User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Question about a source

Hello Charles,

Very impressive profile and an amazing record of contributions to Wikipedia and to Wikimedia. Kudos!

I am a student of 17th century Dutch and English history, and I have been making some additions to the page Petrus Serrarius. which you created back in 2007. I don't know if you have seen my recent edits (mostly additional sources), or if you would remember much about sources you may have used back then.

First of all I must congratulate you again on the incredibly excellent overall and historically accurate page you created about a relatively unknown historical character. I am not sure I could have done it any better, even being a student of the area and period!

I have a question for you, however, about the reference given on footnotes 3 and 6 on that page. Both notes refer to a bibliographic item (Popkin, Spinoza, pages 40, page ?, and page 48) which I have been trying but I have been so far unable to identify. None of the more than 6 or 7 "Popkin, Spinoza..." items I was able to find in my bibliographies currently would point to the pages given (pp. 40-48, roughly). From my studies I do believe that the information given in the page is definitely correct (meaning, I know that Popkin has written about Peter Serrarius somewhere the things that are being attributed to him in those footnotes), but unfortunately I have not been able to locate the item specifically, so that the bibliographic information can be precisely updated.

With your amazing technical skills, which I unfortunately do not possess, maybe you could still help me locate the Richard Popkin bibliographic item that was being referred to? I would really appreciate your help with this search, since Peter Serrarius is a central figure of my current historical studies (17th century millenarianism and messianism in the Netherland and in England), and I am really interested in trying to locate this Richard Popkin item I seem to be still missing. Sorry to bother you with these minor concerns of mine, and I'd hope that maybe somehow, without spending too much time on it, you could give me some pointer to this unidentified item. Thank you very much for your time and help again. Sincerely, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Warshy: The work itself is on Google Books: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=avOPBAAAQBAJ. The particular pages needed are not visible (to me). I see that Popkin wrote a paragraph on Serrarius in his Spinoza biography in the Pimlico History of Western Philosophy (p.381 in my edition) which is also called Columbia History of Western Philosophy. I see he is also mentioned in a few places in Jonathan Israel's The Dutch Republic. Also in Israel's Radical Englightenment.

On a style manual note, ibid. is deprecated.

Thanks for the kind words. I would disclaim technical aptitude, though recently I have had to acquire some skills – I'm a classic late adopter. Knowing that Google Books is worth looking at is more know-how. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Charles. I am still learning how to do the refs in the most technically advanced WP style, but in the meantime I still use some old-fashioned deprecated Latin words that were used until recently in books published on paper... I had a suspicion that the notes were referring to the Columbia History of Western Philosoph. I will try to locate those references there precisely. Thanks a lot again for you quick reply, and for your help. Kudos again on all the amazing work you do for Wikipedia! warshy ^(¥¥) 16:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Warshy: For refs, look for the cite button, and use the autofills (magnifying glass icon) by the URL fields. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I just added a book in Lodewijk Meyer trying to follow your instructions. I found the cite button, but the magnifying glasses in the pop-out template for the filling of data remained grayed-out all the time, and could not be used... Oh, well. It is a learning curve... Thanks for the tips. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Charles, on second thought, already late in the day (you are already fast asleep there at Cambridge, by now...). Would it be possible for you to send me somehow this paragraph you say you have by Popkin about Serrarius in the "Pimlico History of Western Philosophy (p.381 in my edition)." I would appreciate that if you could, and it would save me a lot of time in trying to put together all these different sources. Thanks a lot, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

And one more thought, even later:

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Charles Mattews, I am awarding you this overdue recognition in 2019, for the insightful article about Petrus Serrarius you created way-back in 2007. The recognition comes relatively late, 12 years after the creation work was done, but better late than never. warshy (¥¥) 22:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Warshy: The relevant text starts

A strange aspect of Spinoza's life is that from the moment he left the synagogue he was living with Christian millenarians.

It's at [1]. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much Charles Matthews. This was a true gift. You truly helped me a lot. Thanks again, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello again Charles,

I have now re-read the two sources you give above very carefully and several times. They are invaluable for getting a clearer picture of the overall activity and Millenarian activism on Serrarius in the crucial millenarian decade of 1656-1666, which is what I am aiming at in my historical research. So I thought I'd try and get some more expert advice from you, if you'd humour me, in your generosity. I hope you do.

Here is the matter. There are still two assertions in the article which are extremely important in my view, and which I still cannot find them articulated in a clear and direct form in any of my dozens of sources as they are currently simply and directly articulated in the article. They are: 1) "He was a merchant by profession." and, 2) "His involvement with Judaism led him to gematria," These two very simple and straightforward assertions are basic and fundamental to the historical picture I am trying to draw, and yet I cannot find formulated in this simple and direct form in any of my dozens of Popkin sources about Serrarius' life (including the two you so graciously forwarded to me above). And, coincidentally, both of these crucial assertions in the article point to the same source, which is still unidentified for me in all its pertinent details. This source is:

• (3) Popkin, Spinoza, p. 40 (as for where Serrarius got his livelihood from, so that he could be "Spinoza's patron".), and;
• (6) Popkin, p. and p. 48. (as for his learning of Gematria and his overall involvement with Jews and Judaism. I mean: his involvement with Jewish issues is described everywhere, but this is the only place I have seen the fact that he even studied Gematria specifically, spelled out clearly and directly in this manner.)

