User talk:Girth Summit/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Hostile Editor

Hello.

I am not a Wikipedia expert, so please bear with me.

There is a guy making edits on a bunch of Wikipedia pages, his name is Yappy2behere.

It seems that numerous people have complained about him being hostile and making rude comments for several years. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yappy2bhere#Personal_attack

Last week, he started editing a page that I have been updating (Richard_Cheese), and he has been undoing everything that's been updated on the page. The problem is, he is reverting the page back to very old information that is out of date and inaccurate. And, when he removes things, he makes subjective comments and baseless accusations and insinuations that people are lying or whatever. It is astonishing how rude this guy is. And it's especially unsettling because he has been called out on his rudeness so many times by many people in his talk page.

Anyway, I was searching for other complaint reports about him, and that's when I found your user name in a discussion at AIMLExchange. It looks like you dealt with him in the past.

As I said, I am not a Wikipedia expert. I was just trying to update the Richard Cheese page because I am a fan of the Richard Cheese band.

So, I would like to ask you if there is any way YOU can stop this person from making further edits on the page. I don't know how to do any of that stuff, it's very difficult for me to understand this stuff. I don't want to get into a war with this guy, he seems aggressive and I'm a little scared at how obsessive he is.

Any help you can offer would be appreciated.

Thank you for reading this.

L.

Hi L - I've taken a look at the page, and I've got to say that you are coming across as far more hostile than Yappy2bhere - I mean, you're calling for them to be banned on the article talk page, which is totally inappropriate. I recognise that you are new to the Wikipedia platform, and probably aren't up to speed with how we do things here. Our articles should primarily be summaries of reliable, secondary and independent sources. I'm seeing a lot of unsourced content at that article, which needs either to be supported by decent sources, or cut away to make the article compliant with our content policies. I haven't examined every edit Y2BH has made in detail, but from a quick inspection it looks like they were improving the article. If there are any specific edits of theirs that you want me to review, please feel free to let me know. If you tell me the date and time when they made the edit, I can take a look.

By the way, I'm not familiar with the discussion at AIMLExchange where you saw me - I think that's a Wikipedia mirror site which copies our content, but I'd be interested to take a look if you want to remind me of the conversation where you've seen my username. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again L, I've looked into this in greater detail. I see that you posted a message on Yappy2bhere's user page, claiming that the subject of the article wants to speak to them. I find it hard to reconcile that with your assertions elsewhere that you are 'just a fan'. Because I suspect that you have a connection with the subject I've blocked your IP range from editing the article directly, but if you want to want to discuss the content of the article you are still able to do so on its talk page. However, I need you to slow down and learn how things work here, to accept that only material that is properly sourced should be kept on the page, and to stop asking people to contact you off-wiki. If you persist with that, your IP range will likely be blocked from the project entirely. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

---

I just typed another reply and it got deleted somehow.

I saw Richard Cheese post on Twitter yesterday about needing a Wikipedia editor. Evidently he saw the edits being made by the hostile guy. I sent a DM to Richard Cheese and suggested that he reach out to him, and he replied and said he would welcome that. That's why the message was posted.

I'm going to try to retype what I typed earlier, give me a few minutes. Can't see very well.

---

I do "accept that only material that is properly sourced should be kept on the page." My problem with Yappy2behere is that he was deleting everything without replacing it with correct/accurate information. He saw a crack in a window, so he smashed out the whole window, and didn't replace it with new glass. Reverting an edit from 3 years ago to an older edit from 4 years ago doesn't improve the page...!

So, for example, in the discography, he decided that three albums released by Richard Cheese in 2015 shouldn't be in the discography anymore. So he removed that edit, and nwo the discography is incomplete. He claimed that those three albums aren't in "Discogs" so therefore they can't possibly be accurate. But if he just looked on iTunes, he could see that the albums are totally there. The right thing to do would have been to add a citation/support link to iTunes. Instead, he just deleted the three albums from the list and left a hole there. Is that what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do? I understand the desire to clean up a page and remove unsourced entries. But a list of albums is easily verified on iTunes; why didn't he fix the entry instead of erasing it? I think that is destructive.

But the bigger issue is his snide remarks on the Talk Page. He makes these insinuations about Richard Cheese that are opinionated and subjective. That's not appropriate is it?

Look at what he wrote in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Cheese#About_that_autobiography...

He said, "In this case the 'new' working title [3] is simply the old working title [4] of an album that was announced but abandoned, perhaps to salvage some of its hype." Is that last dig really necessary? He just seems to like being hostile and attacking people.

I looked at his talk page and there are DOZENS of entries from people complaining about his personal attacks and insults.

So, that is why I reached out, because this guy is making all these edits and ALSO making unnecessarily personal attacks on the editors and also disparaging Richard Cheese.

And then worst of all, he attacked ME when I told him I was visually impaired and had trouble editing.

Here's that interaction on his talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yappy2bhere#richard_cheese

He accused me of lying about having poor eyesight.

How is this person still allowed to edit pages after all of this?

Anyway, thank you for your time.

I saw you blocked my IP. Sorry. I certainly didn't intend to earn a block -- but I'm not going to get hostile about it! I'm just a Richard Cheese fan. I don't want to use Wikipedia fulltime like you guys. I was just trying to make sure the page is accurate and current, and to make sure that factual information is maintained on the page. Richard Cheese has all of his albums and musician credits on his website, it's very comprehensive, and I was just trying to make the wikipedia page more comprehensive.

I don't want to get into a fight with anyone. Yappy2behere seems to seek out confrontation, and that seems like a problem that needs to be addressed.

Thank you again for your time and patience. Sorry for typos.

Maybe there is someone out there who wants to edit the Richard Cheese wikipedia page and add sources and citations for everything. I can only do so much, and evidently what I have done wasn't welcome. Again, sorry if I did it wrong, but I can't believe that Yappy2behere's methods are right.

Hi again L. I refactored your message slightly, just to conform with the guidelines on using talk pages, in order to make the conversation easier to follow.

You've covered quite a few different things there. I'll try to touch on all of them quickly...

• First off, you aren't just a fan: you're a fan who has been canvassed on Twitter by the subject of the article (see WP:CANVASS), and who has been in direct communication with the subject about the article's content. Since that individual has been blocked from editing the article, you are in effect editing for a blocked user by proxy, which is not permitted. I don't personally blame you for this - you are new here, and didn't know that what you were doing was inappropriate, but I'm going to leave the block on your IP range in place, because you simply shouldn't be editing that article - you're too closely connected to its subject.
• I think that Y2BH's comment about your scanning the end credits of a film was unfortunate, but it was a one-off comment and I don't think their intention was to cause offense. Compared to some of the things that you have said about their mental health, I still feel that you have been considerably more hostile towards them than they have towards you. I suggest that you just draw a line under that now, and try to engage constructively on the talk page if you want the article to be improved.
• I don't think your analogy of the cracked window quite works. Our articles need to be verifiable; if there is information in an article that is not supported by a citation to a reliable source, removing the information is a valid course of action. Then, if anyone wants to reintroduce it, they can do so provided they can find a reliable source to support it. From our perspective, it's better to have a short but impeccably sourced article than a comprehensive article where the reader can't verify the information. Crucially, if information can only be sourced to the subject's own website, we should not be including it. Our goal is to summarise what reliable, secondary sources have to say about any subject; what the subjects have to say about themselves is best left on their own websites, blogs or whatever.
• I haven't investigated the disparity between the Discogs source and the iTunes one, and can only speculate as to why certain albums are missing from the former (perhaps some of the ones on iTunes are self-published, or in some way 'unofficial' - that is a complete guess though). However, Discogs has the benefit of being independent of the subject, and is the source that I would generally recommend that editors rely upon in situations like this.
• I don't really understand why Y2BH put that stuff about the Kickstarter stuff on the talk page; to be honest, if the only sources about the book are kickstarter and the publishers' website, it doesn't belong anywhere in the article, and should simply be removed. I don't see any benefit in discussing the history of a kickstarter campaign based only on comments on that website, that would be OR based on an unreliable primary source, which is not going to lead anywhere productive. I don't see the comment about the hype as being disparaging though - a little informal perhaps, but I can see what they were getting at.

In short then: from a quick, cursory inspection of the very complicated history of that article, I believe that Y2BH is working in good faith to improve an article (which is sorely in need of improving), and to bring it more closely into line with our content policies. I also believe that you are here in good faith to prevent someone from doing something that you perceive as damaging the article, but I'm afraid that your unfamiliarity with our policies and guidelines means that you have mistaken the routine (and only partial) clean-up of a very bad article for wanton destruction.

You are still at liberty to make suggestions on the article talk page, but I need to ask you to keep it civil, and to ensure that you do not advocate for the inclusion of any content that isn't appropriately sourced, or against the removal of unsourced/poorly sourced content. If you want something to stay on the page, find and cite reliable secondary sources. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Thank you for taking the time to explain all this. As I said, however, reverting the page back to 4 years ago doesn't automatically make the page better. If the only criteria for Yappy2BeHere's edits is WE MUST REVERSE ALL EDITS BY RICHARDCHEESE2 and WE MUST REMOVE ALL UNSOURCED MATERIAL, then Yappy2BeHere needs to be consistent and remove ALL the other older unsourced stuff from the page. The entire page is chockful of unsourced material -- but he didn't delete any of that. So now the page is outdated AND unsourced. Again, I am not defending the use of unsourced material. But having an incomplete page is not an improvement. All he did was remove things from the page; so now what? Do we just have to wait for some 4th person to add the missing information, and meanwhile, the page remains inaccurate and incomplete? It just seems to me that people shouldn't be allowed at the blackboard if they only brought an eraser.

