https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Graham Jackson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for spotting what looked like a contradiction. I have found and added a citation for the hall having been founded in 1851, a few years before my first estimate. I can’t find one for when Charsley took on the title of Master, but clearly it came later, after the university statute that’s mentioned. I guess the original foundation may have been simply when Charsley set up his household or began to take in undergraduates. Sources are hard to find. Moonraker (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for linking some of the professors at Titles of Distinction awarded by the University of Oxford; it's a tedious process. Don't be afraid to redlink as well – pretty much all of them meet our notability guidelines at WP:PROF, so redlinks help to get them created. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Noswall59:Hi, I see you started the Titles of Distinction article. Would it be useful to add some advice and encouragement on linking to the talk page? Do you prefer leaving initials in links or changing to first names? I have checked the 1996 names and found links for exactly half (unfortunately 2 are in German without an English version). I haven't done any redlinks at this stage, I would need to revise disambiguation first.TSventon (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be useful to add some guidance on the talk page, yes. I've just added a few redlinks – it actually wasn't as hard as it seems, probably because many of the scientists are cited by their initials anyway. It's great that there were articles for half, that's more than I had expected. As for linking, I tend to believe that we should not deviate from the original source, simply because doing so could introduce errors; so, I would leave the text of the list with initials for now. That would probably not be acceptable if you ever wanted to get it to Featured List status, but it's probably best practice for now. The links, however, should use the name that the person was most likely to be known as (see under WP:TITLE). For instance: I.J.R. Aitchison. Full names could also be used, I suppose, because they would redirect to whatever the article title is anyway. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Noswall59:I started linking to Titles of Distinction awarded by the University of Oxford because I had found the names mentioned in other articles. I then linked 1996 to see how many names would link. Oddly there are 154 names on the list not 162 as mentioned in the lead. I would like to translate "David Michael Metcalf" the German article for D. M. Metcalf as an exercise. Should I call the new article "David Michael Metcalf" for consistency? Also, I could reformat 2012 with initials if that would be useful: it is currently a mixture of names and initials.TSventon (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no harm using his full name – someone can change it if it's a problem. I've just checked the full 1996 list, and there are only 154 professors named, perhaps that was an error on their part: strange. I might keep plodding on with the 1996 list; googling the redlinks reveals an awful lot of clearly notable people, with obituaries in national newspapers, etc. Anyway, thanks again. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Noswall59:I see you have finished the wikilinks for 1996. I had missed Megan Vaughan as her article doesn't mention oxford, but several links look wrong: Christopher Ashley, Brian Rogers, Nicholas Stone, Richard Wayne. As you have seen I have translated "David Michael Metcalf", but it needs further tweaking. I will look at Peter Mackridge today.TSventon (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Michael Metcalf.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Looks great, keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

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

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TSventon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regent's Park College, Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Carey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there,

I see you have edited out information on the wikipedia page for St John’s College Oxford. This information had reliable sources attached. I would therefore, suggest you to restore the mistaken change.

Thanks Brenig102 (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brenig102: Hello, thank you for responding to my message. I removed two sentences which were not supported by references. The first said “St John’s College has its origins in St Bernard’s College”. This was not supported by the reference which says the college “took over the premises of St Bernard’s College”. The second sentence said “other colleges such as Hertford erroneously use the foundation of previous institutions to be their foundation year”, which was not supported by a reference.

I also bore in mind the Wikipedia guidance on synthesis , which says that if material from multiple sources is combined to imply a conclusion, then that conclusion should be supported by a reliable source.

I agree that additional information about St Bernard's College is useful so I have now added the foundation date and reference to the article.TSventon (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your work on List of Presidents of Magdalen College, Oxford. Please note MOS:ENTO for date-ranges, otherwise there's a lot of cleaning up to be done. The relevant example there: Henry VIII reigned 1509–1547 Spicemix (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spicemix: Thanks for the feedback, I will check MOS shortly. Did you mean there is a lot of cleaning up to be done, if so, please let me know what.TSventon (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers matie. Yep, so for example John Horley or Hornley (1448-1457) should be John Horley or Hornley (1448–1457), that's to say an endash not a hyphen. You probably know how to generate an endash on your keyboard – on mine it's alt+hyphen. Or you can use the html code –. Or it's the first of the line of special characters immediately below your editing window. But that whole section of MoS is really useful: when to use a spaced endash, when an unspaced, the use of emdash. Not a hyphen to be seen! Spicemix (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spicemix: Thank you, I wanted to check that you are not saying that there is a lot of cleaning up to be done in addition to the hyphens. I know very little about endash, so thanks for the advice.TSventon (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spicemix: I have now changed the hyphens to endash in this list and in several other lists.TSventon (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are great. I wanted to check the name of a president of Magdalen and I found you had created the article just a couple of weeks before! Spicemix (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spicemix: Thanks, Magdalen seemed to be the only older college without a list and most of the information is in the online version of the 1954 Victoria County History (and on the college website).TSventon (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have added first printed edition to help anyone whose Latin isn't as good as yours. Do you know why the article says "The library once contained a copy"? Page 28 of the edition of Prickard in Google books (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D00J2gHxvysC) says "Among the printed books is a copy".TSventon (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Quite unexpected to be consulted as an expert in Latin; you could consult [http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo-explore/search?query=any,contains,aristotle%201495&tab=local&search_scope=LSCOP_ALL&vid=SOLO&lang=en_US&offset=0 this OLIS record but I do not know how full the information will be. Having to attend to other business now.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Johnsoniensis:, I am just asking whether you know about the New College copy of Aristotle and if so whether you would be able (and willing) to clarify the current wording. Obviously this is not an urgent query. I did an internet search first but didn't find anything, possibly because I know very little about Aristotle. I checked the OLIS link and New College seems to have an edition of Aristotle which may or may not be the right one.TSventon (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aristotle comes into the New College article already because of the motto. On consulting Copac there is an entry there https://copac.jisc.ac.uk/id/34176359?style=html&title=Opera%20graece%5D ; in the notes it shows that this edition has entries in GW (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke) and BMC (British Library catalogue of incunabula) and ISTC (incunabula short-title catalogue); i.e. the union catalogue of incunabula founded in Germany; the British Library's catalogue of incunabula which began in the British Museum long before 1973 ; ISTC is newer but should be including all known incunabula in the world by now (it is based on work done in the United States by Frederick Goff and his successors. Some leads to follow up anyway.-Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Johnsoniensis:, thanks for the suggestions. I wanted to know whether you know whether the New College still have the copy of Aristotle mentioned in their article and from your reply I assume you don't. I don't want to do further research in catalogues as checking the OLIS link showed me I don't have the background knowledge needed.TSventon (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women's college, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

My original source was a 40 year old memory of studying Beowulf as an undergrad, but I came across something more relevant to others. There is a second Beowulf page, where this origin is discussed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_(hero)

That page also connects him to the Hrolf Kraki character. I'll have to get back up to speed on Wikipedia syntax. It has been a while.

