you have not responded to that question. A question, even a repeated and unanswered one, is not the same as an accusation. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I note that you made off-wiki legal threats to Rhys Morgan, a minor, and, when he, as User:thewelshboyo, brought it to the attention of the administrators, you then withdrew the threats and undertook to "make no further edits to any articles connected to" him, although you did not specifically apologise. As I said, I do not take your assertions above as accusations against me personally. Nonetheless, there they stand. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologised to him in public via Twitter. I have no accused you of anything but felt it right and proper to copy in any editors who I thought was involved in the deletion process. I will not be entering this arena of Wikipedia again. doktorb _words^deeds 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have appreciated being kept in the loop throughout. Thank you for clarifying that your response above was not intended to accuse me of anything. As for the nature of apologies, since you have reverted the threats to Rhys, and he has accepted that, fine. I wish you well in the other areas of Wikipedia to which your skill and knowledge draw you. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted your query about DRV on a talk page whilst following this up. It's an acronym for Deletion Review (new one on me). The DRV in question is this one. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rushyo. I tend to edit in a way that requires me to know the fewest Wikipedia-specific acronyms possible. It's been a learning experience. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was primarily speaking from anecdotal experience, but the phenomenon is well documented in academia. For one set of illustrative statistics for Australia as an example, see page 49 of this paper. As you can see, the difference between Italian and Spanish is by a factor of 10 or more throughout secondary school. My anecdotal experience, is that I have not even heard of Spanish being offered as a choice in a secondary school in Australia - the most common options are Japanese and French, with less common offerings being Italian, German and (increasingly) Chinese.

As I understand it, the popularity of Spanish in the United States can be largely attributed to its proximity to the large Spanish-speaking population of Latin America, and consequently the large number of Spanish-speaking people in the United States. I'm not sure what the situation is in the United Kingdom. However, in the Antipodes at least, Italian predominates (over Spanish) by a large margin as a foreign language in education - some explanations might be the large (or larger?) numbers of Italian migrants compared to Spanish, the cultural prominence of Italian in various fields (opera is one example that springs to mind), and perhaps some connection to the traditional place of Latin in school curriculums.

I am not an expert in this area, so please let me know if you have a contrary viewpoint. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the my query. As it says at the top of this page, I find it confusing when conversations are split between pages. I have posted your response, with its Australian source, to the original Ref Desk question, even though it has been, or is on the verge of being, archived, for the benefit of anyone searching in future. I'll also ask another question, based on your statement, at the Language Ref Desk, and see if we can get wider evidence from the linguists who hang out there. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here is the question I posed on PalaceGuard's page:

I noticed you made quite an interesting claim here, about the relative numbers studying Italian and Spanish. I asked if you had a reference, but you haven't been back. I know it can be easy to lose track of Ref Desk threads, so I thought I'd ask here, both for my own edification, and for the benefit of future readers browsing or searching the archives. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not seeing your notice. Thanks for following up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I posted the question "Second language education in the English-speaking world" on the Language Ref Desk, and so far no one has come forward with any evidence to back up the assertion you made a week ago, "Italian is more commonly studied than Spanish in a lot of other English-speaking countries." I suppose "a lot" has some wiggle room; it needn't be a majority, but I'd think not less than a quarter. Australia is only one country. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your message.

Black people is watched by more than 500 editors (including me). I try to clean out vandalism when I notice it. I know there are some long-running battles in the article about Afrocentrism, ancient Egypt, and Black people who are not of African descent, and I try to stay away from the controversy.

If you have concerns, I think you should go ahead and make the changes you'd like and wait to see if anybody reverts them. It's just the cat-and-mouse game of BRD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks; I can understand wanting to stay away. Did you read my additions to the talkpage? The last item I added is both trivial and disturbing. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, we don't reference "In popular culture" items to primary sources such as a book or album itself. In particular, most lyrics sites on the web are copyright violations and we can never link to those. What we are looking for is an independent third-party reliable source that establishes the pop culture reference's significance. See this essay for details. If this sort of referencing is not required, a valid "In popular culture" section becomes full of trivial insignificant mentions rather than in-depth references, and eventually the whole section gets removed. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Bechdel test was what I was thinking of. Thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 03:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off the back of our mutual edits to West Indies Federation, I feel the term "Crown colony" is best avoided, as it's notoriously ambiguous. Roughly speaking, the term is generally used in everyday speech to mean "British colony", but it's also used in a more technical sense to mean a colony lacking any form of self-government. While the colonies/territories that made up the West Indies Federation were of the former type, they weren't all of the latter. Also, using a plain "colony" saves a word! Regards, Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but wouldn't this go better on the talkpage of the article? BrainyBabe (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue to visit Costa Concordia Disaster. I seem to be the lead editor (so far) of the Shipwreck section. Although I am expert in coastal navigation, nautical charts, and maritime law, I certain appreciate those, like you, who assist techies such as I to, together, make an article shine. I appreciate that your skills are in high demand but do visit us "every now and then" to either work or comment.SteveO1951 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's kind of you. It is a bit tiresome on talkpages (at Costa Concordia disaster and elsewhere) dealing with editors who don't read the sources you provide for them. Sigh. So it is nice to be appreciated. BrainyBabe (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending your time writing to me about the Concordia disaster translation. I'm truly sorry about my mistake. It's clear I didn't want to tamper anything, I was just trying to fix something that looked terribly wrong. Keep in mind that the only word that i fixed at that time was "dickhead", Which I strongly believe is just plain wrong. Italian is my native language, but I don't keep a blog neither I'm an editor for a magazine, so trying to argue again could be viewed as personal research. Anyway I'm fine with the actual translation. Nevermind. :) --Pascalbrax (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carbon Caryatid. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
Message added 21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

RadioFan (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I redid this diff about University Hall. The main point is that British History Online pages now generate WP citations: for example on this one if you go to "show another format" top left, the dropdown menu gives a Wikipedia option. And then if you click on ">" it brings up ((cite web)) filled in, so very quick and easy.