As for my block, if you go through and look at all of the corrections I made, none of them were 'ordered' by Richard Cheese. When Richard Cheese announces a new album to his fans on social media, I would add the new album to the discography. When he changed the name of the autobiography, I updated the Wikipedia page with the new name. I added a list of musicians culled from his CD credits. There's nothing controversial or contentious or promotional about any of this. I'm not "too closely connected" to Richard Cheese, I just follow him on Twitter and Facebook. I hope you will please remove the block, and I will make sure that I continue to make only factual edits as I have done consistently all along, and I will add citations from now on.

As for the issue of Yappy2BeHere's hostility, you said, "I think that Y2BH's comment about your scanning the end credits of a film was unfortunate, but it was a one-off comment and I don't think their intention was to cause offense." Frankly, it being a "one-off" comment doesn't make it okay. I don't think there is ANY defense for that kind of attack. He also made a dismissive remark about "Covid ate my homework" -- who in their right mind makes jokes about a pandemic that has killed 4 million people?

But worse, he apparently makes personal attacks like this to people all the time, based on what I read on his talk page. He's been admonished for his abrasive tone numerous times, hasn't he? Will there never be consequences? The ONLY reason why I sought help from a 'higher authority' (you) is because I had NEVER experienced this kind of hostility and rudeness from a stranger on Wikipedia. How many times does someone have to say "Oh, no offense intended" before you realize that he says that phrase all the time and has actually been doing it for years? It's all indefensible, in my opinion. I think the guy is genuinely unstable, but that's just an unsourced subjective opinion. But it is an opinion shared by many other people on his talk page. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and twenty people have complained about it on Wikipedia, then yeah, it's a duck.

My comments to him weren't hostile; I was calling out his hostility. He started it. I'm not the problem here.

Again, I don't know this person, I had never laid eyes (!) on his typing until a few days ago. But just a simple glance at his editing history indicates at best an irresponsible belligerence and at worst an insidious God complex. He mocked a person with a visual impairment; that should merit a lifetime ban. If this is normal/acceptable behavior for Wikipedia, then I certainly don't belong here.

I don't know if you even know who Richard Cheese is. He is a singer but he's also a comedian. He's funny. I like listening to his albums because he has a sense of humor. I feel like this Wikipedia world takes itself far too seriously about the rules -- but doesn't take a harassment victim's legitimate concerns seriously enough.

No hard feelings to you, I am sincerely grateful for the time you have taken to communicate with me. But I'm sure you can understand that this whole experience has been bitter for me. It is sad that people like Yappy2BeHere are allowed to remain on this platform and continue acting out, like a mean drunk, knocking things over, shouting insults at strangers, and kicking people who are already down.

L, I'm going to be brief because I don't feel that this conversation is really going anywhere.

I'm not going to remove the block on your IP. If you have exchanged DMs on Twitter with the subject, particularly if those messages pertain to his Wikipedia article, you are too closely connected to them to edit impartially. You need to use edit requests on the talk page.

I take the point about the selective removals; however, removing unsourced content that has been added to a page by someone with a clear conflict of interest is a very common form of routine clean-up. I haven't read or looked for sources about this person, and have never heard of them until today, but from a quick look at the page, I agree that a lot more material probably needs to go. Y2BH may choose to do that work, or we need to wait for another volunteer - there is no deadline by which the article needs to be completed.

Now, I want to make something very clear: I'm not going to get into a discussion of who 'started it' between you and Y2BH, but you have now made multiple comments speculating on the mental health of another contributor (psycho, unhinged, God complex...) - that is unacceptable. I don't know anything about their editing history, and I'm not going to rake through twelve years of contributions to see who was on the right side of any prior spats they might have been in. You have said that you want them to stop communicating with you, so you need to stop making comments about them. Otherwise, the block will made site-wide, rather than just to that particular article. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 12:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

---

GirthSummit: I read what you wrote and I took your advice and I stopped posting anything about Y2BH. I went to the Richard Cheese talk page and, as you suggested, I made an edit request on the talk page. I posted a very constructive suggestion about improving the page. And now a few hours later, this same Y2BH guy is attacking me again ON THE TALK PAGE. I took your advice and let it be, and yet he persists in what can only be described as stalking. He is following my contributions on other pages as well, posting comments on everything I do, even on totally unconnected Wikipedia talk pages. And then he posted another screed once again accusing me of lying about my visual impairment. Is there any way to get this Y2BH guy to stop hounding me? I'm literally getting scared because he won't leave me alone. What can I do? Is this really acceptable?

Hi again L, I'm not seeing anything hostile in Y2BH's message on the talk page: they haven't said anything about you at all, or criticised your proposal, they've just outlined why sources like those aren't generally used. Can you point me to where the screed about your visual impairment is? I don't see that on the article talk page. Can you also tell me which other articles you have been followed to are? Since you don't have an account, and your IP address keeps changing within the range that you're on, it's a bit more complicated than it otherwise would be for me to identify which edits are yours (particularly when I'm on a smartphone rather than a laptop.) Girth Summit _(blether) 08:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

GirthSummit: I am sorry I am not signing my posts, it is really hard for me to do all of this html typing, I mostly use voice-to-text.

To be clear, I am not friends with Richard Cheese. We had one message exchange via twitter, it was three messages total. That isn't a "close connection." I'm just a fan, I'm not his BFF and I'm not following his orders and I'm not trying to be biased. I just tried to update the page to add missing information. Adding a missing album doesn't require being "impartial." I'm just copying information from his CDs and posting it on the wikipedia page. So I got yelled at for doing that. And blocked. Okay, fine, I am the bad guy. So, after I read your message, I followed your recommendations.

I went on to the talk page as you suggested, and I pointed out that some stuff was missing, and I said, These albums are on Bandcamp and iTunes. That's all I did. I don't know how else one would provide verification of a discography. But it's the talk page, not the actual article, right? So, I'm just *talking* and making constructive suggestions. And this guy shows up AGAIN and starts lecturing me and accusing me of trying to provide iTunes links in order to sell Richard Cheese albums. Are you kidding me?!? He just assumes the worst and imagines that I am trying to pull a fast one. This is a consistent theme, as I explained earlier. And then, I found where he added more comments and once again made accusatory insinuations that I am actually secretly Richard Cheese and again made insinuations about my vision problem. Here's what he wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yappy2bhere&action=edit&section=31

This isn't a "one-off comment" as you suggested previously. This is a consistent repetitive personal attack on a disability. HOW IS THIS PERSON ALLOWED TO CONTINUE POSTING ON THIS SITE?

I don't want to get into fights like this, but c'mon, this is outrageous. These are personal attacks about ME.

So, I tried to leave it alone and let it be.

As you said in your previous post, "You have said that you want them to stop communicating with you, so you need to stop making comments about them." I DID stop making comments about him. I dropped it. And yet he won't leave me alone.

I'm sure that I'm doing all of this wrong and I'm violating all the protocols and whatever, but I don't think I have done anything to deserve being attacked and hounded.

I have reasonable concerns that this person is hostile, that this person is exhibiting stalker behavior, and this person won't leave me alone.

Please put yourself in my shoes. Is it reasonable for me to have asked for help? And does it make any sense to you that *I* got blocked and he is still allowed to post hostile comments aimed at me (as well as still posting hostile comments on other people's pages in the past 24 hours)?

In reply to his comments, I posted "STOP HOUNDING ME. LEAVE ME ALONE. DO NOT CONTACT ME ANYMORE." I'm going to not use Wikipedia for the rest of the week. When I come back online on Saturday and check Wikipedia, what are the chances that this same guy is going to have posted more hostile comments? I'd say 1000%. This is classic stalker behavior; I have friends who have been stalked, and this is the same kind of thing.

Please help me. If you can't or won't, then perhaps please tag someone who can help. I understand that this is a volunteer site and that there is no one in charge. But I really don't get how this kind of consistently hostile and obsessive behavior is allowed to continue. If anyone needs to be policed by the community, it's not me.

Again, thank you for your time. I'm sorry, I'm sure you have more important things to do. But how many times does someone need to report repetitive hostile behavior for it to be taken seriously?

Hi again. This comment has come from a different IP range, but I see that it locates to the same city in Colorado, so I'm going to assume that I'm speaking to the same person. It really would make it simpler to interact with you if you were to register an account and log in before editing.

So, you haven't answered the question I posed in my last comment: where do you believe that this person is hounding you? You said that they have followed you to unconnected pages when you edit them - which pages has that happened on? I don't see anything threatening or hostile in the recent posts at Talk:Richard Cheese, or at Y2BH's talk page, and so far I've seen no evidence that they are indeed stalking, hounding or harassing you in any way. You can't demand that they don't comment on your proposals at the article's talk page - they're expected to do so in a civil manner naturally, but as far as I can see that's what they've done.

If you aren't able to present any evidence to support these accusations, I'm going to have to ask you (again) to stop making them. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wondering if you could double check an article for me

Hi Girth Summit,

I was reviewing an article I played with a long time ago. Since I last touched it a user wrote the entire plot. He did a good job but did use some hyperbolic language. I did trim some, but English not being my first language I would like someone else to look at it. Unlike the last time, I asked to intervene, rest assured there is no war edit, and the interaction with the other user has been cordial and polite. It's an old TV pilot called Kung Fu: The Next Generation. Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Filmman3000, sorry it's taken me a few days to get around to looking at this. I'll start by saying that a plot summary of a work of fiction is not something that I've ever tried to write, and is quite a long way from what I'd consider to be my area of influence. From a quick skim though:

• It's quite long, with lots of very short paragraphs. I'd suggest trying to trim it, and combine some of the paragraphs.
• It uses curly apostrophes (MOS:CURLY) and abbreviations like 'doesn't' - they should be straight apostrophes, and in articles we should be writing 'does not' out in full.
• 'Police' should only be capitalised when it is the first word in a sentence. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you I've fixed it to the best of my ability based on your feedback.Filmman3000 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Girth Summit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nothing urgent, just an FYI. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of cross-dressing characters in animated series on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller's new account

Hello, you probably remember me. I'm User:Eyebeller. I decided to become active in anti-vandalism work on Wikipedia again and would appreciate it if you could grant me ExtendedConfirmed and Rollback on this account. Now, I forgot my password and don't have an email address attached to my old account. The only way of verification I have is my bot password (which I have noted down) which I used for Huggle. As my method of verification, I can "Welcome" you through Huggle if that works? Or would you like another method of verification? ProofRobust (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, if I welcome myself from User:Eyebeller, will that work? ProofRobust 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(I managed to edit this page using Huggle). I can confirm ProofRobust is my account. I hope this suffices. Eyebeller 18:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, hi - I'm not averse to this request, since it seems clear that your are in control both accounts. I'm on mobile just now, but will look at it properly tomorrow. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Responsible Editing

You are stalking and reverting my edits. Stop it.

