User talk:PBS/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PBS. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

RE: Waterloo Campaign: Waterloo to Paris (18–24 June). I fixed the Cambrai misspelling and noticed the old-fashioned language. It was my impression that copying word-for-word from a cited source was not supposed to be done, unless there were quotes around it. I was aware that Siborne's work was in the public domain, so I used a copypaste tag (not a copyvio). I looked up the pages you suggested. It appears that I was in error and you were right to revert the copypaste tag. I hope there are no hard feelings. Djmaschek (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Grote may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Grote's life has attracted a wide variety of biographical comment due to his strong views.{{efn|Charles Darwin remembered that he was pleased by the simplicity and absence of all pretension (Grote's ''manners'' cited in {{citation |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |year=1958 |title=
• * 1872 – ''Aristotle'' (ed. by [[Alexander Bain]] and [[George Croom Robertson]])<ref>Aristotle'' (ed. by [[Alexander Bain]] and [[George Croom Robertson]], volumes [https://archive.org/stream/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi PBS, Asking you because the admin concerned is retired. I wonder if you might be able to help me. For quite a time now I have noticed other editors ignoring my emails. I have just now proved that my email is not functioning though I do receive continuous messages about changes to articles etc. All the right things are ticked in my preferences.
I have noticed that email can be blocked.
Please would you check to see that my email is not blocked. I very much hope this is for you the work of seconds. It is not urgently needed. With best regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This may be of interest, since you were involved in previous discussions these guideline and micro-consensuses erecting walls (e.g. 10 editors the other year): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theophrastus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Cquote|''With regard to the view that all things are for the sake of an end and nothing is in vain,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romanos IV Diogenes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronographia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wilfred Grenfell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• sir-wilfred-grenfell |title=Sir Wilfred Grenfell |work=[The Canadian Medical Hall of Fame]]}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi PBS - I do not know all of the technical issues involved, but some users are running into some difficulties with the template for EB1911. Here is some of the discussion we have had at the Help Desk Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_is_wrong_with_the_EB1911_template.3F.

Our problem is that template notices that had previously had blue links, or at least the title of the relevant article, now has a non-working red link for the particular article. Could you help us try to fix this?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sussex County Council. Since you had some involvement with the Sussex County Council redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've spent the day working on the EB1911 template and the wikisource version. I actually began by copy and pasteing text from the searchlight version

https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/bri/

under the impression that I would easily be able to link them to the appropriate templates (other John Schonfeld, a random article that I remembered had this problem with the template and the (accent)Eduard Lartet article, all the articles I worked on were in the X-Z field). As fate would have it, it turned out that the only articles that had template links were ones that were not listed on searchlight under Z.

https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/bri/browse.cgi?l=z

Which led me to one of the problems with that site - sometimes the articles are placed under the first letter of the given name ie, Aaron Burr is put under A rather than B. (This seems to be particularly true of Hispanic and German names.) Also articles for letters like Z apparently are not available and the entire section of articles starting with X is not available from the contents page (I had to use the search function).

All the articles that had a parallel with an EB1911 article X-Z have been linked up. In the majority of cases I had to create the article on wikisource using searchlight. In one instance it was another language confusion Xàtiva needed to be linked to

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/J%C3%A1tiva

which already existed. Another Zerhoun does have a listed EB1911 article under the name Zarhón and yet, I cannot find it on searchlight. These and the other remaining articles needed a template link illustrate the problems we have been having - there is no article in EB1911 for Zona Austral of "Southern Zone", it could be under the EB1911 article Chile, but I do not want to link it without being sure that that was were the text was from; the same with Karl Eduard Zachariae von Lingenthal and Alexander Ypsilantis, there are EB1911 for the formers father and the latters family, but I'm not sure if I should link to those pages. Also cannot find Zhetysu despite searching the dozen or so variant spellings; nada for Johann Zahn, Caroline Yale and Zapotec peoples.