Mitch

100.0.110.6 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @100.0.110.6:, @Mitch Townsend:, as you studied Beowulf as an undergrad you probably know more about it than I do.

I hope you will be able to add some referenced information on Beowulf as bee wolf: I did a quick internet search which suggested it would be better to describe it as a conjecture.

I hadn't checked Beowulf_(hero) yesterday, but it mentions Bee-wolf as a theory (with a reference) along with others.

On referencing Template:Cite web is fairly self explanatory. And a Bare URL is better than nothing.TSventon (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, in Dr. Shamsheer's article a slight change is needed. 1:) In alma mater section in infobox, provide a dot mark(•) before each medical college name. 2:) In parents name column in infobox also provide with a dot mark(•) before each parent name. 3:) In Awards section column in infobox provide with a dot mark(•) before each award name. These all dot mark were present at desired places which I mentioned above but you have removed it by mistake. Hope! you will restore it again. Thanks. Best wishes. (223.230.135.55 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]

223.230.135.55, I am glad to see this has been resolved. I have checked my edit and it did not change the info box.TSventon (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you CitizenVA (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a copyvio is blatant then you don't need to list it at WP:CP, you can just remove it yourself. WP:CP is mainly for more complex cases e.g. where the source isn't known, it's not clear which bits are copyvio, the licensing status of the content isn't clear or where the author claims to have permission. If you want to request revision deletion then you can use ((copyvio-revdel)) as long as it's clearly a copyvio. Hut 8.5 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hut 8.5: Thanks, that is useful for next time. I don't look for copyvios so any I find are likely to be fairly obvious. TSventon (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure whether you meant to remove the 'public research university' field, as it was mixed with some IP edits. As far as I know most UK university are public universities, only a few private ones. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I assume this is my edit of 08:32, 11 July 2019‎: I edit the article fairly frequently and don't remember the detail of all the unconstructive edits I revert. I reversed an IP edit which I thought was unconstructive because it removed content and added the phrase public research university. User:Jonathan A Jones had previously deleted the word public at 12:38, 6 February 2019 with the edit summary "delete "public": the division of universities into "public" and "private" is unclear and rarely helpful in the UK". I now see that Wikipedia consistently describes non-private UK universities as public universities, but I am not aware of reliable UK sources which do so. TSventon (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The majority of UK universities, and certainly Oxford and Cambridge, are not "public" universities in the sense the word is understood in continental Europe or the US, and I do think this description for Oxford is confusing. But given the current contents of the United Kingdom section of Public University, which is pretty heavily laced with caveats, I no longer actively remove this description from the page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Jonathan A Jones:. @Aloneinthewild:, I am happy to follow Jonathan A Jones's example. TSventon (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi. Before you all waste to much time on draft:Abelstedt, be aware that the creator, despite his assurance that he has no connection to the firm, is one of the owners. He was quite cross with me for deleting it on dawiki as a pure, non notable, commercial. Regards KnudW (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KnudW: thank you for the information, which is not too surprising given the content of the article. Are you planning to request deletion of the English article? TSventon (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s up to you. I assume that it will cleared out of draft space at some time? Regards KnudW (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KnudW: You have placed a Template:COI on the article: could you start a discussion on the article talk page? The template guidance says "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia." If you have evidence of conflict of interest (which I don't) you could post on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. My Danish is fairly basic, so I am not well placed to judge if the company is notable or not. The draft has been submitted for review via articles for creation which has a backlog of around 8 weeks. TSventon (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Draft talk:Abelstedt — regards KnudW (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KnudW: Thanks, I have asked Ojcapital to respond to your posting. TSventon (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I saw your note on the Hut's user page about reporting copyvio. I usually just ask on User Dianaa's talk page to do revision-deletion; she is excellent. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Thanks, I will bear that in mind next time I encounter a major copyvio (which doesn't happen that often). TSventon (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You moved my question, but I have no idea where it was moved to, and if there have been any responses. Can you please help me? Many thanks. The Retiree (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Retiree: Hi, I moved your question on 17 January to a new section called "Neutrality" and it got two answers, but I think the problem was that it was automatically archived after two days. Sorry if that was confusing, but at least you knew who to ask (or blame). The section is now archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1045#Neutrality. Your username is quite distinctive, so you can also find your archived Teahouse queries by entering "the retiree" into the "Go find it" box under the contents list on the right of the Teahouse page (and clicking "Go find it"). TSventon (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your message. It is not clear where the article talk box is, so I am responding here. I can confirm that, in compliance with the rules on conflict of interest, I am not in any way employed by any of the organisations whose entries I edit, including Wycliffe Hall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJGKeene (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EJGKeene: Thanks for the confirmation. Pinging @2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: for information. The best place to discuss the article is Talk:Wycliffe Hall, Oxford as anyone who has the article on their watchlist will be notified and the conversation will be available for reference by people who edit the article in future. TSventon (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion which may be relevant to you is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting articles on a topic you have contributed to, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects those pages. Your views and input would be most welcome! Shadowssettle_(talk) 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, yes it was only a "maybe" for the purposes of that conversation. But in all seriousness the Lower Rhine Germanic peoples had Celtic tribal and personal names at the time when Caesar first encountered them. One question is whether we consider those to be the ancestors of the Franks, but generally they are discussed that way. A lot of what has been written about this was not published in English, but for example:

• von Petrikovits, Harald (1999), "Germani Cisrhenani", in Beck, H.; Geuenich, D.; Steuer, H. (eds.), Germanenprobleme in heutiger Sicht, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3110164381 ((citation)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The main point I would make about all this is that actually scholars now admit more clearly that we know very little, and we can eliminate few options. I don't have anything handy, but it is also interesting to read the varying assessments about when high, low and north sea west germanic split up, and how different they were likely to have been in late antiquity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Lancaster, thanks, I was hoping you would give me some interesting background reading and you did. I find seeing how scholars deal with knowing very little one of the most interesting aspects of the study of late antiquity, especially late antique Britain. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Makes it tough on us sometimes. What makes it tougher is that the 19th and 20th century was a period where you could make a career from basically just making up a story that sounded about right. I feel in many scholarly disciplines we are now in a period that everyone is being careful again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TSventon, what you say reminds me that a few scholars, Warren Anderson among them, have now done good work on conjecturing what Song the Syrens sang. Armand d’Angour could have had an All Souls fellowship to work on it but said there was a problem with lack of sources. As someone said at the time, all the more reason to look for more! Moonraker (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moonraker, thanks for recommending Anderson's paper. I think I now have enough sources to write "Private halls of the University of Oxford", but will resist any temptation to write one on "What song the Syrens sang". TSventon (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 12 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St Alban Hall, Oxford, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 13th-century foundation St Alban Hall, Oxford, closed in 1882 and was demolished? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St Alban Hall, Oxford. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, St Alban Hall, Oxford), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

Following on from your comments on the talk pages for Craig House, Edinburgh and Haymarket, Edinburgh, I've updated the as per your instruction if you wouldn't mind having a look over?

It looks like Quartermile, which I was also working on has been updated already.

Thanks

RS Qmile (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RS Qmile: Hi, thanks for your patience with the requested edit system. I am not very knowledgeable about development articles, so I would prefer not to update them. You could try pinging the two editors who replied to you on the Quartermile talk page. TSventon (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not understand your opposition to my speedy renamings. All those categories are about Catholic canon law and not about any other canon law, e.g. the Canon law of the Anglican Communion, which is the main reason why they should be renamed. Veverve (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Veverve, I didn't think that you had explained why C2B would apply, but @Oculi now has, so I have struck my opposes. TSventon (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Association for the Education of Women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi TSventon. You recently made an edit where you removed "Alumni of University of Oxford" and "Alumni of University of Oxford by College| Hertford College", but kept "Alumni of Hertford College, Oxford". What was the reason for that? Dr. Universe (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dr. Universe, I edited Nike Dattani because members of "Alumni of X College, Oxford" don't need to be in "Alumni of University of Oxford" or "Alumni of University of Oxford by College" as well. Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford has messages saying "This category is for alumni of the University of Oxford, grouped by college." and "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford by college just contains college subcategories. I hope that makes sense. TSventon (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New lists, only lower case. Thanks, Uziel302 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Uziel302, I have done a few. Is this maintenance mode yet? TSventon (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TSventon, I haven't run the script for a while, so we got a nice new batch, it should keep running this way until I get to expand the list of suspect words. Uziel302 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uziel302, I am curious how many apparent errors you picked up and how many days there were between this and your last report, as that would give an estimate of how manyb typos are added in a day. I have cleared page 20 and most seem to be genuine typos. One oddity, there were four cases of "splited->splitt" (rather than split) in Old revision of Correct_typos_in_one_click/20. TSventon (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I port the script from C to python and made some changes manually so it doesn't surprise me that there are some changes, I am surprised most of the output is good... The previous list focused on capital letters and that was hard to work on because most of the words were legit names. The previous lowercase list was done by Oct 25. The switch to python allows me to run the script on toolforge without downloading the whole wikipedia dump to my computer, and I hope I will be able to run it every month. Uziel302 (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uziel302, Smaller regular lists are probably ideal, if more work. I did page 20 yesterday and fixed 243 errors (81% of 300) and page 18 today and fixed 177 errors (71% of 250) so it seems lists get stale quite quickly. TSventon (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I and another editor did page 17 today/yesterday and fixed 182 errors (72% of 250). TSventon (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 15 yesterday 170 errors (68% of 250). TSventon (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 14 today/yesterday 170 errors (68% of 250). TSventon (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 13 today/yesterday 156 errors (62% of 250). TSventon (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 8 today 150 errors (60% of 250). TSventon (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 2 today 143 errors (57% of 250). TSventon (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know that you are miscorrecting valid non English words. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir Joseph Please can you let me know the errors you have found. I am careful to leave valid non English words, but of course I can make mistakes. I see that you reverted my change frum → forum: if frum is correct, what does it mean? TSventon (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frum is a Yiddish word meaning religious. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Sir Joseph. I have been using Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click to make corrections, which does give the option to remove valid words from the list of suggested corrections. User:Uziel302 started the tool on Hebrew Wikipedia, so they may be more familiar with Yiddish than I am. TSventon (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing is that frum is probably also a common misspelling of forum. But I guess people can check the context or leave it in and it can get caught another way. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir Joseph, the tool actually suggested frum->from. I would probably replace frum with Orthodox in that sentence as the Vosizneias and Hamodia articles don't mention frum. Also the Matzav.com external link should be removed. TSventon (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cases like this are the reason the words should be checked manually... I know very little Yiddish by the way, but I have the advantage of searching Yiddish, since they use the same letters as Hebrew, frum is indeed religious. Uziel302 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I knew the name Fruma, it even appeared in American movie Fiddler on the Roof, now I see it means religious woman... Uziel302 (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uziel302 I have been keeping track of errors fixed on whole pages and fixed 143 errors on Page 2 yesterday (57% of 250). I was pleased that most of the entries were still valid after three weeks. Hopefully frum was my only error. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi TSventon, this is HelenDegenerate. I noticed that you mentioned me on the talk page for Martyn Percy. Said I reverted a related edit. What did you mean by that? I don’t remember being involved in any discussion of Martyn Percy. HelenDegenerate (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HelenDegenerate, I pinged you because you reverted an edit to Martyn Percy at 20:17, 2 April 2021‎. The edit related to splitting content into a new article, the subject of the talk page discussion. Looking at your edit history you may have been responding to a vandalism alert of some kind, which could explain why you don’t remember the edit. TSventon (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somebody, probably me, left an en dash in one of the conversations we had yesterday on the help desk. Could you please tell me if I should remove it?--Thylacine24 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Thylacine24, you are welcome to remove it. You can work out who added it by looking at the page history. TSventon (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@TSventon: Thanks. Sorry that I didn't think to look at the page history myself. It was me who added the dash. Turns out there was a space, too.--Thylacine24 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TSventon: Also, one of my responses to you in that conversation, specifically the one starting with "I checked and his last edit ...", was one I changed entirely because I hadn't checked how recent the edit was. Sorry not to have used a strikethrough. I feel kind of bad about that; could you please tell me if I should make a note of it on the help desk?--Thylacine24 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thylacine24 there is no need to add a strike through to the conversation at this stage. I am glad you were able to contact the other editor successfully. TSventon (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TSventon: Thanks. Thanks on both fronts. Just for the record, I did originally just write "[t]hanks", and then revise it after reconsideration; this didn't start off as a deliberate attempt to show that I'd improved on that front. I'm sure I'll repeat this mistake later. I haven't improved on that front and that I'll repeat this mistake later. I also forgot to write anything in the edit summary after my first strikethrough in this comment. comment. Sorry about that, and also about forgetting to add any apologies in the previous edits of this message outside of one edit summary. summary. Sorry to forget to have added an apology in the previous edit summary, especially considering what the edit was about. about. Sorry about to forget to end the strikethrough around summary.--Thylacine24 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thylacine24, no problem and you don't need use a ping template on talk pages because the owner automatically gets notified when you post there. TSventon (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for telling me. Sorry about that last strikethrough error, and the fact that I undid an edit on a user talk page that wasn't my own because I forgot to add an edit summary. Also sorry for you to have to fix that reversed edit.--Thylacine24 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mentioned this conversation with you, with your name, on the help desk. Sorry about that.--Thylacine24 (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi TSventon, I just got your message about Martyn Percy. As it turns out, when I looked at my contributions, I actually did revert an edit to the page. The edit got caught in one of the filters I had on (‘may be bad faith’) and I thought it was blanking. Since I don’t normally look at the article talk pages, I had no idea it was part of a discussion. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience. HelenDegenerate (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HelenDegenerate, you correctly indentified an edit as unexplained content removal and quite appropriately reversed it on 2 April. The edit was redone with an edit summary, still on 2 April, and a talk page discussion about it was started on 4 April.

