Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

• /About me
• /Plaudits

Hi, I'm looking at writing up Vice-Admiral Richard Peacocke, and saw that the article name already exists as a redirect for Richard Pococke, created by yourself. "Peacocke" doesn't appear once in the article, and I was wondering whether the redirect is most useful there, or if the title could be used without disambiguation for the other article? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: That redirect is used on Ashtiname of Muhammad. You can create a new article from it, but please pipe the wikilink from that page when you do so. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, the 200th London Meetup is happening tomorrow, Sunday 14 January. You may be interested as you were present at the very first one (pictured)! Note that it is now at Penderel's Oak on High Holborn by the Great Turnstile. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember it well. I was the first one to go up to Jimbo and introduce myself. (I said I had won the Jimmy Wales look-alike competition.) Charles Matthews (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Louise Nicholson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is a revived version of a previously deleted article for similar reasons. This piece is largely self-promotional, relating to a person that is neither "notable", not "high profile" per Wikipedia's guidelines. 3 out of 4 paragraphs of "career" have no source. Most sources are indirect and anecdotal.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Charles. As part of some editing I did earlier today, I came across this edit summary which mentions a reputable organisation of which I am myself a member. The ACS is The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. I have spoken to three of my colleagues in the meantime and we all agree that these odious remarks are lies which defame our reputation. The ACS is not a tabloid newspaper and we do not "discredit" people who write about cricket. Indeed, so far as the work in question is concerned, we serialised it in several issues of our quarterly journal in 2006! If that is discrediting someone's work, what must we do to show approval?

My friends and I agreed that, as a first step, I should approach the responsible party to seek an explanation. However, he appears to have become inactive and I wonder if this could be because he has been held to account by yourself for his many failures to observe WP:PRESERVE, something that we as cricket writers were already well aware of? Although we research and publish our own material, we want WP:CRIC to succeed because of the site's wide circulation which may encourage more cricket fans to become researchers. That will only happen if WP:CRIC's members work together and respect both each other and the site's policies. This individual, however, drives people away. We could, with research, provide a long list of condescending, belittling, and bullying edit summary comments which have targeted mainly new editors, including two I know personally who now refuse to edit this site (and one of them is a journalist who happens to be very adept at research and writing).

As you can see, the edit summary I found was written on 2 August 2021. If it had been a one-off, we could perhaps believe that it was done in momentary frustration, but it was not a one-off. In fact, he used the same summary SIXTEEN times on that day, and perhaps on other days too. As far as we are concerned, it is completely unacceptable, and it is the tip of an iceberg. That editor has made countless insults over many years and we are left wondering how he can have got away with it for so long.

Is there any way you, as an administrator, can revert or erase insulting edit summaries? We are not concerned about removal of the source from the article because so much goes unsourced that it does not matter to us as readers. If he had deleted the citation and made no comment we would not even notice, but he cannot be allowed to summarise his edits by insulting other people.

We are grateful to you for the action you have already taken and, if you can help us with this matter, that would be appreciated even more. I should mention that I have very limited availability at present because of a new work project (I have taken a day off today) but I will keep an eye on my watchlist. Thank you for your time and, whatever you decide (or are permitted) to do, all of us wish you the very best for 2024. Batagur baska (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Batagur baska: Thanks for getting in touch.

Let me explain first that edit summaries are not something that normal editing can change. Any modification would require something like developer access.

Let me also say that I don't assume User:Blue Square Thing has left Wikipedia: something they wrote above the section you mention on User talk:Blue Square Thing suggests only a break. Of course it was not my intention to make the editor leave.

If at some future point Blue Square Thing returns to editing, and you wish to pursue the matter you raise about use of edit summaries, you should have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, and the way conduct disputes can be handled. I'd be happy to advise. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, Charles. That is fair enough. I did expect that removing a summary would be problematic. I'll set the issue aside for now and see what develops. Thank you for your time and best wishes. Batagur baska (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Synaus—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]