For the new wikisource articles I have created, I only transferred over the text and the bare metadata predecessor, successor and wikipedia article. They probably need to be proofread and given whatever treatment the wikisource team usually gives to its articles. Also, I've been working on an EB1911 project with John Mark Ockerbloom on the Online books Page, this is our preliminary draft

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/metabook?id=britannica11

Hope this helps.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Current state of the YXZ articles that have EB1911 template and need links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_a_citation_from_the_1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica_with_no_article_parameter?from=Xa

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that it is you is flouting the rules by warring. Cassianto^Talk 08:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constantine X Doukas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronographia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to support the creation of and/join the proposed Wikiproject for Encyclopedias and/or Reference Works?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lady Hester Stanhope may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• A romantic disappointment is said to have prompted her decision to go to a long sea voyage. (Her niece suspected she and [[John Moore (British Army officer)|Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore]]
• Paule Henry-Bordeaux - The Circe of the Deserts London (1925(

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imperial crown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Seal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi PBS, Where can I find the templates for "Cite SEP" and "Cite IEP"? Thanks, BlueMist (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite_IEP has the list of parameters I was looking for. Thank you for your help! BlueMist (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laverna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aventine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Having read over your rationale, I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is a naming convention for article titles; it has nothing to do with the way in which the first mention of the subject's name in the article's main body is done.

It is axiomatic that baronets' articles should have Sir in their article title whereas mere knights' articles' titles do not. However, I did not rename articles, but bolded the "Sir" in the first mention of their names in the body of the articles. As I have pointed out, the practice of bolding "Sir" at the first mention is endorsed by Wikipedia:MOSBIO. It is also the practice adhered to in the overwhelming majority of articles I have edited so far (~600 edits out of ~12,000 articles, which means that 95% of articles follow the practice), which is as strong a consensus as can be obtained on Wikipedia. Hence, I cannot accept your proposition that I should refrain from those edits, as you have cited a policy which does not actually touch on the issue at hand, whereas the Manual of Style, as well as consistent editing practice, endorse the bolding of the prefix in the body of the article.

I think the case is clear-cut enough. I will hold off from resuming the edits until tomorrow in order to allow you to look at the issue again. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Atchom (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have initiated a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) and posted notices at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. I look forward to reading your input. Atchom (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lines of Torres Vedras, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British 6th Division, British 1st Division and Arruda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	3rd Grade! You wonderful! That is awesome! Bollins Cerrname (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For showing great patience with a user and getting called a troll for it I award you the admin's barnstar. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 19:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

For these. That's much improved. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Citation attribution, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 06:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Anna of Bavaria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie poster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ligny, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Louvain, Tilly and Mont-Saint-Jean. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, how are you PBS? I wonder if you still remember the case concerning user EEng at WP:MOSLINK in July 2015?[1] As a quick refresher, you reminded him of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions on 14 July 2015,[2] where he responded: "What a load of officious bullshit: PBS, your analysis is a triumph of superficial formalism over substance."[3] Well, he's on the loose again at recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed revision: links within quotes and Wikipedia talk:Version 2 (currently waiting for SM to edit in his suggested changes), a section just below the former. Here's what happened:

1. He refactored the original proposal made by the OP instead of making a new proposal.[4][5] This distorts the meaning of the comments left after the original proposal was made, and makes it hard to follow the course of discussion. As it's put by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I reverted back to the original version, but he restored the refactored material again.[6]
2. He deleted my Talk Page comment, stating in his Edit Summary: "You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object." So there is a WP:MOS -level discussion, and he just deletes my comment? Even WP:TALKNO says clearly, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

He has already been notified about the discretionary sanctions, but it seems his behaviour is just getting more aggressive. I hope you have time to take a look in this. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

PBS: This is completely ridiculous. A half-dozen editors, including myself, Mitch Ames, Tony1, SMcCandlish, Nardog, Mclay1, and others had a discussion during which (a) new guideline text was proposed; (b) the text was discussed; and (c) in some cases, as part of that discussion, modifications were made to the proposed guideline text in situ (by that I mean changes were made in the proposed text on the talk page -- not in the live guideline). Several of the participants made such modifications, and others acknowledged and approved; no one objected, nor is there any reason to think they would object.

Suddenly J-G, who had not participated in the discussion other than to say it shouldn't be going on [7], removed others' edits to the proposed guideline [8], then added his own comments [9]. I reverted [10], explaining

Everyone participating so far is happy to develop the proposed text by editing in place. You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object. Add your comments, //referring to V2 as it now stands//, at the bottom, and we can start V3

Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore the edits by other editors that J-G removed without also removing his comments; as my edit summary explained, he was welcome of course to add his comments back, in the appropriate place and without removing others' work. He did nothing, and discussion continued.