To me, by the references format, by their sequence in the article, and by the pages they point to, it seems obvious that these two assertions point to the same Popkin article or source. And yet, I still cannot identify which specific Popkin source they are coming from. I have just now counted the number of Popkin sources I am currently consulting regarding these assertions, and I have counted 21 different articles or sources. I still cannot find these 2 assertions or fact simply stated as they are here in the Wikipedia article in none of these 21 Popkin articles. I'd really appreciate it if you could, maybe, with your far superior searching skills, help me locate the precise source for these 2 facts/assertions. Thanks again in advance for all the help you have already provided me, and I am sorry to bother you once again with these quite arcane matters. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Warshy: Arcane is good. I mean, when WP has a zoomed-in article on something which would normally be relegated to a footnote, and references it in a straight-up, scholarly way, the footnote grows footnotes and we see the power of hypertext (as opposed to paper) for encyclopedic work.

Gematria: it seems I probably encountered Serrarius via John Dury. I anyway have a weakness for those Latinate humanist surnames. There are number of Google Books hits, of which [2] is by Popkin; there are also [3] from Dury's side, [4] and [5] which is again Popkin.

Merchant: certainly from a merchant family background.[6] Popkin's book Spinoza calls him a "radical Protestant merchant", [7] which corresponds to print edition p. 32, and at [8] corresponding to print edition p. 40 there is "radical Amsterdam Protestant merchant". I have looked at the two references by Jonathan Israel just now.

I'd need to get to the library to make much more progress with this.

Probably the article should be rewritten, anyway. Many problems with articles relate to how things are expressed. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow! I am so glad I had the courage to try and bother you some more... All the stuff you just found is invaluable! Give me a week or so to try and digest all of it, since it is all pretty substantial material. Thanks so much again for all your help with this article. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to be asked about content. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Campbell (governor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Wellesley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Book of Discipline (United Methodist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Book of Discipline (United Methodist) 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/Book of Discipline (United Methodist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WikiAviator (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Nicolson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Visitation and Penrith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Project Arminianism

Hello To editor Charles Matthews:. For your information I reactivated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Arminianism. In addition, I need urgently more votes on that proposal : Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Add_Arminianism, can you have a look and forward this request to other people ? ---Telikalive (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

ODNB

Hi Charles, can you find me the list of missing women from it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/ODNB was updated yesterday. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

plaudits for historic bios and kindness
... you were recipient no. 2101 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Webster-Wedderburn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newmarket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"Physical Review Letters A" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Physical Review Letters A. Since you had some involvement with the Physical Review Letters A redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Hi, earlier I was editing a few districts of Yemen and Mongolia. We still don't have any locator maps for them for districts. I made a few but seeing Ochamchira District which uses OSM and a template I thought this sort of thing really ought to be coded in Wikidata so every adminstrative area on the planet is able to be highlighted in an infobox using OSM. Is there something which is already done on Wikidata to help this? I've not been following developments much. Ulaankhus for instance could have a map highlighted like Ochamchira District of Abkhazia. Template:Abkhazia district OSM map that is what codes it but couldn't there be something on Wikidata so you can display such maps in different articles much more easily?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume that the answer to your question lies in geoshapes. Which I've not used. Judging by something in French here on a Commons discussion page, data entry has to go on, in the Data: namespace on Commons. Then there is property d:Property:P3896 on Wikidata, "geographic data from Wikimedia Commons". So one can detect whether the data is there, for example with a query.

This is not really my area, but there are certainly people who do plenty with it. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

this for example, if that data page had the full coordinates (not just singular and treated as if it's a city) and physically displayed the area covered on a map you could display it directly in an infobox. I think every administrative division in the world should have that on wiki data using OSM maps. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather "if wishes were horses". I don't doubt there are good projects here. Sourcing the data, setting up bot work to move it around, aren't trivial. Of course I agree in principle. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. If you know anybody in RL who might potentially be interested in fleshing out a few stubs as part of Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon can you alert them? It's not really a "contest" but we have over 4000 geo stubs for Scotland alone, we badly need a mechanism to go towards this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: comes to mind, because of intensive work on Scotland (Wikidata). We've not met in RL, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The English Icon

re: your tweet, you may like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:PKM/icon. (My brother "rescued" an ex-library copy for me in 1983.) - PKM (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@PKM: Thanks. I got interested in that kind of scholarship when working on Painted frieze of the Bodleian Library. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Very cool. - PKM (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We should have more images of it, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links and references, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

I also figured this is something you could mention in the next edition of WP:Facto Post. Let me know if you have questions! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks! That a very interesting idea, I can see. As for Facto Post, I stopped it after 24 issues, at the end of the official ScienceSource project. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well then it could be mentioned on whatever you're working on now/in the future if it's relevant! Do let me know if you need help with the script, although it's a pretty easy thing to install and use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treatise of the Three Impostors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

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

Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Golden mean, John Trenchard and Walter Yonge

John Brown (essayist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Oratory and Richard Hurd

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Structure (category theory) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Structure (category theory) 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/Structure (category theory) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Lushington (judge), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

James Townsend

Excellent! One of Christchurch's early settlers whose bio has been missing was hidden from my view as he was listed as an English cricketer only. Let me know when you are done. Schwede66 17:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Well, thanks. If you look at the Talk page, you'll see that there remains an issue with the British end of the story. In fact, though WikiTree has numerous details, I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, was just amending my comment above. Have just looked at the page history. I shall have a look when you are done. Schwede66 17:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

!! Urgent !!