I probably should have checked your edit history before pinging you and realised that your edit was vandalism related rather than because you were interested in the specific article. I think you could have checked the history of the article to see if that was why I messaged you, but that is not a major issue. TSventon (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Villa Pliniana, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bkissin, thank you for your work at AfC. I used AfC on this occasion because I was rescuing another editor's draft, just in case I had missed any problems with the article. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Oriel College, Oxford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it could be changed to Kyiv when there is no reliable English sources. But I followed WP:UCRN, because I found an English language sources that is not transliterated from Ukrainian language. The Supermind (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Supermind, I have no opinion on the name of Kiev Day and Night, but I would endorse the final point of WP:KIEV, which is to follow WP:BRD. TSventon (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Sunshine!
		Hello TSventon! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding ((subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine)) to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding ((User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon)). Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy first day of summer, TSventon!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Continued from Wikipedia:Help desk#Redlink to Heathrow Airport in order to not clutter that page too much)
Honestly, if you're a complete novice WRT browser dev tools, I wouldn't recommend you try doing it this way. It'd probably be faster for you to edit the page, re-type the string in question, and use "View changes" or the diff to find out what changed, then just google those characters if you want to know what they are (or search them here; Wikipedia has redirects for a bunch of them). Also, there are probably better tools for this kind of thing – for instance, I wouldn't be surprised if WP:AWB were able to detect invisible characters and characters from different writing systems sprinkled where they probably don't belong, though I've never used it myself. Also also, it's not a very good idea to paste code a stranger on the internet wrote into your browser console unless you understand what it does or trust the person who wrote it (then again, user scripts pose the same theoretical risk, and everybody still uses them without looking at them, including myself).

All that said, if you do want to do it this hard, overcomplicated, probably slower unless you're used to working with the dev console, way, here's how:

1. Open your browser's developer tools. In most browsers, press Ctrl+⇧ Shift+I (⌘ Command+⌥ Option+I on Mac). If that doesn't work, you can try looking for them in your browser's menu or just google how to do it in your particular browser. If your browser is very out of date (i.e. Internet Explorer), this might not work for you. If your browser's reasonably up to date, it should.
2. Go to the "Console" tab in the dev tools. Disregard the error messages you will almost certainly find there, many websites, including Wikipedia, just spit out a bunch of those while working completely fine.
3. Paste in the following code:

   console.log(``.split("").map(c => `"${c}": U+${c.codePointAt().toString(16).toUpperCase()}`).join("\n"))
   

   I've modified it a bit so the results are more readable and it's less error-prone.
4. Paste the offending text between the first set of backticks (`, right in front of .split). The result should look something like this:

   console.log(`abс`.split("").map(c => `"${c}": U+${c.codePointAt().toString(16).toUpperCase()}`).join("\n"))
   

   If the text contains backticks itself (which is unlikely), you have to escape them by putting a backslash in front of them (except of course the main surrounding ones between which you pasted your text).
5. Press ↵ Enter.
6. You should now see a list of all the characters in your string along with their code points at the bottom of the console, like this:

   "a": U+61
   "b": U+62
   "с": U+441

   Left of the colon, enclosed in double quotes, are the characters, right of the colon are the code points in hexadecimal notation. All of the English Latin letters and all of the normal punctuation will have double-digit code points, while non-Latin characters will always have three or more digits (you'll notice this is the case here – that's because the third letter is a Cyrillic Es). I don't think there's a way to get the names of the characters from JavaScript, unfortunately. From here, just look for the characters with suspiciously high code points and search for the characters or their code points here or on Google (or Bing if you're so inclined, I guess).