UniversalHumanTransendence I am a site administrator, reverting edits which I believe are ungrammatical; in repeatedly reinstating them, you are edit warring, which is disruptive. I am monitoring what you are doing, which is not the same thing as stalking you. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for a seemingly personal attack but I feel stalked.

UniversalHumanTransendence Apology accepted - no offense taken. I just want you to slow down and discuss your changes, rather than forcing them through. The stuff about the position of the prepositional phrase in the sentence is a matter of judgement - I don't have a problem if someone changes that kind of thing here and there, I just don't want you running through the project changing it willy-nilly on lots of articles without a consensus to do so. The stuff about the word 'the' is more serious - you are introducing grammatical mistakes, which isn't acceptable. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for a relatively quick consensus.

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hispaniola on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Potentially Predatory Admin Behavior

Who regulates Admin users on Wikipedia, and where can users report one for potentially predatory behaviors? Voice For The Unheard (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Voice For The Unheard, ultimately it's Arbcom, but you are generally expected to go WP:AN first, where other admins will review their actions. Assuming you're talking about me I would welcome such a report. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Voice For The Unheard (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, there is no administrator misconduct, you are just being disagreed with by several users. I caution you against terms such as "predatory," it has connotations that I don't think you intend. Acroterion (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion Where exactly did you review? Hipaniola's Talk Page or anywhere else? Voice For The Unheard (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Hispanolia, where your accusatory conduct gives me concern. Other editors are being patient with you.Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Losing patience fast with I see. Well it seems like I cannot edit the article yet given a semi-protection, which is tolerable, but as soon as I am able to I will edit again to leave the word 'Hispaniola' for now but include (Officially known as Haiti). @Voice For The Unheard, do you understand that this is a statement that you intend to edit against consensus? —valereee (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is particularly worrying, especially with the unanimous (apart from VFTU) list of "No" comments in the RFC. At least in the English-speaking world, "Haiti" has the singular meaning of the nation, not the island. Bringing up unrelated tangential examples of inconsistent naming just highlights that no systematic application of a naming rule exists. I expect Voice For The Unheard to respect consensus, and to stop making ad hominem attacks against Girth Summit for disagreeing. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Voice For The Unheard, I like your colourful new sig. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thanks! Really appreciate this as a reminder that while we might disagree on content, personally we are A-Okay. Voice For The Unheard (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your block

You just blocked an IP editor for disruptive editing. Can you redact their edits on Chicka Chicka Boom Boom and other articles. They violate copyright policy. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, yep, I'm on it, give me a minute... Girth Summit _(blether) 13:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The edits on Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3 also need to be redacted. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, yep - I think I've probably got them all now - so many clicks... Girth Summit _(blether) 13:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you get the talk page of the last book? Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, bloody hell - yep, got that too, thanks, I'd have missed that. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That means all of their edits were redacted. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CemasoV

Hi. I added two or three lines from authoritative sources about Chinese doping to the article in compliance with the rules. From ten days ago until today, this user has deleted, restored and obscene with various accounts. Two accounts with the same name. The other two accounts are also suspicious because they were suddenly found in the middle of a discussion. Either it belongs to him or to other Chinese who inform each other. He used ugly words in the editorial summary. However, I preferred not to complain to him and not to continue the discussion. Today, I added a line to an article about a Chinese athlete who has been widely reported to be transgender, and then deleted it because it has not yet been confirmed. Instead of being ashamed of his ugly behavior and the ugly words he used in the edit summary, the user became a creditor. And he complained to me. See what ugly words he used with his other account, which is a sub-account, and now that he has not reached a conclusion, he has started harassing and accusing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_at_the_Olympics&diff=prev&oldid=1035397680

thanks--CemasoV (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

CemasoV, I haven't looked into much of this, but I will say this: Heightzone does not look like a reliable source for any assertion about anything. For stuff covered by the WP:BLP policy, definitely not. And since these are only internet rumours that the source doesn't even claim are true, that stuff should not be anywhere near the article not even on the talk page. You need to read and adhere to the BLP policy's sourcing requirements if you want to edit those articles. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2021

Delivered August 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

EyyubVEVO

Hi,

You previously were dealing with user EyyubVEVO on their significant conflict of interest. Nothing seems to have registered with them. Their latest article creation, Kazim Can looks like another one where there is significant conflict of interest. The article includes a photo of a certificate that they claim to have taken which was awarded to the subject of the article. Could you look into this further or should I make a report at some noticeboard? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Body mass index on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda and the line about "Relevant Qualifications"

Hey, I noticed you removed the phrase "without relevant qualifications" from the long-contested sentence in Ayurveda's lede. I really think it should stay in, since it's what the cited source directly says:

"[Quacks are] [p]ractitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine." - Source

Furthermore, related articles like Unani also make use of similar language:

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) estimated in 2014 that approximately 400,000 practitioners of Indian traditional medicine [...] were illicitly practicing modern medicine without having the qualifications to do so; the IMA regards such practices as quackery."

and cite the same source the Ayurveda article does to back the statement up.

Aathish S | talk | contribs 10:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Aathish S, there was a lengthy RfC, which received a formal closure; I feel that the wording in my version better matches that closure than yours did. If you want to challenge the close, there is guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

My issue isn't with the closure of that RfC at all. The topic I want to discuss is your wording of the sentence as opposed to mine. I've stated why I feel my wording is better in the comment you replied to (summary: it's what the source says, and it's wording used by similar articles citing the same source in similar circumstances) and would appreciate if you could detail why you feel my wording isn't up to the mark and/or why your's is better. Thanks! Aathish S | talk | contribs 10:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Aathish S, because there was a lengthy RfC process in which many editors expressed their views about exactly what we should say about that issue. The inclusion of some verbiage about qualifications was proposed by a number of people in that discussion (yourself included), but the close of the discussion did not find consensus to include it; therefore, I have removed it. If we're going to go to the trouble of having an RfC, we should respect its outcome; if you challenge the outcome, the instructions for doing so are at that link. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't think that the close not mentioning qualifications would imply that there were restrictions on the article mentioning them. Aathish S | talk | contribs

Aathish S Since including a mention of them was proposed and discussed as part of the RfC, and the form of words included in the close did not mention them, I think it's pretty clear that the consensus was for it not to be included. If you think it's ambiguous however, you could ask the closer to clarify, and if necessary to modify their closure. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I just might do that. At the very least it'll clear things up for other new editors like me. Do I ask the closer informally on their talk page or is there a particular protocol I need to follow like the one for challenging closure? Aathish S | talk | contribs 11:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Aathish S, you can start by approaching the closer informally and asking for clarification. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

UAA comment

Maybe hopefully you'll feel like blocking me tomorrow... Vermont (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Vermont, dunno - are you trying to advertise Vermont as a filming location? Seriously, I'm sure there must be lots of people with usernames that are the names of places, but yours was the first that popped into my head. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Not only am I advertising Vermont as a filming and ski resort location, but I am actually a role account operated by a different moose every week. And on the serious side, I'm happy to be your first thought for a username that's a place lol. Vermont (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Vermont, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a moose. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for extending the block -- I don't deal with vandalism accounts very often, and that one seems to have been using redirects in a rather awful way -- so don't have my Blocking instincts calibrated very well for these kinds of non-standard cases. Sadads (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sadads, no worries. If it had just been the redirects, I'd have probably issued a block from article space and talked to them about their editing, expecting to unblock when they had demonstrated an understanding that doing something like that without consensus is disruptive. It was the redirects of their talk page that put me over the line into 'not here', that isn't someone I want to attempt to have a reasonable discussion with. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oneylover

Since you blocked SmilingFriend as a Suspected sock of Oneylover, can you change the block settings of Oneylover? LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 19:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi LooneyTraceYT, there's no need to change the block settings, the original reason still applies. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I'm not normally one for a barnstar, but I've seen you pop up here and there in the "adminsphere" - each time, its accompanied by sage advice to a fellow editor, or a level of kindness and understanding we so often seem to forget. Thank you for your contributions both to our content and our community ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, praise from the praise-worthy means a lot - thankyou. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Infobox settlement on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Velayudham gross dispute

Sir Kindly look after the Velayudham page the film seems to have made a gross of 90 crore worldwide as per reputed Hindu article gross figures but some users keep changing to low value of 60 crore citing madras muslings an unknown unreliable source. The user seems to be a fan of actor suriya and he is pulling velayudham gross down to make sure 7aam Arivu gross is more. The film that clashed with velayudham at the box office and he is using very disgusting bad words if anybody changes the gross to 90 crore worldwide even with adding reliable source. same goes for vettaikaaran it clashed with Ayan at the box office.