Can you please block 123thejoker1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as this user keeps on trolling despite warnings. I am now just playing a game of whack-a-mole now. Aasim 08:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Already done by another admin. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Just saw. Thank you. Hate those trolls, but give them a reaction, and they win. If I just revert them endlessly, most of them will get bored and just give up. Aasim 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Hallow ground" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hallow ground. Since you had some involvement with the Hallow ground redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

query re merges in non-English wikipedia

I've noticed a couple of what look like wikidata dupes. I suggest that Q50376450 = Q5640967, and Q27453109 = Q63122427. Unfortunately these arise from wikipedia pages which need to be merged, in a language I can't even transliterate, so I have no idea how to negotiate merge templates! Any suggestions? Dsp13 (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dsp13: So it seems d:Q50376450 was created in 2018, while d:Q5640967 was a tool creation from March of this year. First, I took it that the recent creation was in error. So I merged the two items, having first removed the arwiki link from Q5640967. Then having discovered d:Wikidata:Database_reports/Identified_duplicates, I tagged Q27453109 in what seems to be the approved fashion. That relies on a bot doing the rest.

So I presumably should undo the merge and sort out the first pair. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

thanks for looking into it, and that approved method of tagging looks useful! Dsp13 (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dsp13: More about this sort of thing at d:User:Pasleim/projectmerge. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Antonia Maino" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Antonia Maino. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Antonia Maino until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Charles Edward Mathews

A fine name that eh?† Encyclopædius 12:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Charles Mathews is more interesting, at least to me. But I would say it takes two Ts to ttango. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Jingle in The Pickwick Papers was inspired by Charles Matthews, you learn something new every day! Hope you're well at this rather disturbing time.† Encyclopædius 13:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Fine, thank you. Just going out now, to deliver shopping to a friend. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Encyclopædius: BTW, I didn't recognise you. The mæsk. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, :-). † Encyclopædius 09:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

You are also welcome to Hashim Peer dastagir article for your ContributionEasytostable (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think now it is in the good state so no need of any tagging. your feedback is highly appreciated thanksEasytostable (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hello I am easytostable Your Contribution at Hashim Peer dastagir was awesome keep it up thankyou once again Easytostable (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

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

Lionel Hichens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Swanwick

Rupert Lonsdale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hydroplane

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"Paraontology" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Paraontology. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 31#Paraontology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Graded-commutative" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Graded-commutative. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 6#Graded-commutative until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy

Thank you! Charles Matthews (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Positive and negative definite and semidefinite and indefinite" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Positive and negative definite and semidefinite and indefinite. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Positive and negative definite and semidefinite and indefinite until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Ditto. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for admin action regarding attack on Chris Langan

Hello,

Hope you are having a great day. I am writing to you to raise your attention to the trolling behavior of 90.208.134.158 and Nigerian chess player against Chris Langan on the Simulation Hypothesis’s talk page.

The malicious behavior of the individuals first started on Quora and Facebook (after Langan banned him from his Facebook group), then spread to Youtube and Patreon. Now these two have targeted all Chris’ page and activities on Wikipedia - although 90.208.134.158’s main account was previously blocked for vandalising Chris’ page, he now continued to deliberately sabotage Chris’ work with his new IP address.

Note that user 90.208.134.158 had been previously permanently IP blocked (as user 90.219.111.127) but managed to change his IP slightly to circumvent the ban and continue to harass Langan with user Nigerian chess player, exhibited stalking behaviour. This user proceeded to employ another IP 90.217.36.161 (that also signed with “Regards, Gary” and is involved with the same discussion) which is also from the UK, but this time Glasgow City (instead of Cumbria). The user used this account in the past as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EarlWhitehall&action=edit&redlink=1, of which he himself has confirmed the identity. Note that Nigerian chess player has adopted malicious/trolling SPA-styled and stalking behaviour as well.

I have looked at your background on banning trolls and thought that you might also be interested in maintaining a positive environment at pages like Simulation Hypothesis, an area of which Chris has made significant contributions to in the past 40 years. The attacks on Chris have violated numerous regulations on Wikipedia, to name a few, WP:OWH and WP:BLP.

I kindly ask you to exercise your right as an admin to curb the aforementioned trolling behavior. If you require more evidence, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Johnnyyiu (talk)

@Johnnyyiu: Thank you for contacting me about this matter. There is already one experienced admin involved, it appears. If you wish to draw my attention to particular diffs here, please do so. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"Modwena" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Modwena. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#Modwena until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikisource

Hi, over the last year or so I've noticed a lot more sort of "spammy" use of Wikisource and Wikiquote, as if there is some scheme to encourage better integration. This edit seems pointless to me and I suspect you have made similar edits to other bios recently. Why would the Wikisource article be more reliable than the original printed work at archive.org? Or even the original printed work if it was offline? Anyone can edit Wikisource and thus it is inherently less reliable. Have I missed something? - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: Well, I'm aware of the argument, but have not heard it recently.

Let's look first at an advantage. A link to a readable, single entry from a page of Alumni Oxonienses is an encouragement to check whether the source actually supports the claim made here. It's a work of the 1880s, with about 40 entries to the page, in double columns. Some pages have numerous repeated names: today I've been working on one that has 13 people called "John Richards", and the link to the exact one of those would be a genuine help to any reader.