I also piped the link for University Hall to Dr Williams's Library, since that hall should probably have its history on that page, at least initially. Internal links are preferred, as a matter of style. Probably somewhere in the Manual. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's a really useful tip. (If you share it with anyone else, perhaps you might want to amend it to "top left within the blue box", as I was looking in the bigger frame, the white surrounding bit). Isn't the BHO an amazing resource? In its own way, as astonishingly granular as OS maps. Viva Brittanica! BrainyBabe (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- you changed a term on the feminist science fiction article in the text:

Roquia Sakhawat Hussain, points this out through depicting a gender-reversed purdah in an alternate and technologically futuristic world.

"technologically" replaced "terminologically". I realize "terminologically" is rather awkward, but it seems significantly different too me. The story was about a reversal of purdah, IIRC, and so I suspect "terminologically" was meant to refer to language. I don't recall whether the story actually was technologically futuristic. So, I'm just checking in with you to make sure you're correcting based on knowledge and not a presumption of a typo. thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your vigilance. Yes I absolutely did mean "technological", and can only assume (without checking the history) that somehow it got changed to "terminological". It has been some time since I read the actual short story, too, but I worked on our article Sultana's Dream five years ago, and it still says:

The women are aided by science fiction-esque "electrical" technology which enables labourless farming and flying cars; the female scientists have discovered how to trap solar power and control the weather. This results in "a sort of gender-based Planet of the Apes where the roles are reversed and the men are locked away in a technologically advanced future."^[1]

The reference (using the word in question) is from a Comment is Free piece by Nesrine Malik. Thanks again for your attention to the article. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this may be asking a lot but since I have tagged one of your contributions with a "citation needed" I wonder if you can recall where you got this quote which you placed in The Dinner Party:

"The Dinner Party elevates female achievement in Western history to a heroic scale traditionally reserved for men."

You added in in this context, which may help you recall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dinner_Party&diff=prev&oldid=202075210

I started to hunt for it, but as I remarked in my Edit Summary:

"Web search suggests this quote *may* be from Brooklyn museum curators but most examples loop back to WP. Who wrote this?"

Thanks, —Blanchette (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't logged on for months. I'm not in a position to find a better source. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TCO (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at H. Rider Haggard, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification and invitation, but I can't contribute anything at the moment. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Hill Chapel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section title, and will soon move it down to its chronological position. It refers to the Lupton family page. BB

I am not sure if you will read this. GREAT job on the LUPTON page. Please put in the well known portrait Sir Charles Lupton (go to images) and also the family seat of Beechwood as seen in the UK Telelgraph June 21st 2013. Great work. from Mike

Many thanks, Mike, whoever you may be. Might I encourage you to participate in improving the page? If you need any help, just ask, and I'll see what I can do. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I am unable to "do" the photos. You seem very capable!! I think what I said above would be really good - PLUS of course the photo of Kate's great great grandfather Francis M. Lupton. Good luck - do you have someone that can help you? You have done some great work. I am an art history teacher - hence the interest in famous artists and old buildings. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by124.176.153.199 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mike. Thanks for your kind words. Might I encourage you to set up an account? It can be under your real name or pseudonymous, but it makes it much easier to track changes to an article when we all know who is doing what. (I am thinking of some of the other changes to the Lupton family article.) It also makes it possible for myself and others to leave messages for you. I know nothing about the images you refer to. This discussion would be better on the talk page of the article itself. If you do reply here, which you are of course welcome to, I will then move this thread down to the bottom, as per normal talkpage arrangements. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You are STILL doing a great job!! I would leave Darnton only on the Lupton page. Initially the Lupton page was sooooo convoluted that a few years ago journalists found it hard to see any Kate connections. There has been alot of publicity recently RE the Luptons- see page 3 of Saturday June 21st 2013 for BIG article by Gordon Raynor. If you click on the image of Beechwood you thus "copy" it and can add it to the site. PLEASE don't put too much stuff on either page - particulaurl the Family of Kate page. I will try to get an account set up. here is another recent and most helpful article-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359230/Black-white-footage-reveals-Duchess-Cambridges-great-great-great-uncle-greeting-royalty.html — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this section down now, to where it belongs chronologically. BB BrainyBabe (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I assume this is still Mike, and that you are the anonymous editor who has appeared on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Creating an account would help to clarify these discussions. Please note I have indented your responses for ease of reading. I am happy to help you learn your way around Wikipedia. For example, even if I knew what "page 3" you were referring to, it is absolutely not allowed to copy-paste photographs (or any content) without the appropriate usage licenses. Wikipedia does not sanction theft of intellectual property. Also, the second article you mention: the British Pathe newsreel discovery has already been incorporated into the Lupton family article. Is there anything specific to add? BrainyBabe (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry that I am not good at this sort of stuff but you I am most interested in the Luptons - like yourself. You will see from the article by Gordon Raynor - chief royal reporter that the Luptons were also landed gentry - the Beechwood Estate was vast and Catherines great great grandfather Francis and later his brother Arthur ran a "successful" farm until much of the land was sold off in the 1950's. I would put land owner in the list of Lupton occupations too. What do you think? Also - where the papers list the "smattering of blue blood" I would be listing those members with "titles" - it is this aspect of the Lupton's that there has been alot of research in recent months - generating pulicity and the discovery of the portrit and newsreels etc You have an interest in Unitarianism - there was a big story about Lord Shelbourne (British PM) who lived with Priestly as mentioned in the Mill Street site.. Lord Shelbourne, a dissenter, was the ancestor of Sir Christopher Bullock - husband of Lady Bullock (nee Barabara Lupton). I really think that is one of the reasons why Lady Bullock had always been on the family of Kate page!!! PLEASE put her back!! Cheers Mike