Today, ten days later, J-G -- still having not participated at all other than the above -- again tried to impose his personal ideas about how the discussion should have proceeded [11], removing others' intervening comments and changes to the proposed text. I again reverted [12], explaining

the proposal was changed/in situ/by discussants w/their active participation.That may not be usual,but it's the way we chose to do it--not your place to come later&say discussion should have proceeded some other way.Add your comments at bottom if you wish

And so, after some forum-shopping by J-G, and an uninformed "Last Warning" threat by you on my talk page [13] here we are.

So it's J-G who's twice removed others' edits, and I, quite properly, reverted both times. Both times he could and should have simply readded his own comments without removing others' work, but he didn't do that, preferring just to try to force the discussion back to the last point which he, personally, considers valid. Note that many of the editors participating in the discussion which J-G has taken it upon himself to refactor are highly experienced, and one (SMcCandlish) is an admin, so J-G's idea that the discussion was some kind of grotesque mutant that needed surgery by him is unsupportable.

I suggest, if you don't want to take the time to understand what's really going on, that you butt out and let J-G can take his complaint to SMcCandlish, who is familiar with the situation and in a good position to tell him what's what. EEng 21:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm buried under real work lately, and all the MoS-related drama over the last month has been too tedious, so I'm taking a break from it. I would suggest that J-S re-insert his own comments (in original or modified form), without altering those of others. Whether the refactoring of the original proposal was a good idea or not, it's too late to revert it since many of us have been commenting on it as it is. It has seen various versions, which have moved well past what the original OP or EEng's changes to it were. If J-S wants to propose another version (I'm guessing one based on the OP's idea), no one's going to object. These two editors now and then get into squabbles like this (I've mediated between them before, also over MoS hair-splitting), but I think it's just a personality conflict; I don't think either of them is genuinely disruptive other than to each other's moods. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste your breath, SM. PBS is one of those admins who feels the important part of the job is issuing threats. He has more important things to do than figure out what is or was actually going on. 06:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)EEng

Sorry for my late reply, I've been rather buried in work lately. EEng, I contacted PBS since he is already familiar with your case concerning the WP:MOS -pages, having issued you with Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions in July 2015.[14] I can assure you, no other administrators have been contacted regarding the issue at hand.

A quick recap: What we are dealing with here, is that EEng removed my Talk Page comments — not only once[15] — but for now already twice.[16] Deleting other users comments per reasons, such as "You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object" or "Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore [...] his comments", is not acceptable.[17] Regarding the latter, of course there is a way to preserve other editors comments by simply copy-pasting the very paragraph, isn't there? User EEng is an experienced editor, and he knows that for sure. Instead, he's kept removing my Talk Page statements, and he even has even given rationale for doing so. That's a clear violation of WP:TALKNO.

If one takes a closer look at my edit,[18] I didn't refactor anybody's comments, but simply moved the most recent version of the discussion to a new sub-thread, "Version 3", while remaining the older proposal as it was first suggested, leaving it intact. It is crucial to leave the preceding comments / proposals as they were after they've already been replied to, since it makes it impossible for new Talk Page participants to follow up the discussion, and it might make the earlier comments look nonsensical as the original post were the comments were referring to have been altered.

Anyway, I am not going to restore the original proposals or comments, but I will leave an updated reply to the Talk Page, including both the original points that I made, as well as my opinions considering the later occurrences. After all, we are going through a major addition to WP:MOS — which has been openly reported by some users to be the first step to alter the MOS:LINK itself — and it's just no okay to remove other editors' comments in order to push one's own views. Indeed, my comments have been missing from the conversation ever since September 12th, and it's October 1st already (well, 4 hours missing still).

I'd like to suggest all participants to take a breath and continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Version3 (now the discussion seems to be scattered at User talk:EEng#Last Warning on Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions and my Talk Page) Some of the most recent proposals actually look quite good, and I'm willing to continue the discussion there. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, since it starts by repeating the same old nonsense. I do note that at the end you "suggest all participants take a breath and continue the discussion", but the discussion has been continuing for some time now, and will continue whether or not you are "willing" -- that's your business. The "scattered" discussion you refer to is simply the debris of your forum-shopping your nonsense procedural complaints to drive-by admin PBS [19].