This is an old proper revision of this Velayudham page, as edited by Kailash29792 (talk | contribs) at 11:52, 5 August 2021

regards Leopardsrun (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Leopardsrun, the correct place to propose a change to the article is at the article's talk page, Talk:Velayudham. I have been acting purely as an administrator: we don't adjudicate content disputes, but we stop edit warring, and we prevent people from taking part in discussion if they are aggressive or insulting. What you need to do is propose the edit you want to make on the talk page, and see whether other editors agree. If they do, or if nobody has responded to you after a couple of days, then make the change. If anyone responds abusively, feel free to let me know and I will show them the door. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Bernette Ford

On 10 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bernette Ford, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bernette Ford was one of the first members of the Black Creators for Children, an organization that helped promote black authors and increase diversity in children's books? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bernette Ford. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bernette Ford), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Vijay movies Box office

Hai, please you have to look into this. Some guy is trying to fool you by inflating the box office figures of Vijay movies using edited screenshots as sources. The pictures have been edited in order to make it appear as if they are from reliable sources such as Deccan Herald, The Hindu, Hindustan Times etc.

Take for instance this source given for box office of Kuruvi and Azhagiya Tamil Magan:

https://archive.ph/qopJd

The words are clearly edited in to suit their agenda. No reputed magazine or newspaper publishes news like that. Just check the link once and you will know for yourself. When I undo the edits, this guy reverts the edits right back and I lose my patience and end up abusing him. You cannot let him get away with this. He edits from different IPs but his username is Leopardsrun.

You can search for the actual web pages anywhere. But you won't find it. Not only that, he has done the same for many other films of Vijay such as Velayudham, Vettaikaaran, Villu etc. Please revert his fake sources. Don't let him fool everyone.

Girth Summit

Those articles all have talk pages, where editors can discuss the content and sourcing of the articles. If you find that you can't come to agreement, dispute resolution is available. If you can demonstrate that another user is fabricating sources, report it with evidence at WP:ANI. What nobody should ever do is edit war over content, or abuse other editors, for any reason. Edit warring and abuse will always result in accounts and IPs being blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have posted it on the administrators' notice board. Please make sure you look into it.

(103.165.167.150 (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC))

I dunno

About this. Maybe you can look and apply your expertise. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru, anything beyond that interaction analyser? From a very quick look, I see two editors with some overlap in editing interests, who have edited a few of the same articles (but mostly with a significant time gap). The edit summary usage is similar (i.e. poor, neither of them use them very often), but that goes for a lot of editors. Nothing is jumping out at me as being suspicious (I mean, if you were to look at this or at this it looks far worse - sometimes people do work work on the same articles quite innocently), so unless there's something specific you can point at, I wouldn't be concerned. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You and GtM are clearly hounding one another. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, GtM and I are actually both role accounts operated by the same cabal of LTAs with a fascination for early modern historical conflicts. We have secret meetings in the crypt of York Minster every second month when the moon is in the ascendency, and plot the downfall of Wikipedia and the overthrow of western civilisation. Then we have tea. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Except the tea. I expected grog or something. —valereee (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, grog gives me indigestion, and some of the other cabal members are teetotalers. Nope, it's tea and seedcake, then we share pictures of grandchildren and pets, and then we get back to work on the old World Domination. If you fancy joining us, we can probably arrange a Zoom? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Would participating in a cabal harm someone's chances for upward mobility? Asking for a friend.

As an Ohio girl, my first exposure to even the concept of seedcakes was when I was probably ten: two beautiful round seed-cakes which he had baked that afternoon for his after-supper morsel. I pictured something that looked like a suet cake rolled in a variety of seeds. :D —valereee (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, if I'm honest, I don't really know what seed cake is. When I was small, we had an cassette tape of The Hobbit which I must have listened to a hundred times, I loved it. Bilbo Baggins gives the dwarves seed cake when they come to his hobbit hole near the beginning of the story - it's stuck in my mind ever since. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - SusunW isn't in the cabal, she's an undercover operative trying to take us out as part of Jimbo's crack assault team. Gog the Mild's counter-revolutionary team is onto her though... Girth Summit _(blether) 22:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

OMG, I am rolling. Definitely I'm more likely to be on the revolutionary team, but the pacifist kind. Never would I ever be in league with anyone with actual authority. Power to the little people! (By the way, in my neck of the woods we call seed cake, pound cake, you know, a pound of butter, a pound of flour, a pound of sugar and 1/2 a dozen eggs. Seeds of your choice, or dried fruit are optional. And, you drink it with coffee, chicory optional.) SusunW (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I am so busy with the Satanic rituals these days that I struggle to find time for the overthrowing Wikipedia and seed-cake stuff. But it does give me good background to be the cabal's "tell no tales" enforcer. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah ha! So you are the person responsible for burying all the consequences I write about of the conflicts that you write about. I knew it! SusunW (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of English invasion of Scotland (1650)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article English invasion of Scotland (1650) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons thing

As you showed interest on User talk:Ymblanter#Commons, if you have questions about that you can ask me. It all started over my block so one could say I was involved. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, - I don't have any particular need to know anything about that case, it was just some background info about the kind of things that go on at Commons, in light of an encounter I had there recently. If you want to tell me about it, from your perspective, I'd be very interested to hear it, but I'm not investigating it in any way, or seeking to look under any rugs. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz On reflection, it's probably fair that you know a bit about the circumstances that led to that discussion. There's currently a thread at Commons' 'user problems' page (which I interpret as being roughly equivalent to ANI here), where you will find my username. I expressed my frustration with the situation here, and examples of previous 'clusterfucks' at Commons were mentioned - hence my interest in the case surrounding the various blocks/resignations that resulted from your block. It was not focussed on you you, or the block itself, in any way, and while I've read the discussions that were linked to, I do not know what led to your block, and that isn't something I feel I need to know. What I'm chiefly worried about is the standards of administration on Commons, which are (based only on my recent experience) far below what they need to be to ensure a safe working environment for contributors. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It is the equivalent, c:COM:ANI even goes there. And [1] is.. oh boy. When talking about non-admin users, there is a lot of love and collaboration in the Commons community. In the group of admins (including CU and crats, actually for some reason those groups seem disproportionally negatively affected) it is a mixed bag. Some admins are really awesome, the majority is mostly just fine and some.. some are incapable of change, if you catch my drift. I should write a post mortem about my case, have been meaning to for a very long time, but it's difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if many have given up on governance issues on Commons getting fixed. A quote that struck me was this, by Gone Postal: "It's actually harder to stand up to bullies when you are not around." It's touching, but also quite sad. There shouldn't be many bullies and there should be more people who stand up to them. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, a post-mortem about your case, from your perspective, would be an interesting read. Just to reiterate, Ymblanter and I were discussing it as an example of shit-shows on Commons: we weren't discussing you or anything you did wrong (which I am still unaware of), just how the aftermath went down.

I'm still amazed and depressed in equal measure about that thread. It wasn't a big ask: that is doxxing, please remove it. Shit like that would have lasted moments at ANI. Sure, EnWiki is more highly populated, and ANI probably has many more watchers, so it would be entirely understandable for it to hang around longer over there. But to have three sysops look at it, and do nothing? Seriously, that freaks me out. Doxxing is as bad as it gets in terms of harassment, you don't need a formal policy to deal with that shit. I had assumed that Commons, like EnWiki, was a safe and collaborative space. Bad actors no-doubt exist there, as they do here, but I had assumed that sysops would deal with them when they were brought to their attention. I no longer have any faith at all that that is the case. It's genuinely the most shocking thing I've come across since I started editing here. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Abortion on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Optical telegraph on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 South Korean presidential election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Consider

Might have some work with the mop here ... Cheers. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Whiteguru, looks like somebody got there before me. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For standing up for what is right on Commons and Meta. It would have been easy to let it slide. Thankyou, Jack Frost (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I have to say that I don't normally go in for all this barnstar stuff, but I did want to recognise your advocacy and commitment to standing up for what is right. It's very much appreciated, even by this random on the internet. Thankyou, --Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jack Frost, it was pretty mind-blowing... Girth Summit _(blether) 08:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of English invasion of Scotland (1650)

The article English invasion of Scotland (1650) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:English invasion of Scotland (1650) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

E-mail regarding a topic ban

To the editor who just e-mailed me about their topic ban: you included what I assume is your real-life name, but you didn't include your account name or what topic you were banned from - I'm afraid just telling me that it happened three months ago isn't enough, my memory isn't what it used to be! I tend not to enter into e-mail correspondence about Wikipedia unless I know who I'm talking to, hence the response here. If you want to e-mail me again, with a note about which account is yours, I'll take a look and consider a response. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Help for Pringles

Can you fix something in the Flavors section of Pringles? I don't know how to size my new image just like the rest. Help would be greatly encouraged.

Kind regards, Doctorine Dark (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit, you gotta admire his chutzpah.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Doctorine Dark, image formatting really isn't my bag. I think it's because you now have an odd number of images, so the last one is being forced to be double width but I'm not expert. Try asking at the WP:HELPDESK - that's what I do when I have image or map problems. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:1960 New York mid-air collision on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Kangra Valley Railway

Can you remove some of the revisions I edited that contain copyrights? I noticed you removed the rest, but I added the notice without removing the copyright violations, and only removed them in my subsequent edits. Thanks! ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl, good point, will do. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation request

Hello. I recently alerted another admin about this but I was unaware he is currently away. I was notified by another user about an ongoing COI issue. One of the users involved in the COI was someone I suspected as a sock puppet back in January. The evidence now obtained supports the claim and I suspect all five users mentioned in the COI are the same person based on the edit history of this article currently up for Afd. Would you be able to investigate please? The discussion is happening here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Physicians_for_Patient_Protection.