On the other hand, no digitisation project can give an absolute warranty of correct proof-reading. Fair enough. Does English Wikisource have a serious vandalism problem? Not at all: much less there than here.

Other point: did you follow the link to s:Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1886/Hall, Benjamin (2)? And if so, did you notice the small link [586] on the left? If you click on that, you go to an image of the page from which the text is taken, opposite the proof-read text.

To sum up so far: putting in the Wikisource link means the original printed work is two clicks away, rather than one. That is a small minus, if you wanted it one click away. In return, you get an exact link, not a link to around 40 biographies. You get readable text. You also, and I think this is going to be helpful to some people, reach text you can select and copy for re-use.

As it happens, you also get a link to Wikidata. Not everyone cares, I know, but for some people and bots that is further added value. And I personally care about Wikimedia integration, and work for it.

In general you get a link to a Wikisource author page. Joseph Foster (genealogist) has an article here, so in this case the plus may not seem great to you: but in general links to English Wikisource may inform you about authors.

I hope I'm making a fair case here. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Although you're speaking to someone who would pretty actively oppose anything that might involve WikiData as well! I asked at User talk:Iridescent, too. You might find that interesting reading. One thing I have never understood is that despite our basic tenet that user-generated content is unreliable, it is accepted that we can link to other WMF projects. Even worse, we can effectively cite them but not our own articles. Wikiquote is a complete mess, Wikidata is in many respects circular, Commons ... well, let's not go there but as an example, we get alleged flags of former Indian princely states turning up regularly in our articles and Commons will not delete them even though they're often entirely original research & user-generated! - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: My standard answer to "despite our basic tenet that user-generated content is unreliable, it is accepted that we can link to other WMF projects" is that it is a classic pot-kettle argument. I spend a lot of time with enWP's weak articles. I have also given a talk about, and written a blogpost about, reliability of Wikipedia.

I don't see that the sister projects contribute much to the unreliability of enWP. Neglect of existing articles is the main reason, and one of my examples of a persisting mistake is to do with a reference that no one had actually read properly in a dozen years, until I did.

I much prefer the view that corrections arising from complaints downstream are what matters (and to that extent I would agree with you on the particular Commons matter).

By the way, in my early days on Wikidata, I found a number of hoax Wikipedia articles, mostly for frWP, but one here. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that neglect (and more nefarious scenarios) are a bigger problem but that would not be an excuse to add an additional one. I also think we have too many articles/cast our net too wide, which adds to a maintenance problem. Then there are the systemic bias issues etc, which are very evident with the India stuff even in the sense that few competent people can even get to grips with maintenance.

Anyways, I have restored the alox thing - it is a pretty cryptic name for a template! - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about that: {{acad}} and {{alox2}} make a well-matched pair? Charles Matthews (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I was aware of the acad one also. They're both obscure (not the sources but rather the choice of template name). - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Effort (not mine) went into changing {{venn}} named after the authors of Al. Cantab to {{acad}}, everywhere, since the database is called ACAD. More constructively, Foster's Alumni Oxonienses part 1 is online (https://www.british-history.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714). {{alox1}}, I will concede, is actually obscure, in that you have to get into the HTML to create exact links. At the very least, the digitisation of Alumni Oxonienses part 2 on Wikisource removes the anomaly that Cambridge is so much better served than Oxford. And, I have to say, one day Wikidata may function as a more advanced database than ACAD, for Oxford graduates in Foster (including the sequel Oxford Men and their Colleges). All quite a long way off, but as the University of Oxford is not apparently bothered, muggins here thinks something should be done. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Binet's fibonacci number formula" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Binet's fibonacci number formula. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 3#Binet's fibonacci number formula until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thierry Bruehl

Hi, can you fix the wiki data link? I moved the film article to his bio that's all.† Encyclopædius 13:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

'Kay, done. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sir James Wright, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Lysons.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Vaughan Jones

On 9 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Vaughan Jones, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yash

Hey, got an email from some guy named Yash worried about some paid scam. Saw you were helping him out on Twitter. To be honest, not entirely sure what the issue is, other than being solicited by a fake admin. Anything you know would help out (on the very off chance that this "admin for hire" really is one of ours). If it's not anything you can share on-wiki, feel free to drop me an email. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: The actual issue dealt with was this: there were, around 15 years ago, two child actors in Indian film who went by Yash. Yash Pathak was one, Yash Gawli who was interacting with me on Twitter the other. So the point was about disambiguation. In the end he was happy with what I did to fix up the pages here.

As for the other matter, that was about Draft:Yash Gawli and Draft:Yash (master), both now deleted. Notability for Yash Gawli depends mainly on his role in the 2004 film Kaazhcha. It won awards, so there is the basis for an article, perhaps. I decided that, with Draft:Yash Gawli salted, the issue shouldn't be forced: can wait. Anyway I told the guy not to pay for editing. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to that: I have been assuming that "Master Yash"[9] in Kaazcha is Yash Gawli, genuine account name. On an "assume nothing" basis: the IMDb entry for the film gives the name Yash Gawli. So, there is room for scepticism about IMDb content. I have looked for corroboration. [10] is apparently from 2004, and says Master Yash was brought up in Kochi. This may be relevant.