Just one more thing - it is likely that someone will soon wipe out ALL of your hard work - dividing up this article into Middletons, Luptons and Goldsmiths etc. They will say it should ONLY be the Middletons. I really like what you have done BUT there are alot of nutters out there who will simply WIPE stuff if they think it is TRIVIAL. cheers Mike

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.153.199 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

Mike, there are plenty of people (myself included) who would be happy to help you "get good at this sort of stuff". You said you would set up an account; that would be an excellent place to begin. One of the fundamentals of editing Wikipedia, even anonymously and even on talkpages, is to assume good faith. I am doing so with you. Please do not refer to other editors as "nutters". Please provide sources or preferably links to the information you mention. The specific points you make should go on the talkpage of each article in which you are interested; I suggest you rewrite your suggestions for inclusion there. My talkpage is not the right place. I reiterate that I am willing to help you, but only if you follow the rules. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Frances Lupton at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HelenOnline 15:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carbon Caryatid. You have new messages at HelenOnline's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

HelenOnline 16:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frances Lupton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an ancestor of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, worked to create educational opportunities for women, and co-founded Leeds Girls' High School in 1876? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frances Lupton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note - fixed the sourcing for you on Anna Letitia Le Baron. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's Anna Letitia Le Breton, for the record. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for relying on memory. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I have consolidated some pages you have edited to add in the British Unitarian and Free Christians Association. Rather than start an edit war, I thought we could civilly discuss the matter here. I think your effort to highlight this organisation is a good one, as it is not properly linked to in the UU pages, which tend to take a very American focus. However, I think that excessively complicated disambiguation pages, we should make an effort to highlight the British (and other countries) associations where the religion is called "Unitarianism" rather than "Unitarian Universalism". My suggestion would be that we do it under the Associations sub-heading on the Unitarian Universalism main page. I also think we need to have better links for those searching for Unitarianism. Hence my support for the page move issue on the Unitarianism page, which takes you to the (largely historical) Christian theology. If you could support the move it would be great, as then we can highlight the Unitarian Universalism page as the first or second link when people in Britain search for Unitarianism.

The Enlightened (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for approaching me. I agree that the current situation is confusing. You can see up-page that I tried to deal with this two and a half years ago. Unfortunately, your latest edit breaks dab rules. I suggest you copy your suggestions above to the talkpage of the article(s) in question, and that way I and others can reply where more editors have a chance of seeing the discussion. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BrainyBabe. I have answered a question you asked at the Teahouse. If you have any further questions, just ask on my talk page.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Mind the Gap Award
		nice biography of Anna Letitia Le Breton; keep up the good work. 98.169.251.81 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner's biography of her father, Charles Bradlaugh, the first atheist member of the British House of Commons, was considered "preposterously long" at over 800 closely printed pages? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits of my recent articles. I want to clarify that, while your edits do, in fact, make sense to me, in many cases, categories seem to exist BOTH for ministry and denominational identification.

For example, Billy Graham is both in the "Southern Baptist ministers" and "Southern Baptists" categories (as well as "Baptists from the United States"!) And John Bunyan is both in "English Baptists" and "English Christian ministers." Henry Allon is both in the "English Congregationalists" and "English Congregationalist clergy" categories. I hope this is a new policy you're enforcing, but if it is not, then both seem totally appropriate, if (admittedly) a bit redundant. I'll use your style in future articles, but I hope this policy is being enforced across all denominations in perhaps you can edit out these other categories if they seem to also be redundant. Thanks. Nhprman 15:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your gentle message. I did what I did entirely out of a whim: I saw a repeated pattern that looked illogical, and set about imposing order on a chaotic universe. I didn't check this idea with anyone else, least of all a project, nor did I look for a policy. I started from the premise that Category:English Unitarians (and probably most Nation/Religion categories) is too broad to be useful. I was intending to create other, smaller categories within the Unitarians, such as politicians (probably just MPs to start with) and educators. But now you point out wider weirdnesses. I can't see how having Famous Preacher listed as "Cat:member of denomination" is at all helpful, when obviously he goes in "Cat:clergy of denomination". Where might be a better place to discuss the overarching issue? In the meantime, if my edits are against any policy, of course please feel free to revert them. Thank again for drawing this to my attention. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits seem eminently reasonable and I'm glad to have seen them! But I've just noticed that Unitarian ministers (and probably others in other denominations) are ALSO broken down into centuries in which they served (as in "Category:18th Century Unitarian clergy") which would seem even more detailed, but is perhaps within the realm of policy on WP. So I'm not sure if I should be adding these "century" categories as I go along (and as I create new clergy-related articles) or not. Advice? Nhprman 19:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to go with what I think will help the reader. I have a couple of hypothetical ones in my mind. I only look for policies if I don't know what to do, or I am in conflict with another editor, or someone brings one to my attention. Yes, I think listing "Category: Workers" by their century (or other convenient period) is eminently sensible; I seem to recall categories such as "Victorian novelists". The dates, I suggest, should cover the working period during which they were most active *in that career*, not their lives, which might include other lines of work. (Like the regnal dates of monarchs.) A given minister might fall into two centuries. Ministers usually have a date of ordination, or failing that graduation from university/divinity school and first job, so that helps. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know what has happened about this. The entire ODNB online index has been loaded into a tool by User:Magnus Manske. This is actually a fresh start, rather than building on the work already done on the older DNB. The point of the tool is to match ODNB entries to Wikidata entries. That is not going to get done fully for a while - tens of thousands to add - but work on the women could go on as a subproject. Once the ODNB-to-wikidata matching has been set up, automation can then easily produce lists of non-missing women, I believe. There would need to be a separate effort to tag the ODNB women.