At least three of the accounts edited the article within a 4 minute window: [2], [3], all of which are either brand new with no edits, or accounts with very few edits, all editing in the same style and way. I could go on with more evidence but a quick look at each accounts editing as well as the page in questions edit history is extremely fishy. Would you be able to join the discussion here?: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Physicians_for_Patient_Protection and investigate the 5 accounts please. Thank you. Inexpiable (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, you say that you suspected socking back in January - was there an SPI case, can you give me a link? If you think they're socks, a new SPI might be the better approach rather than a COIN thread. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I never reported it at the time because there wasn't enough evidence. Now there is. Inexpiable (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, please could you compile the evidence and raise a case at SPI? I can then investigate as an uninvolved admin (rather than having to compile evidence myself about a case I'm unfamiliar with, and ask another admin to review). I don't know how familiar you are with raising SPI cases - if you use Twinkle, that makes the process much easier! Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I will try, but the article in question is currently up for Afd. Would you be able to take a quick look? In the mean time I'll try and submit evidence. Inexpiable (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, don't worry about AfD - admins reviewing SPI cases can review deleted articles and their histories. What I need is for you to explain why you think they're socks (or WP:MEAT) based on what you've seen - you're obviously familiar with the case, the more information you can give me the easier it will be for me to investigate. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 19:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok it's done. If you want to take a look? [4] Do I need to provide more evidence? Inexpiable (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am also continuing to find more evidence. Can I keep adding it to the investigation? I think this is pretty strong evidence for at least 2 of the accounts in question: [5] Thanks for helping. Inexpiable (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, I've requested that a checkuser take a look - the editing is very similar. Yes, you can add more evidence as you find it. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping and sorry for all the page spam, I have never done one of these reports before in my nearly 10 years on Wikipedia. Inexpiable (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, please don't worry about it. The first time I submitted an SPI, I remember getting a message from a checkuser (and former arbitrator) telling me that it was so badly formatted that they needed me to go back in and sort it out before they could even act on it. That was before I had discovered Twinkle though - at least that helps out with the formatting, I always recommend it very strongly when submitting reports! Girth Summit _(blether) 20:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Refactor

A friendly note that I refactored your and Floquenbeam's exchange on AN. If (either of) you think I'm off base, please revert. I thought it simplified the discussion, but I recognize my change is testing the edges of WP:TPO so understand if you'd prefer the previous text. Best, — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, how bloody dare you?!?! Yes, if I'd read all of Floq's post, I'd have seen that he was inviting me to do just that. Thanks for tidying up. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI close

Could you double-check the result you listed in this close? OP is Kleuske but instead it was the reported editor Zqzkqzq‎ that is blocked. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

DMacks, you're quite right - don't know what I was thinking there. Fixed. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick-fix! DMacks (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello.

Can we move on? Thanks. AnuranEmpire (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

AnuranEmpire, I'll reply on your talk page, so it's all in one place. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you but can we move on. AnuranEmpire (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

AnuranEmpire, I have responded on your talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Further developments

Hi. Any further advice you might have for me regarding the outcome of my sock puppet evidence? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ReasonAndScience I know the check user didn't show anything but I am still convinced it's the same person. Surely they could have just used a VPN of some sort? I also wanted to point out further developments have happened since the investigation. One of those accounts I suspected has now been banned for vandalizing: User talk:Bonafidemd79. Anything further that can be done now? Because I believe he is still using at least 2 more accounts to promote an agenda. Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Inexpiable - I don't have time to look at it again right now, but I will try to do so soon (note that it's 22:30 here in the UK!). FWIW, I doubt that it's one person - when I last looked at it, I remember thinking that it seemed more likely to be a number of different people working towards the same goal, possibly coordinating their editing, and possibly with a COI. That would be a violation of WP:MEAT, but it's harder to be certain about. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Inexpiable, I'm not going to take any action against the unblocked accounts. I am not convinced that they are coordinating their editing exactly - perhaps just people are talking about the article in real life, and a few people decided to get involved here. I've seen that kind of thing happen before. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 15:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I like it - I think that's a definite improvement on what we've got now. I don't have any particular suggestions for improvement - I read through the prose, agreed with the sentiments, and didn't see anything that needed copyediting - it's good to go. If you start an RfC somewhere, please let me know and I will comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"and it could happy"

This gave me a good chuckle. Hope you're doing well, feels like it's been a while since my CVUA! DanCherek (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, honestly, I don't remember typing that. I can only assume that I was typing one thing, got distracted, then started on a new sentence without finishing the last one. Or copy edited very badly. Or I'm going senile. Whatever it was, it jumped out at me when I looked at it again - like 'what on Earth...'.

Yes - seems like a while ago now. You've been doing some fantastic work since then, in a lot of different areas - good show! Girth Summit _(blether) 00:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Learned from the best! DanCherek (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, your saying that makes me and it could happy. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

rewording?

Regarding this edit: may I suggest that you consider rewording the following: The right approach to take when writing articles is never to make your best efforts not to use any of the text from any of the sources... In addition to the double negative being confusing, it also is confusing to read advice starting with "The right approach... is never to make your best efforts...". Perhaps flipping it around would be better: "The right approach for writing articles is to write it all in your own words, going beyond making a best effort not to use any text from any sources." It's just an idea; I wish your collaborative overture well. isaacl (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, ha - in light of the section above this, I think I am going senile after all! Funnily enough, I think I noticed and changed that moments before your comment here - I'm getting into the habit of going back to re-read things afterwards to see if I've goofed. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw your copy edit just before you replied—that makes more sense. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Chinese Herbology

I will talk to the editor Roxy_Dog who has a clear bias against tradiitonal chinese medicine on their bio page. My edits were to add research that has been conducted in 2021. As such, I would like to revert the page back to my own edits. Please allow me to reach a consensus with this user while my edits remain on wikipedia. Thank you

In your optimism, Toltec Shaman

ToltecShaman you made a bold edit, which is fine. That was reverted by another editor, which is also fine. Now, you need to propose your changes on the article talk page and gain consensus before you reinstate them. Reinstating them against consensus is edit warring, which will result in you being blocked from editing. Please don't accuse other editors of of being biased - you don't know anything about them, or their motivations. Just propose your changes, and try to convince people that the edits are valid. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for delineating clear guidelines as to edit warring. It is my first experience and as such I was unaware that I needed to propose a reason why my edit was preferred to the original editor. My accusation on their bias was simply because they have admitted their own bias on their own profile page with the content "yes we are biased against alternative medicine and we will never change." Nevertheless, my aim is not to pass judgement on any user and will refrain from any overt dispute. My aim is simply to propose that there is clear evidence to support the use of chinese medicine in China against COVID-19 from an accredited scientific journal article published in 2021.

I remain with the following dilemna. I was not able to send a message to the user Roxy Dog to solve this dispute. Can you redirect me to their messaging link?

Best Regards

You do not need to contact Roxy directly. Start a thread on the article's talk page (Talk:Chinese herbology), explaining the edits you want to make and the sources you want to use. Other editors will comment, and hopefully a consensus will emerge. Until that happens, do not reinstate your changes. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 00:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have begun a thread on the articles talk page and am waiting for consensus. How many editors need to agree? Can you explain a little more on how a consensus is typically reached?

You've provided the source, but you also need to explain what content you want to add based on that source. You also need to start signing your talk page posts, otherwise it becomes impossible to know who has said what. You do that by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

There isn't a set number of people who need to agree - that depends on how many people engage with the discussion. Sometimes consensus is obvious; other times, it's not so clear, then you might need to move onto an WP:RfC. Propose the wording you want to introduce based on that source, and give it a few days to see what people think. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Appendix (large intestine)

Hello, Girth_Summit,

First, thanks for moving this article back to the right title. Second, after a bad move like this, Wikipedia bots immediately move existing redirects to the new, bad title. However, when these bad moves are corrected, the editor/admin usually doesn't leave a redirect. This is a mistake because then all of the redirects that pointed to the original page are broken and, if not fixed by an editor, they are deleted by a bot and we can lose them (see here for what I mean).

However, if you leave a redirect after a bad page move, then the bots can change the redirects back to the original target page and everything is back to normal. This fact isn't widely known among editors active in correcting bad page moves but if, in the future, you could leave a redirect, then I, or someone else, doesn't need to manually correct all of these broken redirects which saves us a bit of time and effort. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Liz, I confess I hadn't thought of that. Have you tidied up already, or is there anything I can do to help fix it? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, when I saw that section head go by I just had to come take a look. I think Liz means just turn the redlink into a redirect to the correct page title? Hm, or maybe not, as that would be a simple fix, not a cause of a lot of work. I don't know. —valereee (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, yeah - I'm not sure if there's anything that still needs fixing at the moment. Certainly I'll make sure I leave a redirect next time! Girth Summit _(blether) 18:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Cullen House. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ooh - thanks Eddie891, that was quick! :) Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

seven minutes by my count-- well deserved! I loved the DYK fact. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, those 19th-Century aristocrats eh? They knew how to spend money sensibly. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Cullen House

Congratulations, Girth Summit! The article you nominated, Cullen House, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought about an emoji, but decided that would go against the spirit of FA. So: yay! Girth Summit _(blether) 00:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

---

10:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

User:Vijayshuklaavip

Hi Girth Summit, could you have a look at the above user page with your magic admin glasses - I'm sure it should be at least CSD U5 but for some reason I cant see edit twinkle or page curation to tag it, neither can I see "Edit" tab to manually tag it (used 2 different computers same on both) nothing wrong with twinkle or page curation as they work on other pages. Thanks JW 1961 ^Talk 07:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Joseywales1961, there was a bunch of what looked like HTML script on there, I imagine that was what was screwing up the normal menus. You should have been able to see the 'More' drop-down menu, which would have taken you to 'edit' and 'history' options. Anyway, there was an article copied in there underneath all the code, which isn't appropriate, so it's gone. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 11:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Have a great day JW 1961 ^Talk 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Review request.