Fact-checking in this area is pretty hard, and knowledge of Malayalam would help. If one gives up AGF, I can see that there may be concerns. Amazon Prime [11] actually says the actor in Kaazcha is Yash Pathak, which may be a mistake. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Post mortem interval

Honestly, I think it was far better with the previous name. PMI (post mortem interval) is a extremely common phrase in forensic science. To try to put it under the umbrella of a far less frequently used phrase "post mortem changes" I don't think adds any value whatsoever. As someone with peer reviewed articles in this field, my recommendation is that "Post Mortem Interval" is the far more relevant title. Cheers, Vitreology talk 11:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vitreology: Well, I defend the change. "Postmortem Changes" is a Medical Subject Heading: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D011180. I can't speak about forensic science, but it is clearly the case that the medical field uses such terminology.

Further, the lead section, which I rewrote, was very poorly expressed. It now has "post mortem interval" in the second sentence. The actual content of the article is about the changes, really. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine, make a seperate article called post mortem changes if you want to. But there needs to be an article called Post Mortem Interval - which has specific relevance to the estimation of time of death from crime scenes.

Working out the duration of time since death from crime scenes is a different topic to what you're transitioning this article into.Vitreology talk 11:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vitreology: I would disagree with splitting the article, at least at this point. It does carry, currently, both Category:Medical aspects of death as well as Category:Forensic pathology. Talk:Post-mortem changes mentions it as being within the scope of WikiProject Medicine and Death.

I accept that the application of the facts on post-mortem changes to the PMI is not the same as the knowledge of those changes. But I don't see that you have made the case, for the general reader, that there "there needs to be an article called Post Mortem Interval". Charles Matthews (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to argue with someone who doesn't understand the application of the content matter.Vitreology talk 12:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vitreology: First, please see Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. Secondly, that remark is querulous and uncalled-for: I cited a medical authority, and it seems in return that you wish to make an appeal to authority.

I think you are arguing that PMI is a term of art in forensic pathology or forensic science. Fair enough: that may or may not mean that Wikipedia should have an article with that title. You could establish the first point from the literature.

Thirdly, having looked around, my thought is that stages of death, currently a redirect, could be developed as an article. I hope to get to making Draft:Stages of death. It is not great that {{Signs of death}}, which is in the article, is acting as a surrogate. Sorting out the handling of the stages could lead to a more satisfactory state of affairs. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You make valid points, however it is just a bit frustrating to have someone takes a long standing article ("Post mortem interval"), renames the article, changes the content of article to reflect the new name they have assigned to the article, then states that there is probably a place for an article called "Post mortem interval" after all.

It begs the question - why didn't you just create a new article from the beginning and narrow the scope of the existing "Post Mortem Interval" article (if you felt the need)?.

FYI, the estimation of Post Mortem Interval is a skill applied in a range of fields, including Etymology, Taphonomy and Archeology.

Whilst PMI is a child of the broader topic "Post mortem changes", unless you are planning on expanding Post Mortem Changes to include the changes that occur in insects after death (for instance), then you should have just kept it the way it was.

Finally, "Post mortem changes" is primarily a qualitative topic. "Post mortem interval" is a quantitative topic.

The PMI is always a number. Vitreology talk 22:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vitreology: Please note that I have not ruled out undoing the article move; and neither have I said that there should just be one article in this area. From what you say, there is plenty of material to include on the topics raised. What there is here now is rather concise. I owe you a draft as mentioned above. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Stages of death now does exist. The main problem with content in this area is that it reads like a series of PowerPoint slides. It seems obvious that the material could be improved. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

the reason why ...

Hello Charles, thanks for all your work and research i have seen in Talk:William_Cantelo. The reason why i wrote this article now in german version is, because of this: According to recent research in the Mexican State Archives, William Cantelo offered his machine gun to the Mexican government and submitted detailed documents. (see de:William_Cantelo#cite_note-Cruz-7). Because the documents are still existing in the archives, they might rise sometimes. For your convenience, here is the translation of the article: trans. I hope you enjoy it :-) Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: Ah, thanks for getting in touch. It was seven years ago - I do remember thinking the BBC programme was a bit annoying. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. It's not about solving the family saga, a local patriotic story or some kind of criminal case. It is the point of interest regarding the history of weapons engineering. Comparable to Edison and his lightbulb, everyone wants to know who invented it first. When historiography is sometimes modernized; that's much more exciting than a lost husband. Isn't that true? Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: Surely. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

George Bickham father /son

Hi CM. The father/son combination have inverted death years compared to the DNB articles at enWS

• George Bickham the Younger <=> s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Bickham, George (d.1758)
• George Bickham the Elder <=> s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Bickham, George (d.1769)

I see that you edited one of these way back in some previous epoch. There is nothing evident on these about other sources, or why a swap of dates. Am I missing something? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives these dates:

• Bickham, George (1683/4–1758), engraver and writing-master
• Bickham, George (c. 1704–1771), engraver and printseller

So we take it that the old DNB had wrongly concluded that the Younger predeceased the Elder. The ODNB also has the Younger retiring in 1767, based on an announcement in the press. This is all more plausible. Charles Matthews (talk)

Beaut, probably need those sources into the articles. I will make notes on enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"Gesù" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gesù. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Gesù until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Couple of sisters needing bios

Am I able to queue a couple of sisters who are needing biographies?

• Kathleen Trousdell Shaw Anglo-Irish sculptor (c.1867-1958)

  https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/library-rnid/2019/04/26/kathleen-trousdell-shaw-sculptor-1865-1958/

  "Shaw, Kathleen Trousdell" . Thom's Irish Who's Who . Dublin: Alexander Thom and Son Ltd. 1923. p. 230  – via Wikisource.