A fair amount to do here, therefore. It is a promising approach in the longer term, though (thinking about other languages, for example). The tool is at http://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/, and requires a TUSC login. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Charles for letting me know about this. I spent very little time on Wikipedia nowadays, for reasons that include both disillusionment and technology, though I may find my way back. If I do, this will certainly be on my list. Getting to grips with an automated tool would be a good challenge. I appreciate your support. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brainy Babe, cc Charles (does ping work from Talk pages?)

• Daventry Academy
• Northampton Academy (Dissenters)

I started this second stub but am concerned that it may be the case that the two never existed separately (at the same time) and a redirect might be better. Can you confirm whether this is the same academy or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if pings work; if you contact CM directly, I'm sure you'll find him most helpful. Yes, it seems very likely that these were the same educational establishment; no, I don't have any source to hand that would enable me to confirm or deny this absolutely. Sorry I can't be of more help. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was duly pinged. Northampton Academy (Dissenters) is a merge. Hugh Farmer was at Northampton under Philip Doddridge, then it moved on to Daventry per List of dissenting academies (1660–1800)#Midlands, and Lant Carpenter was there for the last year (arrived 1797, the academy was closed in 1798). I've checked these in the ODNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brainy Babe, Charles, merged. Was only 1 line and 1 ref anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really messed up a bunch of articles by removing categories about people who bred Arabian horses and recategorizing them as "racehorse breeders". Although Arabians can be raced, this is not what they are primarily known for, they are not Thoroughbreds, they are a different horse breed (an ancestor of the Thoroughbred, yes, but also a modern breed still with us today) and lumping these breeders in with race horse breeders, which are primarily people who breed Thoroughbreds, is of no help to no one, confuses people, and is not accurate. I had to revert all your changes. You probably meant well, but please don't "refine" categories when you don't know what you are doing. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. In the editing spree to which you refer (about a week ago - I don't often log on to Wikipedia these days), I changed the categories on about three dozen horse-related articles. You reverted about ten of these changes. As far as I can see, all of these are of individuals who were or are breeders of horses. The closest category I could see for them was Category:Racehorse owners and breeders, and in your reversion edit summaries you pointed out, quite correctly, that the horses bred by these people were not racers.

There's a bigger issue at play here. Let's discuss this further on Category talk:Horse breeding and studs. (Where I notice, by the by, that this category is itself daughter to a couple of categories with "racing" in their names. But we can't fix everything at once.) BrainyBabe (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will take it there. I get really, really tired of people who don't know anything about horses just changing stuff without checking in. Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I've seen the work you are doing on Hanstead stud and Lady Yule, it's nicely done and good work. Don't know if you have the interest of the sources, but two other Englishwomen of interest to Arabian horse fanciers are Lady Anne Lytton (Lady Wentworth's daughter, who has apparently written some stuff about Crabbet) and a woman who helped get Arabians exported from Poland when it was behind the Iron Curtain, Patricia Lindsay. (See, e.g. Sheila Varian)Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carbon Caryatid. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carbon Caryatid. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 16:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good to see this editing and to know how to do this, very interesting and valuable. Marysacolyte (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things have progressed on Wikidata to the point where I can say the number of missing women is somewhere north of 1500. There are a few more details and caveats at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 3#7000 milestone. In contrast, the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Missing women has been worked over quite thoroughly now. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editathon Invitation  Celebrating Charlie Chaplin's film The Tramp at London's Cinema Museum, Kennington    This is a free event, one of a series of editathons which Wikimedia UK organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations..    When? Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm    Where? 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH.    Point of contact: Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsettwikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK. Further details and Registration: Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)

Meetup Invitation  Hi Carbon Caryatid, You are cordially invited to an opportunity   to meet active Wikimedians in and around London face-to-face.    Description: Informal afternoon in a pub, children welcome.    When? Sunday, 8th March from 1 pm.    Where? Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HP.     Further details and check in: London 91 Hope to see you there, Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed you have made some good edits to our local chapel wikipedia article back in 2011, Rivington_Unitarian_Chapel hence I am messaging you to request a small bit of help. There appears to have appeared a red cite error on the page and I am not sure how to correct it. It appears to be caused by someone else's edits not yours, but I hope you don't kind having a look, sincere regards --Pennine rambler (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've finally had a look. The error message is now gone. I've corrected a few other things as well. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Et in Arcadia ego page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carbon Caryatid,

We are cleaning up some unused account creator flags. This flag is for people that need to create lots of accounts for other people on Wikipedia, normally part of the account creation team the education program, or for specific edit-a-thons

You show as inactive for this flag (0 actions in the last year), and it has been removed. If I have overlooked some other pressing need for this flag, please reply on my talk page. Please note, this will have no impact on your ability to edit anything, or create up to 5 new accounts per day for other people. Thank you and happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carbon Caryatid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The atlas has only been up since yesterday. The only reason I saw it was because it came through on my Facebook feed, https://www.facebook.com/KitikmeotHeritage/?fref=nf. I'll take a look and see what I can find on the Fifth Thule Expedition. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the Manchester Guardian archives for 1936, but I can offer you a pdf of:

• "PECCAVI". The Living Age. 350 (4436): 236. May 1936.