To my opinion, these edits are vandalism, as in removing an article (redirect) based on a personal opinion. Can that be reverted? The Banner talk 19:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Banner, they can be reverted if you disagree with them, but they are not vandalism. The user has explained why they have replaced the article with a redirect in their edit summary, and it's a supportable position. You are welcome to revert, with an explanatory edit summary, and invite the user to try to gain consensus for their edit on the talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No, then I leave. I do not want upset anybody. The Banner talk 20:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Banner, I've reverted it - take a look at my edit summary. It's no problem reverting people, provided you take a few seconds to explain what you're doing. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I just dipped into 'recent changes' to find an example of actual vandalism (depressingly easy). This is the kind of edit you can revert as vandalism without an edit summary for. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

...aaaaaand, they did it again, so I blocked the IP's /64 range. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You're talking to User:The Banner as if he is a total newbie. He has been editing since 2008. If he cannot comprehend the difference between vandalism and edits he simply doesn't like after 13 years on Wikipedia, he never will. 217.150.156.11 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to know what other people are capable of. And I don't think that the message you left on their talk page was kind, fair, or helpful in any way. Please don't leave any more like that. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of titles and honours of George VI on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021 on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cullen House

Congratulations on the promotion to FA.Venicescapes (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Venicescapes, I really appreciated the thoroughness of the review you gave me - the article is much better for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Grazmach Tameru Lemma

Hello,

today I came across this article on New Page Patrol. Kindly look to the history of the article and consider. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru, interesting. It's at AfD now - I didn't get a single G hit for the name, aside from the article itself, which is pretty unusual even for non-notable people. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Battle of Dunbar (1650), "about the first major battle in the Third English Civil War, between the New Model Army under Oliver Cromwell, and a Scottish army under the command of David Leslie. Gog the Mild and I rewrote it between May and July of this year, with assistance from Harrias who made the maps of the battle. We have attempted to set out the series of events that led up to the conflict, describe the opposing forces, give an account of the battle itself, and explain what happened in the aftermath of the battle and why it was significant. There is also a brief description of the current condition of the battlefield."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Gingko biloba and MEDRS

Could you please have a look at the medical research section and talk page dispute regarding the claim in this article that gingko "has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism"? Thanks. Zefr (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing admin work

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Being an admin can be tedious and exhausting. Thank you for doing it. The mop is in good hands.

—⁠andrybak (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Andrybak, it can indeed! Girth Summit _(blether) 14:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations to Girth Summit, who is hereby awarded the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels for their continued contributions to Wikipedia. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Girth Summit, and thanks for your nomination. Just letting you know that while you've obviously made some great contributions to Battle of Dunbar (1650), they appear to fall short of the authorship requirements for the purpose of the Triple Crown. The good news though is that you only need two pieces of content in each category for an Imperial Crown, so you're still eligible for the award with the other two featured articles. Have a great day. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Damien Linnane, and thanks for looking into this. Regarding the Battle of Dunbar (1650), perhaps I should have been explicit about how it was written. Most of the current content of the article was written by myself and Gog the Mild in User:Gog the Mild/sandbox6, and copied across into the article with this edit. I don't know whether that changes your view on the authorship requirements? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Girth. Yes that certainly would change things, thanks for explaining. We use automated tools like XTools Edit Counter for checking authorship, as in 99% of cases that shows us everything we need to know in a few seconds, but I can definitely see this is one of the cases where it doesn't paint the full picture. So yes, if you get to the point where you're applying for the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown, please include that article alongside the explanation to remind me (or in case someone else reviews the nomination) :). Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for English invasion of Scotland (1650)

On 5 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article English invasion of Scotland (1650), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Fairfax, Lord General of the New Model Army, resigned his commission rather than invade Scotland in 1650? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/English invasion of Scotland (1650). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, English invasion of Scotland (1650)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Gerda Arendt, a happy memory :) Girth Summit _(blether) 17:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Dunbar (1650) Edits

Hello, @Girth Summit:. You've undone my edits on the Battle of Dunbar and asked me for an explanation. All of my edits were minor edits having to do with spacing. As I understand it, there should be only one space between 4 and PM in "4 PM", not 2 spaces like this - "4 PM". I also replaced the ampersand-based space with a regular space as it accomplishes the job just as well but consumes less code. Once again, these are minor edits, but I feel it's important for the spacing to be consistent. Gug01 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Gug01, the point of the non-breaking space is to prevent text wrapping causing connected bits of text to be spread across two lines: you wouldn't want the '4' to be at the end of one line, and the 'am' to appear at the start of the next. It might look fine on your screen, but people using different sizes of screens will see things differently - we're just making sure that the number stays connected to the am/pm bit on any screen size. There's more on this at MOS:NBSP.

I see. Gug01 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right though, that there should indeed only be one space - I've gone through and removed any instances of a space following the ampersand spaces. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved, then! Gug01 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2021

Delivered September 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

21:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ginkgo biloba dispute

Yes, there is a lot of background and this is not my first interaction with Zefr (including on the Ginkgo biloba article). I do not support the use of herbal medicine whatsoever, but I am interested in ethnobotany and the history of medicinal use of plants. I am fully aware of WP:MEDRS and fully support not introducing spurious medical claims to Wikipedia. Zefr, however, consistently removes any information I add to plant articles about their medical use or effects, even if that information is purely historical and presented with appropriate context and sources (e.g. explicitly stating that there is no medical evidence supporting such uses, or, as in the current dispute, mentioning a well-documented physiological effect rather than a medical therapy). Please read through the previous talk page discussion at Ginkgo biloba for a good example. Zefr's POV is that all medical use of plants is quackery and should not be mentioned on Wikipedia at all. That POV, however, does not align with Wikipedia's purpose or guidelines. Ethnobotany and the physiological effects of plants and their constituent chemicals are part of the sum of human knowledge and should not be censored from Wikipedia under the misguided idea that it is promoting herbal medicine. Zefr is also very tendentious in enforcing his POV. He has been blocked multiple times for violating 3RR and has violated 3RR in the current dispute. After I reported this, he canvassed you and 3 other editors (rather than requesting a 3rd opinion at WP:MED or WP:PLANT which would be the neutral way to do it). Can you understand why I might be a little bit frustrated at this point? Nosferattus (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nosferattus, I don't know what grounds you have for saying that Zefr's POV is that all medical use of plants is quakery - I've never seen them say such a thing, have you? I suspect that you might be putting words in their mouth there, and perhaps misrepresenting their views as being more extreme than they really are.

Zefr is not shy about this POV. "Herbalism is part of traditional medicine, which is the practice of quackery, making herbal medicine a practice of quackery – there is no scientific basis in the use of herbal medicine."[6] Or when he removed information about the use of Ginkgo in traditional Chinese medicine (with appropriate WP:MEDRS-compliant caveats): "no need to mention specific quackery".[7] Nosferattus (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I make a general observation about edit warring in general? It takes two editors, at least, to edit war. Here, you introduce the assertion about vascular permeability. Here, another Zefr removes it, explaining why in their edit summary. Here you reinstate it, pointing to a lack of consensus for its removal. What should have happened is a talk page discussion which results in consensus prior to any more back and forth - you were both in the wrong for prolonging the edit war. Zefr is a long-standing editor with a lot of experience in working with this type of content and sourcing - I'd suggest that you talk to them, try to understand their perspective, and drop the assumptions of bad faith on their part. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It disturbs me that the enforcement of rules on Wikipedia (3RR is supposed to be a "bright line") seems to mainly rely on seniority and who you know rather than the actual rules. Is Zefr entitled to ignore the rules just because he is a long-standing editor? Is there any point at which Zefr's editing is sanctionable, or is he given a free pass because Wikipedia must be protected against the scourge of herbalists at all costs (which I've been lumped in with)? As far as "understanding their perspective", please see my other reply above. I have politely engaged in many discussions with Zefr, but my patience isn't infinite. Nosferattus (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nosferattus, can you step back a bit here please? There's no need for the hostility, or for the unpleasant implications about my motivations and reasoning in your last post.

You describe what I'm doing above as 'lecturing you about edit warring' - you surely don't deny that what you were doing was edit warring though? Attempting to get an opponent in a content dispute taken out of the game with an ANEW report, while you are yourself edit warring, is not a good look, and it's probably why nobody wanted to act on your report. Why didn't you just use the talk page in the first place? We don't need to be at each others' throats over this, we don't need to get angry at all - just talk to your colleagues, calmly and politely, and try to see things from other people's perspectives. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 18:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed that part of my comment immediately after I wrote it. I don't want to be hostile or unpleasant, I'm just tired of having so many of my edits to Wikipedia reverted (by a single editor) despite adhering as closely as possible to the policies and guidelines and trying repeatedly to engage in polite discussion only to be met with an unmovable wall and objections that are not actually based on policy (plus a willingness to enforce their POV unilaterally). Yes, I was engaged in an edit war, but only because I had reached a point of exasperation. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, right? And I'm definitely not the only editor who has had these problems with Zefr. If you look at the history of his talk page (which he keeps blanked), it's almost all people complaining about him repeatedly reverting edits and acting aggressively, tendentiously, and unilaterally, often regarding content that otherwise has consensus (e.g. [8]). You don't have to take my word for it. Just look at his talk page history and block log. How do you suggest I deal with that sort of behavior? Just let him continue steam-rolling over me and other editors? I think Zefr has been fighting against herbalist POV-pushers for so long, that he's now tilting at windmills. Since you're an administrator, would you be willing to mediate my future disputes with Zefr (as I'm sure this isn't the last one)? I'm not here to push a POV. I'm here to add to the sum of human knowledge, but I'm about ready to quit Wikipedia entirely. Nosferattus (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that you are happy to participate in canvassed votestacking, so I guess I can't assume good faith from you either. Were you just playing the good cop role to Zefr's bad cop? Nosferattus (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nosferattus, I find these accusations of bad faith editing to be insufferable. At this point, I'm going to ask that you either retract them, or raise a report at WP:AN for my administrative colleagues to comment upon. If you are unwilling to do either, I will raise a similar report about your own conduct the next time you make a comment about me, or my motivations.