• Helen Rous Anglo-Irish actor

  "Rous, Helen" . Thom's Irish Who's Who . Dublin: Alexander Thom and Son Ltd. 1923. pp. 221-222  – via Wikisource.

If it is not in your normal remit, who can you suggest who might be interested in the writing? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Done some more digging,and got refs, and vital records User:Billinghurst/Alfred Shaw children — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I have a draft going at Draft:Kathleen Trousdell Shaw. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Oops. The UCL blogpost says she became RHA in 1907; while this Welsh newspaper makes her RHA in 1905. This is Honorary Member of the Royal Hibernian Academy, which is an awkward thing in itself. There had been previous women: Margaret Allen 1878, Sarah Purser 1900. More refs needed. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Unexpectedly, there may well be a brother (Alfred) Eland Shaw d:Q62024327, physician and entomologist (1861-1931), cockroach expert, in practice at Healesville, Victoria, about 1910. He was from Carlow, as was Alfred Shaw the father of the sisters. There are obituaries, but no identification of his parents. He worked at the British Museum, as did Kathleen. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Marriage certificate of Alfred Eland Shaw confirms that he is one of the children. Adding detail on children page. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, and your children link gives the grandmother grandfather Eland Mossom Birch. So really that must be right. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So, Kathleen Trousdell Shaw now exists. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

And Helen Rous now exists. @Billinghurst: Obviously could be longer. There is a Lady Bracknell image (awkward). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Ainslie (lawyer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Literati.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Robert Ainslie

Charles, Many thanks for your work on this article. Very professional. I have a lot to learn! Rosser Gruffydd 10:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Participants in the Synod of Dort has been nominated for deletion

Category:Participants in the Synod of Dort has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathaniel Middleton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maidan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Vernon Harcourt (scientist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Achromatic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Ward Hunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grasmere.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

May I inquire?

While searching for insight regarding William Maccall within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Maccall I noticed a reference to "Scandinavian writers." Would you recall any reference to or awareness of Søren Kierkegaard? Would you know of such amongst his British contemporaries?

My arena is a wikisource project wherein the authors puzzle me.

Pardon my intrusion. I could not tell if this were an appropriate space for inquiry. Klarm768 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Klarm768: I'm always happy to discuss content.

What I was able to find quickly is that Maccall translated The Hymns of Denmark (1868), under the pseudonym Gilbert Tait.[12] He knew German, and so might have learned to read Danish. I found a list of authors for that book: Arreboe, Birkedal, Boye, Brandt, Brorson, Brun, Christensen, Ewald, Claus Frimann, N.F.S. Grundtvig, Hammerich, Heilmann, Hjort, Hygom, Ingemann, Kampmann, Kingo, Liebenberg, Lund, Ove Mailing, Naur, Oehlenschläger, Oldenburg, Pawels, Plum, Ramus, Rasmussen, Rothe, Smith, Sporon, Sthen, Storm, Thaarup, Thomissøn, Timm, Wexels, Zetlitz. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40920557 page 115. He translated also some hymns from Swedish, to publish in a magazine.

It seems reasonable to think, given his views, that Maccall did this work for money, and used a pseudonym to distance the translations from his other writing.

The modern DNB biography, in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, doesn't mention any Scandinavian connections.

Charles Matthews (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably composed my question poorly. It is my suspicion that the Kierkegaard's writing were known to British readers of Danish (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Howitt) but there is a curious void in the acknowledgment of his writings. I perhaps am insufficiently aware of enough British contemporaries. Klarm768 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A full text search of the ODNB doesn't find mentions of Kierkegaard before the 20th century. So it's an interesting topic. I think you are right, and Maccall as a man of letters probably knew of Kierkegaard. I have now looked in The Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century British Philosophers (Thoemmes), which has an entry for Maccall. It talks only about his Elements of Individualism (1847).

The long note to [13] makes it look as if it was British theologians, such as Hugh Ross Mackintosh, who first started to take Kierkegaard seriously, at the beginning of the 20th century. This is not very surprising to me (see [14]). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Latomus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Latomus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#Latomus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harriet Grote, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Pattison.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Research mood

Not particularly in an editing mood, so if you need research done anywhere, then give me a ping. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Not what you were hoping for :-( But vol.2 of Alumni Oxonienses is missing a couple of pages. https://archive.org/details/alumnioxonienses02univ/page/n99/mode/2up and the next page are missing between s:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Alumni_Oxoniensis_(1715-1886)_volume_2.djvu/98 and s:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Alumni_Oxoniensis_(1715-1886)_volume_2.djvu/101. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggest just pulling the individual pages via the appropriate volumes [15] and individually uploading. Don't think that a repair is a good use of time, and trying to upload a fresh copy and migrate pages seems a right PITA. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hwfa Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kempton Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Neural networks has been nominated for deletion

Category:Neural networks has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scrope Berdmore Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantaloon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Constitutional history

Hello, Charles Matthews. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Constitutional history, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adrian Grant Duff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moulins.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theresa Yelverton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smedley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