It's worth pointing out that one of PBS' fellow admins has criticized, in the harshest terms, PBS' behavior in this matter (and, by implication, yours). [20] Please, quit prolonging both your own embarrassment and PBS'. EEng 20:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the discussion has been going on for 29 days now, and I've replied already twice: 1) first one week after the beginning of the discussion, and 2) then seventeen days after the beginning of the discussion. Both times you deleted my comments within 2 hours, by explanations such as "You've made no substantive comments so there's no reason for you to object." That's an obvious breach of WP:TALKNO.

If five small paragraphs mean to you: "Too long, didn't read" (WP:IDHT), then "I'll rest my case, your honor" ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your comments because, in the same edit in which you made them, you deleted and refactored others' comments. One notices PBS has stopped defending you. Get a clue. EEng 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I listed you as involved party, so I invite you to discussion about In ictu oculi at ArbCom. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This request for arbitration has been declined by the Committee (and withdrawn by the filer). For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Karl Christian Erdmann von Le Coq article. I just ran across it and added its link in the Battle of Courtrai (1814), Results section. Djmaschek (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a concern about user:Aldebaran69. Since November 2014 other editors have posted concerns on Aldebaran69's talk page, which were summarily deleted.

• @Eric: has posted 8 times concerning Aldebaran not using edit summaries. 8 October 2016
• I have posted 3 times concerning Aldebaran adding unsourced/poorly sourced information, out-of-context information, unreliable sources.
• You have posted 3 times concerning Aldebaran using unreliable sources. Aldebaran simply deleted your comment.
  

Here is an example of one of the articles that Aldebaran created:

• Sophie Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Wiesenburg, note the sources.

What would you suggest? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I will add that I find Aldebaran69 to be an example of a large class of editors on en.wp who do whatever they feel like here, are uncommunicative, often have challenges with English fluency, and thereby generate a lot of work for others. Eric ^talk 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ligny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onoz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw your changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica; I agree it's overdue to be modernized, in case new interested users show up (such as the fairly new user Dicewitch). One change stood out: the recommendation to use <ref>Chisholm 1911, p. 914.<ref>. I thought we were pretty much standardized on {{sfn|Chisholm (or actual author)|1911|p=914}} which has several advantages. Did you intend the naked form?

Also, I now dislike Attribution as superfluous and too eye-catching, but I recognize that's a reversal from what I thought a couple of years ago. David Brooks (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to fix problems, fine.
Otherwise, leave said problems for Derek to fix.
Derek is not an arsehole, and he does not editorialise.
Hugs and kisses, 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Canadian ip address 207.35.33.162, I have no idea what you are talking about. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't either, but I don't have to in order to believe that the advice to "lost the condescension" is likely justified. EEng 22:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Muppet, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Muppet and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Muppet during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CamelCase (Talk | Contribs) 04:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I added the information from the Portuguese and English wikipedia artices of King John V of Portugal (father of the Children of Palhavã). Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aldebaran69: You should leave the post on your on talk page and answer it there. Eric ^talk 01:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

All the complains are prior to the last talk topic where I was mentioned; since them I avoided to uses genealogical sites to any article...if was imperative to delete all the references with genealogical sites, please be free to do it. Thanks for your concern. Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PBS, your patience is commendable. If nothing else, we're gaining new insights on the English language from this "native speaker". Eric ^talk 02:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi PBS.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI, this is being substituted because of a template merge that had gained consensus at a TfD discussion. {{ill}} will be redirected to {{illm}} in the near future, so all transclusions of {{ill}} need to be altered to prevent them from becoming non-functional. This is standard procedure for handling merges. If you have any questions, let me know. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see that you ignored this message and continued reverting, despite the clear community consensus at this TfD. At some point, reverting edits made as a result of community consensus becomes disruptive, and I will have to take administrative action. This would be especially true if you were to edit through full protection, which is now placed on both Template:Ill and Template:Interlanguage link. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you disagree with the formation of consensus at TfD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

At Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Template:OldStyleDate, I have invited comments on a draft proposal to amend Template:OldStyleDate before I propose it formally at the template talk page. As you have a lot of experience in this historical era and contributed to the template talk page, I would particularly welcome your remarks there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have finally got round to listing it for review as a Featured Article. All help needed! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please log in to your AWB account to see the notifications for citation errors that I have reverted. You may want to revisit those articles with a revised script. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

- CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 12:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I populate {{EB1911}} url parameters by copy/pasting the URL from the page(s) in the archive.org streaming view. Today, that started going wrong. For example, the link in Lamprophyre (at the end) is https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri16chisrich#page/135/mode/1up but after apparently trying to show that page it reverts to the front cover, https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri16chisrich#page/n0/mode/1up. This is Win10, both Edge and IE. Do you see the same, or is it just me? Does archive.org have tech support? David Brooks (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This article appears to have been copy and pasted from here. As stated earlier by Surtsicna , 22 July 2016, This person lived for a day three centuries ago, to which Aldebaran69, simply ignored this fact and copied said information from an unreliable website. I believe this article fails Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. How many more articles have been "created" from this website? How much longer will this type of "creation" continue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Quota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. fgnievinski (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• On the Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi PBS, I did mean to do this revert, but not to do so without an edit summary. I agree that assassinations are always "selective", but precisely for that reason think Assassination is a poor target for the phrase. I'm not thrilled with either place, though. The phrase isn't used in either article. Just thought I'd give an explanation. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Lord North (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Nevé–selbert 23:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lord North (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Nevé–selbert 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. *Kat* (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not exactly what you asked for but this old discussion shows one of the points that lead to a change in the approach we take, so I thought you might like to have a look. The talk of "internal sources" confused me originally; that was apparently wiki-jargon for "we don't need these sources on this page, because they're in the linked page anyway". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you please update and remove your request for references for each person on the family trees. They all have links to Wikipedia articles covering the personages, where the references are. I'm not sure what would be served by repeating them here. You would then need to put the same edit on every family tree listed in List of Family Trees. JMvanDijk (talk)

Both , like dozens, perhaps hundreds of other words, can be used figuratively for protection, but their core meanings are quite different. Anmccaff (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone spelling "occasionally" as "occasionly" unless the second one is British English and you got them backwards.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

This AWB edit by User:PBS-AWB introduced a cite error.

This, this, this, and this (and many more) modified citation styles, which should not be done according to WP:CITEVAR. I'm fairly certain AWB should not be used to modify articles according to your personal preferences. Also, changing "Bibliography" sections to "Further reading" or "External links" can be confusing.

I would kindly ask you to review your changes before saving them, and, if possible, fix the things you've messed up. ~barakokula31 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings PBS, and thanks for the ping re. the Guerrilla warfare... article I created. I reckon it's better to reply here, but just want to point out that while I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to your proposal regarding the convenience of WP:ENGVAR / MOS:TIES being applied, am slightly dismayed that you should consider that "this article uses American spelling" as that was certainly not my intention. The only instance I have found after a cursory review of the article is that doggone "center" in the first citation which I left in there intentionally 'cos of the source —a US literary review—. If you reckon it's better to modify it, notwithstanding its source, that's fine by me. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Joseph Beaume requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PriceDL (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid something has gone wrong with the change you made to my talk page. Archiving has not been automatic and items have been doubled, making the page unusable. I'd be grateful if you could sort it out for me. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx for sorting that out. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:PBS, I recently made an edit to the Maiorana article and hope you can have a look at it and make changes if needed, not sure if links are need in "surname" and "Norman French" for example, but if you can correct any mistake I made, please follow example of good surname pages please like: Evans (surname) • Howard (surname), etc. Hope you can help, appreciate it--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I feel I must apologize again. You posted my last reply on a public page rather than on my own page: of course, this make me uncomfortable, because I speak of my health in that message. By this, it is easy to image that you attempt to make me feel uncomfortable. And so it did, because of my anxiety problems. If you can, I ask you to remove the message from me you pasted there. The formatting of references must never be more important than to treat people of respect, which I am sure you can agree. Please consider, that people on the internet is also people, like in real life; we do not get payed for the work we do here, we simply do what we can to our own ability, and we have no obligation to do more. Please understand, that I am fragile because of my anxiety problems, but I deserve to be treated with respect all the same. If you do not have the same conviction, then I would appreciate that you do not contact me again: this behavior has added to my anxiety problems. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason as to why I am "not helpful" is because I suffer from anxiety, and your lack of respect for that has given me a panic attack. You give the impression of being completely cold, disrespectful and full of contempt for that, if I read you correctly? Your contempt for people with anxiety problems are truly frightening. You truly give the impression to expect people to act like machines and your attitude are extremely cold and inconsiderate. You have given me a panic attack. I would appreciate an apology, but considering the attitude you give the impression to have against people with anxiety diagnoses, I could hardly expect one. I am deeply grateful If you leave me alone now, and advice you to consider your attitude toward people with psychiatric diagnosis.--Aciram (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Where you have edited the Gazette with supp=y, it has generated Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGazette37609. Perhaps something else needs doing? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