The article is attributed to the Manchester Guardian and reports that Lord Zetland's investigations led him to believe Napier never sent such a message, and that the story originated with a paragraph in Punch in 1845. That confirms some parts of the Catherine Winkworth article. If you would like a copy, please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a big fan of statements such as your "over the last decade" added to Richard Halliburton because, well what will it mean 20 years from now? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings are accepted British usage. No harm done if you change one to the other, except that a few other people will check what you've done and you've wasted their time. See Oxford spelling for details. Bmcln1 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bother. Oxford comma and Oxford marmelade are more to my taste. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll leave it as is, and see what happens.Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on the marmalade. Haven't had it for years, though. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were talking about an article like this: waste collector - did you know it existed? I didn't. We could now link it with dunnyman, manual scavenging etc. EvMsmile (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't; thanks for alerting me. I've done a little tidying. How best should the occupations be linked? Or maybe a parallel article of "toilet waste" collectors, across cultures and times?

Good - I'll put my reply on the talk page of that article. EvMsmile (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Fanny. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up, I have just put John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol up for GAN having added on some of your extended groundwork a few years back. If that goes well, I might see if I can beef up some of the other family members, several of which seem to have quite an illustrious past. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS - sorry about having to revert, I would like to find a source that shows the 7th Marquess coming out was important as, say, Graham Chapman's, but there doesn't appear to be much other than that's just who he was. If I can get hold of some of the other paper sources, hopefully something will fall out of that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for explaining. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I misremembered the state of things when we talked about the LBS project; we already have Legacies of British Slave-ownership person ID (P3023) in Wikidata. 298 Wikidata items currently have a value for that property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm so pleased. I first mooted the idea to Wiki-friends in March but couldn't take it on myself. I'll ponder how best to develop the use of this data. Thanks for your support. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any information on him and are you going to write the article? Please let me know what sources you have as I have been looking for quite some time but can only find a reference to his daughter Jean's marriage, so I don't know what practical use a redlink will be. ww2censor (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, I don't have any info, but I'm in full accord with the spirit of Wikipedia:Red link, especially:

a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article [...] Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject [...] Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.

A more useful question is, where exactly should the request for an article go? I'm not averse to proposing the creation of an amalgamation, e.g. one good paragraph for each Postmaster General. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Telegony (pregnancy) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have the wrong Richard Smith, as father-in-law for Charlotte Turner Smith. I came across this issue just now, in relation to Sir Lionel Smith, 1st Baronet, the son. So, there were some inconsistencies coming up.

To cut to the chase, I think the father-in-law is the Richard Smith on this LBS page for "Richard Smith of Islington": I see you were talking to Andy Mabbett about the LBS project above. Per the ODNB biography for Charlotte, we are looking for "a West India merchant and a director of the East India Company".

Richard Smith (East India Company officer) was on the military rather than the commercial side; and he died 1803. The reason I believe I have the right one is not just circumstantial: this citation for Lionel Smith's grandfather says he died in 1776.

Looking on the bright side, it looks like that more info is available for the Richard Smith of Islington LBS page. It has a "long identifier" 2146650053, which means a person included for deeper background, rather than one of those directly claiming compensation.

Charles Matthews (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up. I'll rectify Richard Smith (East India Company officer). Will you take on Charlotte Turner Smith or shall I? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on this area. I'll go to the library today for the volume of Charlotte's Letters, which has a genealogical table. There is plenty more on LBS, too, as I discovered later. Maybe I can get a draft together for Richard Smith of Islington. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I agree that the Islington family would make an interesting article. The LBS is a rich source; are you focussing on it? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book and family tree now: amusingly to me, looks like Richard Smith of Islington is an ancestor of Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, one of my Ph.D. examiners. Quite irrelevant, though.

I have been worrying first about the discrepancy between the Venn database (ACAD) and what LBS has. This is about Richard III Smith, Rev. Richard Smith on LBS, Benjamin's nephew we assume, where Venn says his father was Thomas Smith. Nothing can be taken for granted.

Here is that text (SMT784R2):

"Smith, Richard. Adm. sizar (age 17) at TRINITY, Oct. 25, 1784. S. of Thomas, of London. School, St Paul's. Matric. Michs. 1785; Scholar, 1788; B.A. (11th Wrangler) 1789; M.A. 1792. Fellow, 1791-1804; Junior Dean, 1798 and 1800-1. Ord. deacon (Peterb.) Dec. 20, 1789. R. of Sutton, Sussex, 1806-48, and R. of Bignor, 1826-48. Died Oct. 23, 1848, aged 82. (St Paul's Sch. Reg.; Northants. Clergy; G. Mag., 1848, II. 663.)"

We can note that Bignor Park was a Turner family property.

So this page from the Clergy of the Church of England database is reassuring, and gets us somewhere. Richard III Smith becomes chaplain to George Wyndham, 3rd Earl of Egremont, Charlotte Smith's patron. And he has the living at "Bicknor". But something new: he is an _Oxford_ graduate, from St Alban Hall? (Click for full record.)

Something that can be read, just about, at s:Page:Alumni Oxoniensis (1715-1886) volume 4.djvu/94 is the Richard Smith who matriculates at St Alban Hall, Oxford in 1793. Who is son of Richard (Smith) of Westminster. He then takes Oxford degrees in 1808? I think this is the same person, going to Oxford first. By the way the letters book has two things to add: date of birth 2 November 1766, which is fine; and wife a daughter of Richard Acklom of Nottinghamshire. Up to a typo somewhere, that I think is the maternal grandfather of Robert Acklom Ingram.