If I haven't yet managed to scare you off with my ramblings and how complicated this actually is if you've never done something like it before, happy editing. If I have: I'm considering making a user script that would make it possible to do this in a much more user-friendly way – unless of course somebody smarter than me has already made something of the sort. If I do do that, I'll try to remember to notify you. – Rummskartoffel 22:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rummskartoffel:, thank you for taking time to explain. That works in Chrome, but is probably too complicated for me to use regularly. I was quoting an old helpdesk query about an editor who was doing edits to add Cyrillic vowels to articles, so fortunately the problem has already been solved, I just didn't know how. TSventon (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rummskartoffel:, can you see what happened in this edit? The list of characters in the text which was altered seems to be identical before and after the edit. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ooh, that took me a hot minute to figure out. They are identical – the edit is just moving the ref behind the full stop at the end of the sentence. It's easier to see in the visual diff. Rummskartoffel 13:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, just to say thanks for letting me know about the zero-width space issue. Tacyarg (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tacyarg, my pleasure, I wanted to know in case a similar query comes up in future. There is a more complicated solution in the previous section of this talk page. TSventon (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove content from the page with title "current caliph of islam". That information is totally wrong and misleading. Correctorpk (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a heads up. --- Possibly ☎ 17:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Possibly, are you going to add Prix Versailles 2015, etc. to the deletion nomination? I will ask at WP Architecture if they think the prize is notable. TSventon (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I added them to the list inside the single AfD. Do you think it needs to be made into a multi? I might not have phrased the AFD in the best way. The real question is what to keep and what to delete in the face of the massive promotion. Nice job on tracking these down, by the way! --- Possibly ☎ 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly, it's been an interesting experience, including my first visit to id Wikipedia. I think it should be a multi as it doesn't make sense to delete PV and leave PV 2015, etc. My opinion is we should decide based on notability, which I think is debatable, but I'm no specialist. TSventon (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TSventon:, what does "id Wikipedia" mean-- sockpuppet investigations? Regarding the multi, I have made it so. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 19:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Possibly:, "idwiki" is Indonesian Wikipedia. I will vote on the AfD shortly. By the way, have you encountered cross-Wikipedia UPE before? I am interested to see how 16 Wikipedias and Wikidata clean up. TSventon (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TSventon: Ah id= Indonesia! Regarding cross-wiki promotion, I have come across this kind of thing two or three times. The last one I remember was someone pushing a Russian painter. It's quite common in the arts that individual artists develop massive egos and think they need to get the word out on their work globally. In the culture business self-promotion is also part of the business by nature. Regarding the outcome, the stewards will lock all those accounts shortly, across multiple wikis. The Prix Versailles pages on en and fr look to be headed for deletion, but the discussions are still in progress. Some wikis will take action while others can't be bothered or do not have the staff. This kind of cross-wiki manipulation really bothers many editors, and when the bothered editor is an admin or checkuser, you will see results! Thanks for your great work on this. --- Possibly ☎ 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Possibly:, it is interesting to read more about this household. It is obviously large, long lasting, enthusiastic and multilingual. Perhaps they are all working at home due to the pandemic. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work in identifying a hoax article - may the creators of such things be hit on the head with a "Whimbling Iron" EdwardUK (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks EdwardUK, I found it by accident. Also by accident, I recently found Prix Versailles, which has created more work than the whimbling iron did. TSventon (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thankyou for your recent improvements to Dame Paulet almshouse, much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dumelow, Thank you, I am glad you are broadly happy with my changes. TSventon (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Royal Dental Hospital, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Royal Dental Hospital opened the first dental school in Britain in 1859? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Dental Hospital. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Royal Dental Hospital), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had no idea why my user name was red. :)

Cheezypeaz My pleasure. Btw you need to sign your talk page posts, otherwise Wikipedia doesn't generate notifications. TSventon (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bringing in @Deb: here, as an admin. Welcoming a Wikipedian to the Wikipedia community, even though he had edited continuously since 2015 seems rather odd. On the experienced editor's Talk page, your contribution included 'As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful: Learn more about editing.' The fact that you then started pushing him into discussions on the Welsh Not article at the same time, makes your action very sinister. 4 days later after your welcoming message, the user said: I'm done, my contribution to the discussion has ended, if you resurrect it, please note that it will push me over the edge. Please read WP:HUSH carefully.

Take care please!

As I said, @Hogyncymru: is an experienced editor, who edited the article in question since at least 2020. I have two questions to you: 1. What bought you to this article on the 16th August? 2. Do you know User:DeFacto and User Cheezypeaz in any way? All three of you are working together on the article, and your edits seem to me to be orchestrated, or is it just coincidental that all 3 of you landed on this article in August 2020, and have done more than 55% of the article's edits between you in just a few weeks? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hwyl, Llywelyn2000, I'm sure that Tsventon is just trying to be friendly. I've been working with him/her recently and they seem very constructive in general, also being relatively new. Not so sure about Cheezypeaz. Deb (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Deb:. Helo Llywelyn2000, I think you should WP:AGF until you have heard my side of the story.

• I came to Welsh Not on 14 August and made two minor posts after seeing the AN thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335#User Cheezypeaz is vandalising the page; 'Welsh Not'.
• I don’t know User:DeFacto and User:Cheezypeaz in any way so I don’t know how they got involved.
• I posted a Welcome message on Hogyncymru’s talk page on 15 August for the reasons I explained there. With around a thousand edits at the time they seemed fairly new to me. I was using the page for communication not harassment.
• I would be happy to discuss any of my edits on the article talk page. From the edit summaries, I think most of my edits to the article should be uncontroversial.

I hope that relieves your concerns. I don’t think I have done anything wrong, but obviously I regret that Hogyncymru found the discussion on Welsh Not "mentally draining". TSventon (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It certainly does, and thanks for your explanation. And thanks Deb. Now let's hope Hogyncymru sees this in the same light, rather than part of something much bigger. Thank you. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My remarks are also relevant to Treachery of the Blue Books, which has been edited by the same three new editors over the last month. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Llywelyn2000, "Welsh Not" and "Treachery of the Blue Books" are closely related subjects, so I don't find it odd that the same editors would edit both in the same period of time. TSventon (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Llywelyn2000,Deb,TSventon Hi, wow interesting conversation. First things first. I came over here to ask TSventon if they would be offended if I compressed the table they added to Treachery of the Blue Books (I assume the detail here is to provide an audit trail, but I don't think that's necessary and it's reducing the readability). Also the description states the data in the table so that's a duplication that can be removed.

So just to clear up any other points...