I've seen a few of these recently: [21] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this on my watchlist, yet the edit appears not to have made any change to the categories. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, You asked here, if Germany was on Central European Summer Time 1945? Not exactly, but it used its own German Summer Time, in German: Deutsche Sommerzeit.
In the arcticle Bedingungslose Kapitulation der Wehrmacht: Die bedingungslose Kapitulation [concerning the (preliminary) surrender in Reims] trat für alle Fronten am 8. Mai um 23:01 Uhr mitteleuropäischer Zeit in Kraft → Da im Deutschen Reich die Sommerzeit galt, war der Waffenstillstand tatsächlich am 9. Mai ab 0:01 Uhr.
So, the German Summer Time was the +2 as Greenwich Mean Time(=UTC±00:00), +1 as the Central European Time, same as the British Double Summer Time and the Eastern European Time (there were not any Eastern European Summer Time yet in 1945) and -1 as the Moscow Time.
--2001:999:22:A253:4142:4499:5BE9:DBED (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

this edit added a space in a "ref name" which broke the reference. Can you please add an exception for AWB "minor tweaks" so that it avoids ref names please? Cheers, Woody (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the fix. Woody (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know why the article has Pages containing London Gazette template with deprecated parameters do you? I followed the link but all it has is something about postscript. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, I can see what to do now. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. I had created the module for sandbox testing of a template I was messing with, but apparently it has gotten picked up; (which I didn't check before making edits to it). I did fix the problem that you were seeing, and added some test cases on Module_talk:StringFunc; I am uncertain as to what the desired behavior should be on some of the test cases. Falconjh (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive344#User:PBS reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: No violation) -- PBS (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you reverted two sets of changes I made to two articles on the First Battle of Zurich and Second Battle of Zurich. In those changes I both renamed the articles, to First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich, and also corrected the spelling of all the references to the city of Zürich within the article. As the correct spelling for the city of Zürich as far as WP:EN was concerned was established in a series of RMs (and with much fire & noise) back in 2013 (see Talk:Zürich), I rather thought that this was, by now, an uncontroversial move. However, as it obviously isn't, I have now raised RMs for both articles. I have left the spelling of Zürich as Zurich in references to the names of the battles, but have rereverted the spelling where it is the city that is being talked about, as that is well established and (in the absense of yet another RM) there should be no doubt on this. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that earlier in the year you had made some (much needed) edits: [22], [23], that give some EB1911 wstitle parameters in "first middle last" order, instead of "last, first middle" as in the actual EB1911 title. The links work because Llewelynll had previously established redirects. Still, it doesn't look right to me; shouldn't the text of the link be the same as the article name? I fixed the Angerstein one before I realized it was you.

The EB9 links are a whole other matter; the Wikisource name is "F M L" although the article itself is "L, F M". David Brooks (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it (I think). I can fairly easily write code that will identify articles that you changed in that date range, have one of the 1911 templates, and have a wstitle without commas that indicates a WS redlink or redirect (phew). As to the ref/harvid things - that's lower on the priority list (it's not actually wrong, just silly) so we'll probably get to it some time in the 24th century. By the way, I prefer kudos. Kudzu doesn't grow here in the northeast anyway :-) David Brooks (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! How did you know it's my birthday? :-) David Brooks (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway... I found 53 candidate articles from that date range (excluding the 3 I already fixed). Most of them are due to links to wikisource EB1911 redirects, but there are a few true redlinks. I can fix them some time (probably not this week), or leave them to you. Of course, the redirects are pretty low priority because they at least do the right thing. See my sandbox. David Brooks (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

Hi PBS

I have just been looking again at Template:Rayment, and its associates {Rayment-bd}}, {{Rayment-bt}}, {{Rayment-hc}}, {{Rayment-hc-ie}}, {{Rayment-pc}}.

I see that it was you who tagged them in 2012 as self-published etc, e.g.[24].