To sum up, there are the LBS page(s), the ODNB, ACAD, CCEd, Alumni Oxoniensis, and The Collected Letters of Charlotte Smith, and they all, quite fortunately, give different angles and leads.

Richard II Smith, father of Richard III and elder brother of Benjamin, Rev. Richard Smith the elder on LBS, is in CCEd as this page only, but the Letters has dates his dates 1 September 1739 to 15 February 1772, and wife Elizabeth Mary Mapp of Barbados. It looks like he is the Richard Smith three places higher in the Alumni Oxoniensis list at Queen's College, Oxford, as LBS suggests; but the Wikisource scan is bad.

So, tracking down Richard I is going to be harder, but there is actually plenty of context. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good day's work. I don't know half the sources you refer to, nor which Benjamin you mean (the only one I know is the Whig MP). So I'm in no position to offer helpful comment, I'm afraid, but I can and will cheer you on from the sidelines. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've begun a draft at Draft:Richard Smith (merchant). The family history will get added later. Benjamin is Charlotte Smith's husband. ACAD is http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/, the Cambridge alumnus database; sadly Oxford hasn't got its act together in the same way. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good show. I notice you've created the draft not in your sandbox - does that mean it would be ok for me to make amendments? I don't want to step on your toes. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. By the way, the discussion above wasn't meant to be baffling. I suppose it is a worked example of the kind of approach promoted by Wikidata, where I work a lot these days: look for people in name-brand databases, worry away at identification issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

File:Roza Shanina.jpg December 2016
	Two new topics for our online editathons Women in Aviation and Women in the Military Our geographical topic of the month is Caribbean Women During the period of 21 Nov - 8 Dec, we are also supporting BBC 100 Women Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thank you for your copy editing help at Fake news website. Sagecandor (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Articles like that need all the help and clarity we can muster. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These virtual BBC 100 Women freebies are for you. Thank you for your contributions to our very successful BBC 100 Women editathon Hundreds of articles were created in thirteen countries.
	WiR/WMUK/BBC 100 Women worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: BBC, Women in Red, Wikimedia UK December 2016

--

(See you at our next event Women in Philosophy online edit-a-thon) Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas from me! Thanks for your company during 2016. We have seen the percentage of articles on women rise from 15% to 16.77%. 20% is within our grasp and that's an increase of a third over what we first found. Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017
	Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Great to meet you too! Eartha78 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017
	Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, long time no speak, hope all is well. Care to join us all this Sunday? meta:Meetup/London/115. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had hoped to come; in fact I set off, but had to turn back. I hope you have a good gathering. Best wishes to everyone! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to... Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red
		March 2017 Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met" Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Psychology" "Book Artists" "CEE Countries"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Organizations" "Sports" "Pacific islanders"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello! I stumbled across your wonderfully arch words of wisdom to Elizabeth B Allan (Lord Paul's secretary?) re her flattering editing of Lord Paul's article in 2011. I liked your work so much I did a little sleuthing and discovered that a "Beth Allan" has also been doing (favourable?) edits of the Lord Paul article in Dec./2013 and Feb./2016. All 24 edits "Beth Allan" has done have been exclusively on Lord Paul's article and all (bar the first) have been dubiously marked as minor, including one which resulted in a loss if 1,516 characters. I don't know if all this work has been noticed or if it has biased the article, but I thought I should pass on what I found given your previous interest. Keep up your wonderful work!115.64.164.51 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery will get *you* everywhere, o mysterious anon. Lord Paul is on my list of things to do - articles in which I once took an interest, and which, I am sadly aware, have slipped when I took my eye off them. It is a long list, and one I mostly ignore. But your message will bump it up. And your angle on this is? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any angles, I'm just doing too much Wiki browsing along with occasional compulsions to do clean-up edits and add a few comments. I can't remember the details of how I came across your wonderful work, but I've been following the edit patterns of lots of people in lots of articles and "BrainyBabe" was one of many leads I followed down the rabbit hole, which lead me to you beautiful advice to Ms. Allan, which prompted a read of Lord Paul's article and a glance at the edit pattern there, only to discover her return to dubious editing under a barely altered moniker. Meanwhile, I should be out buying a Mothers' Day gift/flowers, so I'll have to tear myself away from this keyboard and do my duty. Have a superb day. Cheers!110.22.7.108 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:Nefertari.jpg "Met artwork by women" "LGBTQ women & Wiki Loves Pride" "Pre-20-century women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Whiteface (performance).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add ((bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer)) to your talk page.[reply]

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Indigenous women" "Women in peace" "Canadian women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

		Introducing... WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Hispanic and Latina Women" "Women in the Olympics" "Women from New Zealand"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/57|"Women and disability"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/58|"Healthcare"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/59|"Geofocus on the Nordic countries"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Begin preparing for November's big event: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|Women World Contest]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|The Women in Red World Contest]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure about moving the citation of Bruce Nauman's Art Make-up and Flesh to White to Black to Flesh videos to the Physical section. I can see why, but imho these artworks are more conceptual, i.e. more "about" the idea (and history) of blackface than being actual, derogatory blackface. I don't have a citation to that effect, at least not yet, it's only my judgement. But of course since it involves actual makeup I can also see how, objectively, it is actual, physical blackface. Cheers Donellew (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Donellew for initiating this discussion. I'll copy your comment to create Talk:Blackface in contemporary art and respond there. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a short article about Edith Cliff. I thought she was worth a shot. Esemgee (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I've asked for general advice here. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think she's very notable and tx for the edits. Esemgee (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/61|"Seasonal celebrations"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/62|"First Ladies"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/63|"Go local!"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already speak English and Turkish. I translated Turkish sources and biographies into English myself