DrawShield

Though flattered that you judged me worthy of inclusion, I must disclaim any adeptness with specialised heraldry software. All of my illustrations have been made with Paint, Paint 3D, Microsoft Powerpoint and Libre Office Impress. Elements from others' heraldic images have been sourced and recycled on a case-by-case rather than systemic basis and I have not catalogued the origin of each except in giving attribution - and that not at all if the original image was public domain. I doubt that I would have much to contribute to your endeavour. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor: So, it is interesting to know your methods. They serve you well. I'm currently working on illustrating the baronets articles. commons:User:Charles Matthews/DrawShield baronet charges is the beginning of a listing of charges not currently in DrawShield, and needed for that. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have [made a video] of the process behind my latest upload. The password is bluebell.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Constlk

Template:Constlk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing

Charles, please refrain from WP:CANVASSING this or any other discussion, as you did here.[16]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That was contacting an admin. Deryck is known for his expertise in relevant matters, such as closures, and the contact was appropriate under WP:APPNOTE. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Charles, your note to @Deryck Chan did not fit any of the criteria in APPNOTE. It was not a call for expertise; it was an attempt to trigger a move to a different venue because the discussion was not going your way, which I have never seen before at TFD. That was a WP:GAME ploy to get an admin to WP:FORUMSHOP for you.

Your assertion to Deryck that it involved redirects was thoroughly misleading, because the only extant pages are templates. In the course of the TFD you have repeatedly tried to WP:GAME the system by supporting a move that created an ambiguous redirect contrary to WP:RFD#DELETE #2 in the hope that a second venue would give you a chance of retaining the ambiguity. I have never seen such deviousness at TFD.

Whatever you might have claim to have intended, your failure to state that you were asking Deryck in a purely admin context clearly led Deryck to accept it as a request to substantively intervene ... which he did with an partisan vote[17] which was a) an explicit support of his wiki-chum (If Charles wants), and b) so disastrously misunderstood the issues that he explicitly advocated a bolded Keep both on two templates whose functionality is absolutely identical.

If you actually intended your note to Deryck to be a neutral administrative post, then APPNOTE is clear: Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users. But you didn't disclose the notification, and nor did Deryck. That lack of transparency from both of you, combined with all the other factors, leaves me in no doubt that it was indeed canvassing.

I used to hold you in high regard, and I have been sadly disappointed by your repeated attempts to turning this simple matter in to a storm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: this comment seems excessive, with redundant retaliation, but I don't know the details of this matter. I like both your contributions, fwiw. ~ cygnis insignis 14:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@cygnis insignis, sadly, when an editor engages in as much sustained gaming as Charles has done in this matter, and is wholly unrepentant ... then a response which actually dissects the misconduct and the obfuscations inevitably ends up looking like a hammer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

On the formality of notification, yes, I was unaware.

More allegations, quite baseless. I know Deryck well. He would not vote for me in any sense, if he disagreed. What you say there is bilge. Redirects are of the essence, as you well know, and I have pressed you on your interpretation in the debate.

On formality of notification again, you fell down on the second template in the process. In checking your work on that, I pinged in the editor who has made the most serious contribution to the debate on the principles, and called you out on your bad language, while supporting your deletion request. I think we can call it quits.

On esteem, my academic background supports the idea of "esteem the work, not the person". I admire what you have done on politics. I have seen you hounding another editor, and you forfeited my esteem as a person years ago. So I'm not surprised to see the invective.

I'm certainly neither impressed nor scared by it. I'm not surprised you equate "gaming" with questioning your assertions that we should just nod things through if you say so. Hey, you even appear to have a claque who do think that.

This whole template discussion was misbegotten, and that is down to you. As of right now the discussion is functioning properly. I do not expect thanks from you. Others may look if they wish and decide who has been taking constructive steps there. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews, I find it sad that even at this stage you have learnt nothing. As to the discussion going off kilter, you are projecting. You chose to sour the discussion early on by:

1. your attempt[18] to dismiss an IP because they are a new IP, rather than the substance of their observation, and your bizarre allegation that my agreement with the IP was some sort of [pre-emptive strike. If you choose that sort of battlefield conduct, replies to you will have to challenge the nonsense.
2. Your inivitation[19] to the closing admin to admonish me for commenting on your workflow, even though you yourself had chosen to make your workflow an issue in the discussion. That's an entrapment tactic, and if you didn't intend it as such you should retract an apologise.

On redirects, there is currently no redirect. Your attempt to persuade Deryck that the venue should be changed was based on yor misrepresentation to him of the facts, which are that it is a discussion of two templates.

As to notifications, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors says it is sufficient to list a template for discussion, and goes on to emphasise that other notifications are optional. So drop your claims that I failed in that regard by notifying the creator of the second template.

You say that I made assertions that we should just nod things through if you say so. That is a falsehood which will have been known by you to be false. I neither made nor implied any such claim; my objections have been to your repeated efforts to game the system by entrapment,[20] misrepresentation, false accusations of bad faith,[21] canvassing,[22] and attempted forum-shopping.[23]

All very shoddy conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

For someone who wrote in the discussion "I do not presume to know your motives", you do a great deal of it. As someone who followed that with "But I do note that if your intention was to deploy an attrition strategy ...", I think you may have revealed something about your own way of thinking. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and I do apologise for not disclosing Charles's message on my talk page when commenting on the TfD. @BrownHairedGirl: I'm afraid you have been taking this too personally, and your opposition to Charles's position on the TfD is biasing your reading of my involvement. Charles asked me to consider rejecting the TfD as wrong forum, but I read the discussion and decided that I think TfD is an appropriate place to have that discussion and so joined as an opining editor rather than an admin. You're accusing me of both accepting partisan canvassing and misreading the alleged canvassing message - surely the two accusations can't hold true at the same time? Deryck C. 15:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deryck, thanks for the apology. However, I stand by my reading of what happened: your decision to intervene on the substance without disclosing that you had been given a non-neutral notification was not spotted by me. It was identified by another editor[24], which was why I investigated. When I was an admin, my practice was that when I was notified in an admin capacity, I would usually act only in an admin capacity ... and if I chose to join the discussion in any capacity, I disclosed the notification. Regardless of what either of you intended in this situation, the effect of the combined efforts of you and Charles was exactly the same as canvassing: Charles recruited an ally to join he discussion with an explicit personal endorsement If Charles wants .... The lack of disclosure by either of you exacerbated the issue, but was not the sole problem. I hope that you can reflect on why that is an undesirable sequence of events.