I strongly disagree with that assessment. This isn't the place for the substantive discussion, but I was wondering if there was any discussion anywhere before you deprecated the templates? If so, please can you give me a link to it?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found it myself. Notification at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_116#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages of substantive discussion at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive_10#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages, as well as a parallel discussion at Template talk:Rayment#Reliability.

I see no way that there was a consensus there to treat Rayment as unreliable. Imperfect, yes; unreliable, no.

I note too that neither discussion was formally closed.

Unless there is evidence of a consensus, I propose to remove the self-published and better source tags. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

copied from a message posted to mytalk[25]:

PBS, you have just pissed me off replying on my talk when my editnotice specifically asks you not to do that, and a furthe little red box at the bottom of the page repeats the message ... and then by keeping on editing my talk, generating edit conflicts as I tried to close the discussion here. Per WP:MULTI, please keep discussions in one place ... and on my talk, pls respect my editnotice. </well-fed-up> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS, the issue here is that the 2012 discussions reveal no consensus for the changes you made. If you want the templates to be tagged in that way, feel free to open a discussion in seek a consensus ... and this time, let someone uninvolved close it, rather than just acting unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey PBS, I saw your edit this morning in my watchlist and it jarred my memory and allowed me to make a connection leading to the filing of this SPI case. Bet you a beer that's him. ;)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it's a really hot day so I've poured you a tall one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Batternut (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:ANI#Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM among neutral adminsneutrals is leaning decidedly against you. More contributions may of course be made, or you may decide to appeal at arbcom or somewhere, but perhaps for now you might consider reverting your RfC->RM conversion edits. Batternut (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nee inexperienced users don't talk about Arbcom appeals. Batternut is no rookie and knows exactly how he is trying to shoehorn a major change against all consensus via a two step process. Legacypac (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I am doubly flattered! First by PBS's "Machiavellian" suggestion, and now with LP's "no rookie"! My edit count is now 5,061, which seems like a ton to me, though nothing to PBS's, and probably your too LP. Listen people, I know you both have put in shed-loads of work on this ISIL article. I just think that, though PBS has done loads of good for the article, this move was wrong. Anyway, if I do ever kick off an RM which looks likely to succeed it will get a heap of good scrutiny as well as the noise - so it might as well be a sensible RM with sensible debate. Then if/when shot down, it can be followed with another moratorium. Anyway, what prompted me to write - everyone knows about arbcom because every election triggers a huge banner about it at the top of every article; there's no escaping it! Batternut (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS is uninvolved in the ISIL topic. I'm still a major contributor to the topic and have a high degree of understanding of the issues. The editors that really understand the topic from working on it generally insist on keeping the existing name. Uninvolved editors see something in the news and jump to the idea we need a name change. Precedent shows your name change has been rejected many times. Given nothing has changed since the last round of failed renames, your latest efforts are disruptive and pointless. You also may not realize that this is really a proposal to rename several dozen pages and would involve thousands of edite to effect, if we are to remain internally consistent. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nothing has changed" - I've refuted that already. 1000's of edits, that's an argument to be avoided, but don't worry, rest your poor smoking keyboard, I'll do it! Batternut (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

How do you have that user name? It is misleading that you might be editing on behalf of Public Broadcasting Service. Spshu (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Your advice would be good if it was an option in the Cite drop-down list which offers web, news, book and journal. There is no cite web, which you wish me to use. So how do I follow your example? Shipsview (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "PBS", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because PBS is a well known non profit, so using it as a username implies shared use. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tornado chaser, check the history on this user's user page. You'll see where the three letters come from. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PBS has explained that these letters are their initials, so I don't think there is a problem with the username. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi PBS,

the term "House of" in English as a general rule only applies to ruling and sovereign dynasties, not some noble family. Otherwise any family could call themselves "House of" and where would we end with that? Thank you for your understanding. Gryffindor (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, see WP:BOLD. Within the Holy Roman Empire by law no one was sovereign except the emperor himself. The same applies to Kings of England, France, etc. and their dynasties. Therefore we have House of Windsor, or do you want to propose we rename Category:Wellesley family to "House of Wellesley"? Giving everyone (including their dog as you said) a "House of" format is out of bounds and needs to be corrected. Gryffindor (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we please keep the conversation on your talk page, Gryffindor? thank you--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, if these are families that were not ruling, hereditary dynasties of a sovereign and independent country, they are not a "House of", as opposed to the Windsors, Romanovs, Medici, Bourbons, etc. I already gave the example with the Wellesley family. On what basis are you arguing in favour of using it? Gryffindor (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Gryffindor on this point. In the discussion about moving the pages this Library of Congress heading manual tends to back up his point of view. [26]. Common name may be important but so is consistency. There are enough sources to point towards the fact that House of is a usage reserved for royal families and not for any noble family. In French Maison de is only used for ruling dynasties [27]. Domdeparis (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Move the conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 8#House of -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, 97.117.19.208 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.