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

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

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

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec17a))~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 22:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/64|"Prisoners"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/65|"Fashion designers"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/66|"Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/67|"Black women"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/68|"Mathematicians and statisticians"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/69|"Geofocus: Island women"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice you were in the midst of working on this. I could have waited. Cheers, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2018 (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 (☎) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you're making extensive changes to the Back-to-back houses article, which can only be a good thing. Can you be mindful that, as I have posted it as a GA candidate, then some of the new paragraphs you're making will need to be cited (or citations moved/additionally added to the new paragraphs), so as to ensure it isn't an issue during a subsequent review. I must admit that whilst I hadn't taken any interest before in these house types, there is a wealth of information on them, and no doubt the article could be increased by a further 50% by further scrutiny of the refs I have used. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've taken an interest in the article for a year or so. I was pleased to see it listed as a GA candidate, hoping that this would attract more attention to tody it up. Bits of it were still quite baggy, e.g. four-clause sentences. The more eyes and fingers the merrier. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Susan George (actress), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  09:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carbon Caryatid and Anchorvale Rather than get into a lather as to what Ms George is mainly known for and whether she would merit an article just for her horse breeding activity, can I suggest we sort this out at Category talk:Arabian and part-Arabian horses? ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/70|Women's History Month 2018]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi User:Carbon_Caryatid,

Thanks for your edits on Kayayei article. I saw that you removed large chunks of information from the article. But instead of undoing your work I want to reach out to ask "why".
Regards.
-Masssly (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I made several edits, with brief edit summaries, taking the article from 4,526 to 4,307 characters. I don't believe I did remove "large chunks of information", although I did trim repetitive or emotive wording. I added a category, and the article's first image; I retitled the sections. If there is any information that I removed and you wish to reinstate, perhaps the best place to discuss that would be on the article talkpage. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Misterperson (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me keep this up. Theperson111 (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you work there and elsewhere.

Zezen (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome! Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons. Focus on: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/71|April+Further with Art+Feminism]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/72|Archaeology]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/73|Military history (contest)]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/74|Geofocus: Indian subcontinent]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A year or so ago you assisted a newcomer editor, Nhorlick (talk · contribs), with some issues about references to the Bernie Madoff scandal in an article about the editor after seeking advice at BLPN. In January of this year an IP editor readded and supplemented (though it would appear that the supplement may not have anything to do with the scandal) that information including the blog-supported material which you removed even before the main removal. Nhorlick reappeared, tried to get it reverted, and managed to get herself blocked for legal threats (which is not unusual with editors in this situation who don't know our policies). If the material should not have been included previously — I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't have, but if — then it probably ought not to be included now. I'm only involved in this because I'm the chairperson of the Mediation Committee and before getting herself blocked she filed, inappropriately but in good faith, a request for mediation. I thought you might want to know that the issue has come back up in case you might want to give her a hand again. I'm not saying that you should or should not, nor am I taking any position pro or con on whether the information ought to be there or not, I'm just giving you a heads up. Finally, this is not in any way an official communication of, or on behalf of, the Mediation Committee. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up. I have tackled the issue, and described my actions on the article talkpage. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carbon, Thank you for such a warm welcome. I believe that you will be a helping hand among all other editors

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I can't quite get my head around the categories.

1.I created Category:Whaling weapons in error, and would like it deleted; I have created the correct Category:Whaling implements instead.

2. I see that the article Whaling in the United Kingdom still sits within Category:Whaling by country, which is no longer correct, because it now sits, as it should, within Category:Whaling in the United Kingdom. How can I make it appear in only the former category? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Done.
2. Change [[Category:Whaling by country]] into [[Category:Whaling in the United Kingdom]]. Another option is HotCat, which semi-automates the process.

If you want more help, change the ((help me-helped)) back into a ((help me)), stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...eh? This one went right over my head. Pyrope 22:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes me too! That was an innocent typo, but quite funny I think. I meant "Expose Easter egg", i.e. make visible her full current name. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Right, I see where you were coming from. However, that isn't an Easter egg link and therefore there is nothing to expose. The link is explicitly made to one of the authors of that book, and the link takes you to the page for that author. Nothing hidden. No surprises. The fact that she has more recently added to her surname doesn't really justify that rather clumsy piece of extraneous verbiage. We're not exactly in a Johnny Rotten = John Lydon situation here! Pyrope 15:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/75|"Women of the Sea"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/76|"Villains"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/77|"Women in Sports"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/78|"Central Eastern European women"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This is a new one for me, in more than a decade editing. A week ago I created Drift whale, and within 15-20 minutes it had been tagged as a copyright violation. I've asked for help from that editor, but without success. Just to be clear - at this point, I'm not making a complaint against that person, nor am I arguing that the sourced sentences I quoted constitute fair use. Both of those issues can be pursued elsewhere, if I have the energy. All I want to know is, please can someone (presumably it has to be an admin) have a look at the article, do whatever needs to be done, and remove the template? I want to get on with improving the article; I have a lot of great material to add and - I hope - an acceptably paraphrasical prose style with which to do so. Many thanks. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's all sorted now. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and efficient; thank you (both?) so much. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that broke the log jam. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:33, 12 May 2018 (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 (☎) 19:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Drift whale, Carbon Caryatid!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article and a useful addition to Wikipedia.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article! Hope to see it promoted to Good article status some day. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Do you know how it happened that the most (or second-most) obvious in-link (i.e. from Maggie Hambling) was lacking? Was that merely an oversight? It seems odd. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just overlooked until you came along. Not to worry! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Device to dry laundry, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PamD 17:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both this and Category:Device to wash laundry should be "... devices...", per Wikipedia:Category_names#General_conventions. I've nominated at WP:CfD because I think this is the only way to change the name of a category. PamD 17:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Laundry worker. PamD 17:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this. I got some of the new categories right, I believe, e.g. Category:Laundry businesses. But I welcome any improvements. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Device to wash laundry, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PamD 17:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Laundry worker, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PamD 17:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea for a better hook. I would like to make this reviewer HAPPY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Laundry law, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited In Other Words Feminist Community Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Women's League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've come across this sort of thing before, but this BLP strikes me as a particularly egregious example. Until a couple of months ago, it was a non-descript but unproblematic article about a writer. Then one anon edit quintupled the article length, adding sections on everything Smith has ever written. What is most startling is a long section entitled "Literary acclaim", which consists solely of uncontextualised quotes pulled from reviews. Strangely enough, no negative reviews are included, such as this rather waspish one by Theodore Dalrymple - "a strong vein of intellectualised humbug" - or this in the Guardian.