Once small clarification. You wrote: You're accusing me of both accepting partisan canvassing and misreading the alleged canvassing message - surely the two accusations can't hold true at the same time?. No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that whichever way you read Charles's message, your actions were wrong. If you read it as partisan canvassing, you should have told Charles that canvassing was wrong. If you read it an admin message, then you should have restricted your involvement to that aspect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

BHG, you were flaming me, if unskilfully. I was contacting Deryck as an admin. Anyone who is targeted by hyperbolic claims of bad faith such as you were making is entitled to make some basic move towards dispute resolution. Saying a TfD discussion should be somehow hermetically sealed by non-canvassing requirements is wonkery. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Matters arising (broader view)

Here are some bullets on matters arising from far-ranging discussion.

• B-list forums (CfD, RfD, TfD …) I have encountered nonsensical arguments at CfD. These places are a good case study in the academic concept of tacit knowledge.
• The traditional Wikipedia take is that they attract “standing committees”. Typically they can diverge from charter, develop arcana and rules of thumb, permit single-issue stances to have too much effect, rely on dodgy concepts of authority.
• User:Adam37 acutely wrote in the discussion “Some reach for total disambiguation others realise that is a tired fantasy.” This is the kind of challenge these forums need.
• Frankly, periodic discussion getting to the roots of decision-making is part of a healthy diet for such a forum. If the TfD process doesn’t mandate notification of the most interested parties, so much the worse for it. Speedy transaction of business isn’t everything.

• I began to work with developers in the Wikimedia context, and one thing I have learned is the concept of “self-appointed CTO”. It is related to WP:BOLD for our way of thinking: Wikimedia internal politics tends to abhor a power vacuum. Anyway, we self-assign roles, and the CTO-surrogate is at hazard of COI. What editor E thinks about tech is not automatically the best for the encyclopedia.
• I wrote some things in the TfD discussion today, and in those terms, I found the early discussion to be oppressive (the “X must die” argument made personal). I entered a protest there addressed to the “closing admin”, and went to WP:CR. I wanted the discussion rebooted.
• The argument BHG presented on "clipboard managers" was at fault, and faulty. This works for bots? This works across all operating systems on all platforms from which WP can be edited? No. It is more like a tactic to deny me standing based on the way I care to work.
• The "attrition" attempted slur mentioned above. Is someone counting keystrokes likely to try to wear down an opponent by typing? Is someone engaged, as mentioned, in a digitisation project of a reference work on Wikisource with tens of thousands of entries possessed of idle fingers looking to do the devil's work?
• The "I wouldn't presume" comment mentioned above. Clearly enough said for effect. BHG's use of "disingenuous" in contrast. (1) "I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that you are being intentionally disingenuous when you write" etc. (2) "It is particularly disingenuous of you to quote from a part of the nomination where my reasoning has explicitly been superseded due to do things I learned in discussion. I will now strike that part of the nom.” Not so much disingenuous of me, as advancing matters. I did suggest we totally reboot.
• To clear up one thing. What I meant by "pre-emptive strike" is very much the content of Adam37's comment above. It was aimed at BHG not 67.70.27.180. Pre-emptive disambiguation is like adding parenthesis disambiguation in an article title before we have to. We don't do that, at least.
• I now know about WP:TG and "template function should be clear from template name". So that was an advance in my understanding of the discussion.
• My proposal yesterday of {{electoral district link}} as a generic that meets the WP:TG, and uses indirection to get concision, is my way ahead.

Couple of further points.

• In my view admins are given discretion, and are accountable for their actions. If an uninvolved admin wishes to enter a discussion, technical restrictions are not the point, and nugatory in effect.
• Deryck made the mistake of taking BHG's "personal macro" description at face value. A gotcha for a classic framing technique.

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

	Ice Cold
	An ultra-cool drink after resolving a storm of reductio ad absurdum and (really regular) wiki relentless righteousness. - Adam37 Talk 20:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As welcome and refreshing as unexpected. Cheers! Charles Matthews (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Morton Paye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Murillo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Constituency link

Template:Constituency link has been nominated for merging with Template:Constlk. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

My thanks to you. [25]. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Charles Matthews/genealogical roll

Hello, Charles Matthews. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "genealogical roll".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! SWinxy (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@SWinxy: It is new to me that user space is subject to this kind of speedying. The page in question was neither submitted to AfC nor placed in the Draft: namespace. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I messed up. I wrongly tagged your page (any many others) as speedily delete. Ignore the message. It won't be deleted. SWinxy (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was deleted, and then it was restored. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretend as though nothing happened. Sorry for the confusion :( SWinxy (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, and I'll pretend not to find Twinkle annoying. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)