• I don't know anyone on here.
• I came to the Welsh Not page because someone referenced it on another platform and I saw how awful it was.
• Checking the history of that page I saw how the history had slowly morphed and X became Y.
• I did some reading, tried to edit the page but my edits were reverted.
• I got into an edit war detailed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cheezypeaz#August_2021_2
• Later a dispute (nothing to do with me, although I did express a preference as to naming after it had become a dispute) spilled over from Treachery of the Blue Books to Welsh Not.
• Then I realised that the reading I had been doing for Welsh Not was more applicable to Treachery of the Blue Books.
• I am absolutely committed to historical accuracy. Events that actually happened (given their due level of certainty), the relevant context and importance.
• I'm happy to answer any reasonable questions & please do feel free to challenge my edits. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheezypeaz, I have responded to your question to me on the "Treachery of the Blue Books" talk page. BTW you don't need to add ((u|Example)) on a user's talk page because Example gets an alert when someone else posts on their talk page. TSventon (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Mr Sventon. I notice that the user DGR16 hasn't edited since I blocked them from Martyn Percy... so, an SPA indeed. I've blocked the IP for a couple of weeks for obvious block evasion. Bishonen | tålk 13:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Bishonen, thank you, we will see what happens next. DGR16 seems to have been fully focused on Martyn Percy since they created the article in 2008, but they did use their talk page a few years ago. Possibly some of the additions are useful, but that doesn't justify edit warring. The IP looks like a shared university one. TSventon (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Bishonen: and TSventon, I noticed another user Kr0s2005 has appeared and re-added similar edits as DGR16 , L30KJQWQeHZR and the IP 129.67.123.22 I traced this IP further and it originates at Christ Church Oxford specifically. I reverted the changes. It seems the Martyn Percy page is subject to edit warring and this is another block evasion. Odd that the IP is Christ Church though... could it possibly be Percy himself editing, given the unsourced nature and apparent COI? apologies for any errors, I'm new to editing! SbOd-5597 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, SbOd-5597. I have blocked Kr0s2005 as a promotion-only account and a highly likely block-evading sockpuppet. Probably I'd better semi the article as well, since socks are so easy to create. Bishonen | tålk 16:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Bit of a grey area, that. Cy doesn't have nearly as many written policies (or guidelines) as en, but neither do we have any divergent policies as far as I recall. It's a very different place because it has so few editors and so little activity by comparison. In that I don't think it is very different from other minority language Wikipedias. I can't recall us ever having a problem with socks because as a rule there are very few arguments; discussions rarely get heated. Vandals are nearly always non-Welsh speakers and there's a zero tolerance policy towards those. So basically there is no advantage for anyone in socking, or none that I can see. If I saw evidence of anyone doing it, I would immediately discourage them, even in the absence of a written policy, but I've never seen anything to suggest that anyone was. Deb (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deb, thank you for an interesting explanation. I expected that the policy would either be unnecessary or covered in a more general policy. Are there accepted Welsh terms for sockpuppet and sockpuppetry? My previous visit to the SPI page involved sixteen languages and Google translate did not always produce consistent, let alone correct, results. TSventon (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2021

I don't know of a term. I think part of the problem here is that the concept hasn't really been recognised (let alone "meatpuppet"). "Sockpuppet" is really a US term anyway, and one I've never heard outside Wikipedia; in the UK we'd say "glove puppet". So maybe the literal translation of that - "pyped maneg" - would work. Deb (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deb, thanks again, presumably sockpuppetry is a major issue on en Wikipedia because it is a high profile website with deliberately low barriers to editorship. I would say that "glove puppet" is more common in UK English for the device, but "sockpuppet" for the online phenomenon. I would expect Welsh language policy wonks to invent words for technical terms, but perhaps sockpuppet (and wonk) are just too obscure. TSventon (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's a wonk? :-) Deb (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deb, are you open about your real world identity as an author? You are welcome to revert this is you are not. TSventon (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I always used to be, but I dropped all that stuff from my User page when Wikipedia became more sensitive about COI and user privacy. The information is still there in very old versions. Having said that, of course I have no way of proving who I am. Nor have any of us here. Deb (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deb, thank you, I can see why you gave up the vandalism section. TSventon (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, someone else did that on my behalf. But I expect I would have given it up eventually! Deb (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you so much. Kalyan1010 (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] FYI, incase you haven't seen it already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Monmouth Coffee Company 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mindmatrix 20:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mindmatrix, thank you, I have responded there. TSventon (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TSventon,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monmouth Coffee Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Monmouth Coffee Company in Covent Garden was one of the foundations for the third wave of coffee in London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monmouth Coffee Company. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Monmouth Coffee Company), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi TSventon. What I did was get Google to translate the document, and then copypasted the results into my sandbox. Then, take the sandbox's url and plug that into Earwig's tool as the source document. While I use my own sandbox and perform revision deletion after reverting back to a blank page, Moneytrees has a special sandbox for editors/patrollers to use for this purpose. It's located at User:Moneytrees/dummy. You can also use the same technique for English-language webpages that Earwig's tool can't access, or segments of a long pdf that's too big for Earwig to handle. — Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diannaa, thank you. Should NPPers be doing this as the page was marked as patrolled yesterday and reference 1 seemed the obvious one to check? TSventon (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many new page patrollers don't check for copyvio at all. I see you've asked Moneytrees; that's a good idea.15:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)— Diannaa (talk)