The thing is, many of the quotes are well sourced, so I don't want to strip them out willy-nilly. Others seem to be from the book blurb, from what I can see on Amazon [1] - e.g. "simply the most intelligent person I know" by another author. I looked for advice on puffery and that didn't seem to quite fit the case, since the fulsome language is in the quotes. Since that one big addition, there have been a few tweaks by pen-for-hire[2] User:NiciWest, or someone using her name, but nothing contentious.

I've seen other BLPs undergo this sort of transformation, whether for money or not I cannot say. But this is such a clear example that I thought I would use it to ask for help. This sort of article isn't what the encyclopedia should be about. What is the best way to tackle this recurring problem? Templates to add, projects to alert? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would be better served using the article's talk page instead of here. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, it's not just that article. There are others that are similarly gaming the system. This is just the most recent to come to my attention. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with FlightTime; these are best handled on a case-by-case basis using the talk page. We do have some templates that you could use, e.g. ((Like resume)) or ((Unbalanced section)) but at the end of the day, all they achieve is the defacement of the article. Of course, if you see the same editor transforming multiple articles in that manner, then that's another story, but this rarely happens these days. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbon Caryatid:, it is well-known that PR firms and others are hiring people to specifically edit Wikipedia articles for their customers and "improve" them in the way you've seen in this case. The only dedicated venue for these situations is the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. There is no systematic way to prevent such edits at this time. You can feel free to WP:BOLDly remove the overtly promotional text from articles, even if it is sourced. If you get challenged, then using the article talk page to justify your removals, as FlightTime and IP user 78.... suggest, is the first stop. In the talk page discussion, reminding others that that WP:NPOV is just as important an core content policy as verifiability and text added to articles has to satisfy both sets of criteria has often been useful in my experience. I hope this helps.

Hello! Your submission of Drift whale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Elsie Inglis Memorial Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nursery

Harpoon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Age of Steam

Obstetrics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to College of Physicians and Surgeons

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/79|WiR Loves Pride]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/80|Singers and Songwriters]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/81|Women in GLAM]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/82|Geofocus: Russia/USSR]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Edith Vane-Tempest-Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blakeney

Feminist science fiction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Raj

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources - most of the sources have no depth about subject just mentions

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rosemary Leith and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rosemary Leith, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carbon Caryatid! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Drift whale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Icelandic word for "drift whale" translates as "windfall", since the washed-up carcass provides meat, blubber, fat, and other benefits to the finders (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Drift whale. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Adelaide Manning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Married Women's Property Act

Company town (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Social engineering

Philippine Airlines Flight 434 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tail number

Victorian dress reform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Temperance

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Hello again from Women in Red! July 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/83|Sub-Saharan Africa]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/84|Film + stage]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/85|20th-century]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/86|Women Rock]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|Notable women, broadly-construed!]] Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Are we losing momentum? London calling (the Mayor of London!) Publication about Wikipedia's coverage of women mathematicians Women in Red is featured in Toolhub
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philippine Airlines Flight 434, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tail number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could contact me via the message link on my user page when you plan to made edits to this page. The merger of the two previous pages deliberately kept textual changes to a minimum, but further changes are planned so that this article will be extensively extended or expanded and improved. If you are able to contribute to this, I would be interested to hear from you, otherwise, if you think changes are needed, please can you drop me a line to discuss? Many thanks. Woodsail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodsail (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this note, Woodsail. Discussions about articles are meant to be held on their talk pages, so I'll copy this to Talk:Chawton House and respond there. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Sir John Lethbridge, 1st Baronet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Gainsborough, Snyders and Vanderbilt

Philippa Fawcett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gower Street

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/87|Indigenous women]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/88|Women of marginalized populations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/89|Women writers]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/90|Geofocus: Bottom 10]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed!]] For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whaling jobs has been nominated for merging. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_1#Category:Whaling_jobs.

Also, I have re-nominated Category:Laundry workers for further renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 31. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Fayenatic; I've commented there. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Tennant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Couper and Alexander Dunlop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/91|Women currently in academics]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/92|Women + Law]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/93|Geofocus: Hispanic countries]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Check it out: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Monthly achievement initiative: September 2018|Monthly achievement initiative]] All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/94|Clubs]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/95|Science fiction + fantasy]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|STEM]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/97|The Mediterranean]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]