I am happy to discuss policy, content or sourcing with anyone. I am not prepared to stand by while people falsely accuse me of acting in anything other than good faith. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blatant vote stacking. Nosferattus (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to demonstrate that you are actually acting in good faith, all you have to do is recuse yourself from the straw poll. I've demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Zefr canvassed you and the other editors in order to vote stack and that it's part of a pattern of canvassing by Zefr. I suppose it's possible (though difficult to believe) that you genuinely didn't remember all of your past collaboration with Zefr, and somehow the Editor Interaction Analyzer didn't work for you. If that's the case, I would be happy to strike all of my aspersions about your motives and acting in bad faith. Clearly Zefr went too far and broke the rules. If you're willing to acknowledge that and strike your comments at the straw poll, I'm ready to give you the benefit of the doubt. The choice is yours. Striking your comments is not an admission of guilt, it's an admission that your invitation to the discussion was improper and you want to do the right thing. Nosferattus (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nosferattus, 'difficult to believe'? That is the very essence of ABF. Until you have retracted each and every one of your snide insinuations that I have been untruthful, you can say anything you want to say to me at AN. Do not post here again until you have done that. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Potential London NFL franchise on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Question

On Olivia Addams, IP editors keep changing the birth date. Part of the issue is I'm not sure if they understand me because it appears that their edit summary is in romanian [9]. Another IP editor changed the birth date yet again today. I started a conversation at the talk page about this yesterday [10] but no one has responded. From my understanding, without a reliable source to support a birth date change, these edits should be reverted as WP:BLP violations, correct? But because it's been changed so often I'm wondering if it's possible that the birth date is wrong somehow, and I don't want to accidently edit war. Is there something else I should be doing in this situation? Clovermoss (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Clovermoss, I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Basically, if in doubt, it's better not to have any DOB information that to have something that's wrong. I haven't looked at the history, so I'll leave it at that for now, but I will take a look ASAP. Good to hear from you by the way! Best Girth Summit _(blether) 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey Clovermoss, sorry for the delay. Looking at the article now, I'm not actually seeing how either of the cited sources supports the stated birth date - am I missing something? The Romanian interview gives an age, but we can't assume a birth year from just an age, it's ambiguous. Discogs gives a birth year, but it's unreliable WP:UGC and should be removed. So, my general feeling (unless I'm missing something) is that we shouldn't have a DOB at all in the article, and if people insist on adding a date without sourcing, it needs long-term protection. What's your take on it? Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 00:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that tbe birthday should be removed then. My issue was that I was having a hard time accessing the sources (which I mentioned on the talk page comment). Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Clovermoss, let me know if people keep reinstating it without sources, it could be protected. TBH, I think the article probably needs a bit of an overhaul, it reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article... Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist

Do you really have 22,529 pages on your watchlist?! (I have 88.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, yes. I do a lot of patrolling, and I'm very untidy. I've often considered deleting my watchlist and starting from scratch, but there's something stopping me - every now and again I see an edit from someone who hasn't been around for a while, or something else that reminds me of old times. Once it's gone, it's gone - so, it's not gone yet. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You can edit it through this [11]. I have ~2,700 on mine and it feels unmanageable sometimes, so I'll occasionally go through it. I really like the temporary watchlist change that was added awhile ago. Clovermoss (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I am in awe. I get twitchy if I go over 100 and have a spring clean. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

About ~1500 of the pages on my watchlist are redirects I've created which get added to be watchlist automatically, so my "real" watchlist is more like 1,200. I'm not sure where all of it comes from exactly, but when I scroll through my watchlist the pages on it usually make sense. A lot of it has do with vandalism-fighting, which is why I like the temporary watchlist feature so much. Although I don't always use it for articles that get more vandalism spaced out over time (e.g. April Fools Day). Clovermoss (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I once had a go at having a selective clear-out, but sorting the wheat from the chaff was going to be such a massive job that I decided that it would either have to be a complete nuking, or just leave it. I may decide to go down the nuking option one day, but not today... Girth Summit _(blether) 19:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My watchlist, plus the Recent changes link, drives everything I do here. Hate the temporary watchlist thingy, which I haven't discovered how to switch off. I don't understand why anybody would want to clear it out!! Even articles that have been deleted remain on the list, and I have seen them recreated via that route. I do get canvassed occasionally though, but like I said the last time, I was already at that article. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 15:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Humor and help

I am just working my way through Gambia and who do I come upon? I have figured it out! Forget the MacLeods, the immortal is Alexander Grant. On another note, my first ping to help an editor get a merge closed failed utterly. Is it possible for you to assist? SusunW (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

SusunW, these damned Grants get everywhere, and at least 60% of them are called Alexander! Let me take a look tomorrow and get back to you - I'm currently being maligned as a liar at WP:AN which is sonething of a drain on my emotional resources. (Please don't feel that I'm asking you to comment there - I know that's not your normal area of operation, and I trust the community to see it for what it is. I'm just explaing why I feel a bit... meh... at the moment.) Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not to worry, if you can't get to it, you cannot. I am sorry that is happening, I read through it and am speechless. As you say, I avoid conflict on here like the plague, as there is work to do and I don't have time to be involved in the drama. Chin up, it will pass. Your integrity is obvious to me. Should Covid ever end and I make it to your side of the pond again, we shall have a lovely chat over a beverage or two. SusunW (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

SusunW, sorry for the slow response. I see what you mean about Alexander Grant - yes, that would explain a lot!

So, merge proposals aren't something I get involved in often, but that talk page thread doesn't look like a formal proposal that actually requires a formal close. It's clear though that the proposal doesn't have consensus, so you can probably just ignore the thread. If some clever person were to set up talk page archiving, the thread would disappear into an archive after a few weeks of inactivity. (Pinging PaleoNeonate, the archiving guru who set it up on this very talk page a few years ago...) Girth Summit _(blether) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It explains everything, there can be only one. LOL Not to worry, you get to things as you do. I hope the kerfuffle is done and dusted. And yes, I have zero clue what to do with it. The archiving thing would make the discussion go away, but is there a protocol for getting rid of the template? Far beyond me and I have no clue. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

SusunW, ah - sorry, I'd missed the tag. Ignore everything I just said - I'd been assuming that a formal discussion would have had some sort of tag itself, marking it out for what it is, but perhaps that's not how it works with such things. I wish I could unping PaleoNeonate now...

The discussion is an obvious 'no consensus to merge', and after so many months it should be put to rest. I don't like doing things like that when I'm not familiar with the process though, so I'll ping one of the editors who I see is very active at WP:PM. GenQuest, I wonder whether you would be willing to take a quick look at Talk:Women_in_Pakistan#Merger_proposal and, if you agree that there is obviously no consensus to merge, do the needful with the discussion and tags? Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "I don't like doing things like that when I'm not familiar with the process", which basically means if it is beyond research and writing and the markup for those, it is beyond my abilities. I often get asked questions I have no idea how to deal with and so I just end up making the rounds of those I know who have more skill with things I know nothing about. Appreciate your assistance. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

SusunW, this sort of underlines a point I was making to a very experienced ex-admin recently, who was complaining about admins and arbitrators not being super-experienced content creators. No one person is ever going to be able to do everything on this project. If you can cover two or three bases, you're doing pretty well in my book; we need a diversity of skillsets in all areas of the project, and we all need to help each other out with the other areas occasionally. You are hands-down one of the best researchers and writers this project has - you should not feel bad about asking other people how to deal with the inner workings of proposed merger discussions, I'm just sorry I can't be more use! Girth Summit _(blether) 20:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

And you are one of the most willing and helpful admins I know on here. Getting through life is all about networking and WP is no different. I may not know, but usually I know somebody who knows, or someone who knows somebody who knows someone who knows. I appreciate you and your skills. And you make me laugh, which is always a plus. SusunW (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, folks. I am travelling cross-country today, but will give it a look Sunday. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

GenQuest, it's been hanging for three months so another day is certainly not going to be a huge inconvenience. I appreciate your willingness to try to help. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Question

Can you take a look here and let me know, in your opinion, if this fellow is trolling me? What are my options here? Ta very muchly. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Whiteguru, I can see the author's perspective here - there were three sources listed when you originally placed the tag. The problem is that they had included so little information about those sources that they were impossible (or at least very difficult) to identify. I also agree with them on the notability question - assuming the assertion is true that they were elected to public office at a national level, then NPOL is satisfied. So, the only problem jumping out at me is the lack of information on the citation templates.

Options... Well, until you respond to them in some way, they aren't breaking any rules by asking you to. You aren't obliged to help them, so you could just drop them a note asking them to stop pinging you. Or you could tell them what the problem with the sources is, and then point them to WP:VOLUNTEER, and tell them that it's frowned upon to repeatedly demand that someone else do something.

Let me know if you think there's something I've overlooked. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 06:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Church of England

As an administrator you really should know better than to revert the article to a version that has been repeatedly disruptive and without consensus by POV pushers. "Anglican" rather than "Protestant" is any accepted classification as the latter is POV. Anglicanus (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Anglicanus, I've already posted on your talk about this. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. I was typing my comments as you were typing yours. I apologise for getting a bit narky but this issue has been a disruptive one in recent times. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Anglicanus, no worries - you were right, I shouldn't have been so quick to revert, it was an error. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sogdia on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Girth Summit,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

bigredbook

Hi. Considering your comments here, I wonder if you might have a look at my comment here. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, sorry - I took action on this, but should have replied to you here. Both accounts blocked by me, there's a thread at AN, links removed and site blacklisted by another admin. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 10:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The War of the Three Kingdoms

While you write "I don't demand that it be 'English invasion of...'," I did not ascribe any malintent to you edits or to the name of the article. Likewise I have reverted to the older name to give plenty of time for a consensus to emerge, not to play in the school yard.