Category:Pages containing London Gazette template with parameter supp set to y, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

Thank you for all of your very thoughtful edits on various articles, and I would like to get your opinion about a matter. An editor is proposing to merge Template:Infobox noble house into Template:Infobox family. After looking at those two templates, I noticed that Template:Infobox noble house has many fields (parameters) that do not appear in Template:Infobox family, and vice versa. Some examples are: Parent house, Titles, Styles, Founded, Founder, Current head, Motto, Dissolution, and Cadet branches. Most of those fields can be very important for articles about noble families, but they are usually not applicable at all to non-noble families. If the two templates were fully merged, I feel that some editors could get confused when confronted with a large number of fields to choose from. As a result, a future editor of the template might well decide to delete those "noble" fields from Template:Infobox family at some point, because those fields don't generally apply to non-noble families. Because of these concerns, my feeling is that it would be better to keep Template:Infobox noble house and Template:Infobox family as separate templates, one for use with noble families and the other for non-noble families. That way, each template can serve its specific purpose with the fields that are the most appropriate ones. You have in-depth knowledge about all things noble and royal, and I have great respect for your opinion, so I would be grateful if you could please let me know your very brief thoughts on this issue. Many thanks for your kind help! -- Blairall (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Wikipedai:edited mercilessly requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Salutations,

I am writing a book that is set in Europe during the year 1650, and I would like to discover more about the Third English Civil War and how it affected the modern day region of North East England. Any information about daily life there during this time would also be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks for your help!

~ Occurrence of Magic Occurrence of Magic (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I offered a tentative translation of the text on the talk page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey I wanted to work on the Battle of Borodino and see if we could work this up to FA status. I've also asked Autieruth if she'd be interested? Care to join in?Tirronan (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you put some protection on Machine? Apparently a bunch of kids are repeatedly adding "and hats" to the lede of Machine -- about a dozen times in the last couple of days, and ongoing. Thanks. --A D Monroe III (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

After protection expired, it appears to be starting again. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my bot since I think WP:CFD can handle it with Cydebot. However, take a look at this. Technically, all of those need to be undone since the MOS changed. I'll start working on a bigger proposal. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. There are literally tens of thousands of categories that have issues. The majority of them can be weeded out as being consecutive, but the weeding out would take forever. So, I will just go ahead and do it piece by piece as necessary. I'm going to focus on the English MPs for now. I can look at British and UK MPs in the future once this one is done. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll be moving the categories once I am done with that set. This will automatically leave behind a redirect for that category. I'm only going to focus on UK/Irish MPs until I can get a larger proposal going. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Y Done with English MPs. Let me know if you need anything further. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Poynings' Law, which makes it clear who was boss! See wp:duck. Though I suppose to be fair it had a status one step up from New England (taxation without representation etc).

I understand what you say about ease of editing and from a very detached viewpoint I accept that it is more readable - but it does so at the expense of precision (who led, who followed). I expect almost everyone who reads the article will not be misled so I won't revert. But doesn't make it any less silly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

--Nevé–selbert 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Copyedit template. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi PBS, I don't really see a need to create an archive page as the warnings are available in the talk page history and the blocks in the block log. Even with an archive I definitely don't see any need to protect it, especially at extended confirmed level. Could you please unprotect it? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that embedded citations are outdated but couldn't the link be kept in the navbox in some "historical" section since it's still a page relevant to the template?★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen an ahnentafel formatted this way before: it looks like the format of tree used to show the descendants of an individual rather than an individual's ancestors (see the examples at Succession to the British throne). Can you please show me examples of this style of ahnentafel from reliable sources? Thanks. DrKay (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Mirror of template:Tree list/final branch -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Even current WP:UE is ignored anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communes_of_Luxembourg&diff=809731313&oldid=809729721 77.180.0.106 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of English civil wars, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Simon de Montfort and Robert of Gloucester (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) 10:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)