Diannaa a related problem is that the Lithuanian sources I checked take a strongly pro-Lithuanian point of view of the politics of the interwar Klaipeda Region and that POV was then copied into the Wikipedia article. Do you know what the policies or processes for handling historical issues like this are? Or could I ask someone/where else? TSventon (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know much about handling NPOV issues. There's info at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and a noticeboard at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard that might help— Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diannaa thank you, I wanted to know if there was anything obvious I had missed before entering a discussion, which I now have started. TSventon (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Norco College vertical logo.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 17:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article seems to me so biassed that it ought not to have been featured on the main page. The worst thing about it is the fake comparison with Nuremberg; but the main problem is that it massages the presentation of most facts to favour Lithuania. Moonraker (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moonraker, this was my first controversial article review, how would you have dealt with it as a reviewer? I think the pro-Lithuanian presentation is mostly inherited from the sources, as the first version included large chunks of translated copyright text, which had to be rewritten. TSventon (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 27 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Palucca University of Dance Dresden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gret Palucca had to close her dance school in Dresden, Germany, in 1939 because of her Jewish descent, but reopened it in 1945? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palucca University of Dance Dresden. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Palucca University of Dance Dresden), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Sir, the archives from St Anne's College, Oxford outline that at 77 Banbury Road (which housed Wychwood School in 1900-1902) there lived Miss Gertrude Middleton - an Oxford Home Students member from 1900-1902. The headmistress/owner of Wychwood School - Miss Lee - lived at Wychwood at this time and tutored Oxford Home Students a few years after this time (i.e after 1902). Hope this helps Srbernadette (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Srbernadette (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your help on the Subneolithic article, much appreciated :)) OK872 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi OK872, it's an interesting article, so I am happy to help. I don't have time to review it myself, but that should happen within a month or so, based on the current list of unapproved DYKs. I would advise checking Wikipedia every few days until it is reviewed as the eventual reviewer is likely to ask some questions. Do you have a watchlist (see Help:Watchlist) as that can help you see changes to pages you are interested in. For example there is a response at Wikipedia:Peer review/Subneolithic/archive1. Also, should Neolithic#Europe and Neolithic Europe mention Subneolithic? TSventon (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, just checked it out! I had a brief look at the articles but because some Subneolithic cultures coexisted with the Neolithic I’m not sure that it would feed in well anywhere, in a linear/timeline sense. I’ll have a closure look though and see if it can be integrated seamlessly at some point in the articles :) OK872 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Lucjan Pajdzik made calculations for the most accurate sundial in the world - he writes it in sources - Polish newspapers. People from all over Europe come to this sundial. Lucjan Pajdzik is a very modest man who graduated with honors from all his studies and was the first in the world to receive the European Mineralological Union - EMU Poster Prizes (2007). It is also described in 2 printed Britishpedia in the entry Dominiak Henryk Jan, which can be read in reputable libraries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzysiek2224 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Krzysiek2224, Generally Wikipedia expects that the subject of an article should have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There is more detail in the policy Wikipedia:Notability (people), which is linked in the notice at the top of Lucjan Pajdzik's article. I have done an internet search and can't see in depth coverage in secondary sources, but I don't know much about Polish media. TSventon (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi. I am Polish. I read a lot and I'm glad that there is a man like Lucjan Pajdzik, who graduated from Oxford with honors and works in England as a scientist and has awards there, which I presented in the article and indicated links to them in England and Poland. He is an outstanding young man - only very modest. I, too, could not find any descriptions about Lucian Pajdzik in this template, but there are a lot of links on the Internet and I have included a lot of links. You can help me to construct this biography technically, because I do not have the same experience as you and I write poorly in English. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Krzysiek2224, Lucjan Pajdzik sounds like an interesting man, but I don't believe that he qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I have just started a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucjan Pajdzik. If you know of significant coverage of him in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, please mention it there. TSventon (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks so much for all your work on Pipaluk Freuchen's page! It is very much appreciated! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lajmmoore, thank you, finding more sources was an interesting challenge. TSventon (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July songs

Thank you for expanding the Romantik-Museum! - I heard a great concert by Voces8, pictured. - I have a FAC open, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerda Arendt Thank you. I have just started User:TSventon/sandbox/Freies Deutsches Hochstift, which now needs some references. I had a look at your FAC, I hope it is going well, which, to my inexpert eye, it seems to be. TSventon (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you, good to know,- I'm busy but will watch the Hochstift. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

more July songs, from Swiss Alps, where was "busy" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerda Arendt I hope you are happy with 2,659 views yesterday, it seems a good result to me for 12 hours in late July. TSventon (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel the same! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 28 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Deutsches Romantik-Museum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Deutsches Romantik-Museum in Frankfurt, the only museum dedicated to the entire era of German Romanticism, looks like three houses and features blue elements? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deutsches Romantik-Museum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Deutsches Romantik-Museum), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Freies Deutsches Hochstift, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Freies Deutsches Hochstift association acquired Goethe's birthplace in Frankfurt am Main in 1863, but did not fully restore it until 1926? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Freies Deutsches Hochstift. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Freies Deutsches Hochstift), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

August songs

Thank you! Now together on Portal:Germany DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at the church where I heard VOCES8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I proposed a few updates on the talk page for Jim Johnsen, Talk:Jim_Johnsen#Proposals For James Johnsen Article, the former president of University of Alaska, addressing balance and neutral point of view issues, as well as poorly sourced edits made by a singular editor. Are you able to take a look at the proposals? I have a personal connection to Dr. Johnsen and I don’t want to violate Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies. Thank you!92ranger (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In [2], you changed stoicheometry to stoicheiometry, but isn't the spelling stoichiometry? I can't find a ref that uses the "e" form anywhere. Same applies to a handful of other edits you made at about the same time (buggy tool, or bad tool data?). DMacks (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DMacks thank you, I will look into this shortly, at the moment I think it was bad tool data. TSventon (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DMacks, I was going through possible typos at Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click/20&oldid=1111321383. I don't know anything about stoichiometry, but the corrections suggested looked reasonable.

Neodymium phosphide stoichimetric->stoichiometric, which is OK

Cinnamycin stoicheometry->stoicheiometry, which appears to be wrong as the source refers to stoichiometry ^[1]

Nitronium perchlorate stoicheometrically->stoicheiometrically, which I can't check as the source is a dead link

An internet search suggests that stoicheiometry is an alternative spelling of stoichiometry, but I don't know why the tool would prefer stoicheiometry but stoichiometric. I have changed the two spellings with ei as i seems to be more usual. TSventon (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On reflection, I think the tool probably stores both stoicheiometry and stoichiometry and chooses whichever is closer to the existing spelling of the word in the article. TSventon (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the detailed analysis and fixes! DMacks (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, just dropping by to give my thanks for your reply in Wikipedia Helpdesk. It makes perfect sense now. I too had some doubts like those statements being a "blurb" but couldn't find any policy to support that. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 13:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejoy2003, generally when evaluating a source you should think about the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, i.e. is it a reliable, published source and does it give a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In the case of the text on Google books, I didn't think it was a reliable source for the subject being a "popular panelist". Guidance on blurbs is probably mostly on talk pages rather than in formal policy, for example I found an older Helpdesk discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 July 5#book blurb as reference?. TSventon (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ye the reliability of reliable sources do play an important role here but not that I wasn't aware of it. I wasn't much sure about the blurbs since I never faced such a thing before. But it's good that I have it all settled now. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 18:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bruxton, thank you, happy new year to you too. TSventon (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the edit - was the ping simply meant to clue me in (as you were kindly fixing up something I'd missed?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, yes, one of the numerous DYK rules (WP:DYKHOOK) says that the subject should be wikilinked and bolded, so I fixed the issue and pinged you to let you know. And then another editor fixed something else, which I had missed. TSventon (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see - thought that might be the thinking! Thanks. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TSventon Since the source cited is not online, I can't read it. I would be very interested to know, if you can tell me, who exactly it was that tried and fined the King? Even today, the King cannot be tried in his own courts, so who had that power in 1290? Textorus (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Textorus, the source is online at Google books, but access may vary by country. I had to search for "edward i" in the book. The book has a couple of sentences on the incident and says "At the wedding festivities of his daughter Margaret to John of Brabant in July 1290, Edward I struck a squire called Jean de Blaundyn on the head with a rod" and that Edward fined himself. The article recently went through the Did You Know process so I expected it to be fully referenced. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TSventon, the source cited is now hyperlinked to the text, which I did not think it was the other day. I have now read the account that begins on page 25 and continues onto page 26, which, sadly, is not displayed. But I have rewritten the offending sentence to conform to what is readable in the source. I think you will surely agree that there is a great difference, in grammar and in law, between "the King was fined" and "the King fined himself."

BTW, I used to submit articles to the Do You Know process. It ensures only that one other person has glanced over the submitted article, but is by no means a quality control process - there is no fine-toothed comb applied to every jot and tittle of an article. Textorus (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Textorus, I agree that your version is clearer. To explain my comment about DYK, the article was newly written by an editor I believe to be trustworthy and then submitted to DYK, so I expected it to be fully referenced when submitted. DYK reviewers may or may not apply a fine-toothed comb to the article. TSventon (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You for Your help. J.D.K. (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Diligent communicator
	I so appreciate that you hung in with me to sort out the Vermeer paintings for the Maria de Knuijt article. It's come so far! P.S. I will wait to move the table over to the article until you've had a chance to check it out and make any changes you see fit. –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CaroleHenson, I had not got around to saying that I saw the article because I watch out for interesting DYK articles, including Dutch subjects. Thank you for your kind words and especially for doing a lot of extra work on the article in response to my comments. TSventon (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following DYK articles sounds like a fun thing to do! Once I got out of my own way (sorry, I wasn't on my best behavior this week) I really enjoyed it. I like solving puzzles. I am so glad that it is more accurate now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to: Talk:Rowe Street Baptist Church
My digression now removed. TSventon (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the revert and links! I saw the red link, saw that I had "Minnesota" in the sources, and assumed the red link must have been wrong. Not my finest hour.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jerome Frank Disciple, thank you for your patience in working towards NPOV in the article. I watchlisted it when it appeared on ANI, but am steering clear of the controversy. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there @TSventon,

My section on the Help Desk was archived so I figured I would ask here. I'm not sure if you can help me with this, but does starting/publishing a translation of an already existing Wikipedia page create a duplicate one if there's already an existing article? For example, the article Egor Kreed exists here, but there's a lot more content over on the Russian Wikipedia. I was planning to work on it with the Content Translation tool, but did not do anything because I feared it would make a duplicate and it would get deleted. Do you know, by any chance, a workaround to this other than having separate browser tabs open side by side? Or could the Content Translation tool help me with this? I read the Translation page you posted in response to my question, but now I'm kinda stuck.

If not you, do you know of another user that can provide better guidance? I was going to post another question on the Help Desk but I figured to reach out to you first with this. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Losipov (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Losipov, I am not an expert on the tool, but looking at Wikipedia talk:Content translation tool, Xaosflux seems to be helpful and knowledgable. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Losipov my best suggestion in such a case is to change the title of the page you are translating to a sandbox, for example User:Losipov/Egor Kreed; then go about your translation. Once you are done you can request to move the page over the existing article, completing replacing it. This may be contentious on a page like that (8 years old, 270 revisions). Another option is to do that, but only incorporate some of the translated information, merging it in. At that point, you would copy/paste in the sections, and note in your edit summary and on the article talk page that it contains some translations from (link to original source article on other project). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xaosflux I have additional questions about translation so I'll ask them on specifically on your talkpage. For now, thanks to you and @TSventon for your help, for what it's worth. Losipov (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notre Dame College of Education (Glasgow), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Metcalf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newcastle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we try to get her to GA? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Berit Lindholm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Berit Lindholm for comments about the article, and Talk:Berit Lindholm/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. --MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

European culture

Thank you for your share to quality articles such as Berit Lindholm, Deutsches Romantik-Museum, Palucca University of Dance Dresden and Echte Wagner Margarine, for service to DYK, for diligent improvements of articles with good edit summaries, for de-orphaning, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipienßt no. 2873 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt, as your examples show I stick fairly closely to topics that interest me. By the way, does the precious page need to be split, it seems not to show the last few names. TSventon (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last month is on top, - is that what you mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I wasn't looking at the top. TSventon (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can just click on your number, or search for a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt, I have today achieved the status of Passiver Sichter. Thank you for your help in reviewing pending changes for me previously. TSventon (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 30 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Berit Lindholm, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that dramatic soprano Berit Lindholm (pictured) was said to have been called "that damn primary school teacher" by the director of the Royal Swedish Opera, and used it in the title of her memoir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Berit Lindholm. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Berit Lindholm), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is in recognition of your research diligence, your kindness in explaining things, and your collaborative editing spirit with State Children's Aid Association in particular, but elsewhere on Wikipedia in general. You are noticed and your work is appreciated. Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosiestep thank you. TSventon (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good, I say! (Thank you.) jengod (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your with the National Trust 2022 pilot. Based on that work, the National Trust is supporting a second pilot, and some information is here WP:GLAM/National Trust. All the best Lajmmoore (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		Thank you, TSventon, for encouraging interest in machine translation and developments related to Women in Red. Your informative contributions contribute to improving user participation and satisfaction. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep mistyping your username. I just came to let you know that I replied to your comment at the talk page for WP:WIR. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Scorpions1325, I recommend copying and pasting usernames, if your device can do that. My username was inspired by Ture Sventon. TSventon (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for looking over and responding to questions/posts on WT:WIR! Feedback is so invaluable, and good feedback can be hard to get. It is much appreciated Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

|		...thinking it'll be fun this year!

Merry Christmas, TSventon! Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

RV (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello TSventon: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 6 § Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I haven't spent much time on WP lately, but I will have a look. ShockedSkater (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ShockedSkater, good luck. Note to self Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 January 11#Referencing errors on Peter Schreiner (Byzantinist). TSventon (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]