However what I have notice over the years, that when someone reads a book about a subject they can often find it difficult to summarise the wording in that book in such a way that it is not paraphrasing to such an extent that moves towards a copyright violation, and they often find it difficult to see the other points of view. This tends to happen over political issues as well.

During the most recent Troubles in NI the British establishment and press called the IRA terrorist. The American establishment and press tended to use more descriptive terms like gunmen and bombers. The classic example of this is the Quinn v. Robinson case. After 9/11 there was a sea change in US popular and governmental views on terrorism. One here much less about the Political offence exception in the USA these days!

In this case while I am confident that there will be no paraphrasing, when I read the article it seems to have been constructed around the title "English invasion of Scotland". This is to do with the amount of information provided about why the invasion took place and the details of that invasion, and with far less information on the Scottish invasion of England.

Let me give you an example of my own unconscious bias. Since I was a child I had known of Napoleon's Russian Campaign, which I tended to shorten to the "Russian Campaign". When the name of the article came up for review I was surprised to find that although "Russian Campaign" is a common name is was no more common, than the current tile "French Invasion of Russia" so clearly there would be no consensus to move it. When I studied the history at A levels one of the subjects was North American History which included the "American War of Independence". Years later I proposed on the talk page that the "American War of Independence" would be a better name than the name "American Revolutionary War", people who discussed it with me on the talk page of the article agreed it probably would be a better name, but it was not the name that they were most familiar, and again "American Revolutionary War" is a popular name in the United State so there would be no consensus for a move it.

There were several other invasions of England by the Scots between 1639 and 1647. However they are not usually called Anglo-Scottish Wars. Indeed at the moment they are not even included in the Wikipedia page Anglo-Scottish Wars, including the Bishops War (1639). That is not to say that they should not be, just that they are not. I am not sure if the Scottish Army in Ireland, or the Irish Army in Scotland during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms are described as "Irish-Scottish War(s)". Presumably by the logic you are using in your new proposed title they could be titles for articles. As I see it, unless there is a consensus among reliable sources for such names this is straying into OR.

In my opinion the war was driven by the danger that the English Independents saw in English Presbytery and Royalist Anglicans joining with the Scots, and hence the need for a pre-emptive invasion once Charles II had been acclaimed King of Great Britain (and Ireland). Also the reason why they took pre-emptive measures to "round up the usual suspect" (or at least watch them) in England before the Scottish invasion.

If it had looked possible for Charles to rule just in Scotland then a political compromise could possibly been reached. However I suspect that trust on both sides was so low that could not happen. So I would argue that the war was fundamentally driven by the interests of internal English politics and not as such a war between two nation states. -- PBS (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

PBS, the article was not written around the title. Gog the Mild (who is not Scottish) and I worked on the article together, and we agreed that the title wasn't right quite late on in that process. Gog suggested 'English Invasion of Scotland (1650)' because it matched quite a few similar articles listed at English invasions of Scotland. I thought it was as good as title as any, so made the change.

I remain happy to consider alternative titles, but the current title is just wrong. Yes, it followed on from the English Civil Wars, and I'm sure that there is a lot of sense in what you are saying about the interests of internal English politics. And yes, there were other times when Scottish armies entered England, or Ireland, for different purposes. We could discuss what they are, or should be, called, but for now let's focus on what happened in this campaign: an English army, commanded by an English general who was working on the orders of the English parliament, invaded Scotland. It was opposed by a Scottish army, commanded by a Scottish general who was acting on the orders of the Scottish parliament. The English army conquered and occupied Scotland, and the remnants of the Scottish army invaded England. They did not receive any significant English support, and they got squashed by an English army at Worcester. That cannot be accurately described as an English civil war, and modern scholars recognise that by either explicitly criticising the phrase, or just calling it different things. I've given multiple examples of scholars doing both of those; what I can't find any examples of is modern scholars in a relevant discipline using your preferred article title.

I have acknowledged that there were issues with 'English invasion of Scotland (1650)', and I would be willing to discuss problems anyone perceives with my latest proposal. Neither of them, however, are as wrong as the title you have reverted to: Third English Civil War. It wasn't English, and it wasn't a civil war. This isn't my personal opinion, which would be irrelevant - it is what the sources say. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have given my reasons on the talk page as to why whether or not the title it is accurate. If I were to repeat the here I would be wasting our time.

As you pointed out the section on the title is not a good place to go into the substance of the article, and other than to emphasise that I think that the article is squed to the English Invasion of Scotland and Scottish events leading up to that invasion, I don not want to get involved in that issue. My only concen there is that from the text if one has no ther knowledge of the war then I think "English invasion of Scotland (1650)" is reasonable.

I have just read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English invasion of Scotland (1650)/archive1 that is precisely why I do not hold the FAC process in much esteem. The volunteers who turn up are quite good as fixing problems such as dotting the 'i' and crossing the 't's etc, but the asking why "declared" and not "crowned" is indicative of the weaknesses of the process (as know [no] one with more than a passing interest could be expected to ask that question).

BTW I think a better words than "declared" is "proclaimed" as was done at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh (and Newtownards in Ulster) in February 1649 -- where someone in authority stands up and reads a proclamation; or "acclaimed" as was done when Charles entered London in 1660 by prominent English people in the Banqueting Hall (a very significant symbolic location). -- PBS (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

PBS, I'm sorry, but I don't really understand why you are commenting here then. There's a lot of stuff in your post above, but I thought the article's title was at the heart of it? If you expected me to read and respond to something else I'd be grateful if you'd explain.

The relevant weight given to the invasion and conquest of Scotland, and the Scottish invasion of England, is about right in my view. The campaign in Scotland was massively longer, involved a number of significant engagements, and led to the overthrow of a national government and the imposition of English military rule over a nation. The subsequent invasion of England lasted a few weeks, and involved just one significant battle.

I think that the sources I've been using give the conflict similar treatment. The ones I rely on most heavily are Woolrych, and Furgol in the Kenyon and Ohlmeyer edited collection - they both spend a lot more time writing about Cromwell's shenanigans in Scotland than they do discussing Leslie's doomed excursion into England. I'm sure more could be written about that, and would consider expanding it - although I'd probably start that by expanding and improving the text at Battle of Worcester, which still seems to be relying on the EB1911 for a lot of its content. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the suggestion of 'proclaimed' over 'declared'. I'll check the sources, and may change that word. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We can have an informed discussion on this because we have both read a lot about the conflict. My worry about the current content and its structure is that if that is all a person reads and tries to decide on the best title for the article, (s)he may be influenced by that content of the article, which we both know is only a brief overview to the whole campaign. With that caveat as I wrote above, article title is best discussed on the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Content is a side issue (and I do not have time to get into detailed editing of articles at the moment): I personally I would spend a lot more time of the politics post the end of the Second Civil War in England and less on issues such as the Bishops War, because I think that is more important to framing the reasons for the following war (whatever it is called). Indeed it was internal English politics that persuaded a political faction in Scotland to interfere in England in 1648 leading to the defeat at the battle of Preston, and that, to a large extent, framed the discussion and the events in Scotland leading up the the next war. Inside the article I would add more detail to the military campaign in England. Worcester was much more than "just one [more] significant battle", it was the decisive battle of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms -- just as Waterloo was is seen to be in another conflict; And just as "what if Napoleon had won Waterloo" the chances are that he would have been defeated later at a different decisive battle, so if the Royalists had won at Worcester they would have been defeated at the Second Battle of Brent or similar). You demonstrate this in the "Aftermath" section. It puts English interests first, its mention of Scotland is brief, and Ireland is only mentioned only in passing. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

PBS, was it really the decisive battle though? Don't you feel that things had already been decided? I feel that Worcester was a forgone conclusion by the time it happened: the Scottish army was exhausted, poorly equipped, and outnumbered, because of the defeats in Scotland and the fact that English Royalists were unable or unwilling to join it thanks to Cromwell's careful preparations. My reading of the sources I've looked at is that it wasn't so much a decisive battle as the final, desperate throw of the dice for a cause that was already defeated. Should I look elsewhere? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It was the same with Waterloo! But that is with the benefit of hindsight and as I said above if not Worcester then it would have been some other battle. Indeed some of Charles's advisors (like those of Bonny Prince Charley 100 years later) pushed him to head for London not for Worcester in which case the outcome would have been the same, but at a different location. With the formation of the New Model Army (NMA), defeat was inevitable after the NMA's first victory at Naseby (1645). There is a quote in the History of the British Army by Churchill "The Story of the Second English Civil War is short and simple. King, Lords and Commons, landlords, merchants, the City and the countryside, bishops and presbyters, the Scottish army, the Welsh people, and the English Fleet, all now turned against the New Model Army. The Army beat the lot!". The Scots ought to have known defeat was inevitable after the Preston before they even fought Dunbar, and after that they really really should have got the message, but as they did not Worcester beckoned. They should have stayed very quiet after their defeat at Preston in the Second Civil War and maybe they would have kept their independence, particularly as they could tell the English Parliament that they were suppressing Royalism in Scotland (Montrose). -- PBS (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

PBS, ha, now who's enjoying the benefit of hindsight! I think that Cromwell might easily have been defeated at Dunbar, or in the following spring had the Scots attacked while he was sick, or even had the attack at Inverkeithing gone differently, but you're right - there would probably have been another wave, it's hard to see the Scottish army taking on an England that was committed to the task of squashing them. I think they knew that their only slight hope was that English Royalists would join them, and I doubt they even held out much hope that that would happen. My personal guess is that Leslie, eyes open, chose to lose on enemy soil rather than surrender on home turf. But I can't ask him. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Another consideration

This fellow is asking people to write an article for him. I dunno if this is UPE or sock evasion, you may wish to look into this. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Whiteguru that's a bit of an odd one. Looks like it's already been dealt with. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 14:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

SPI further question

Hi Girth Summit, thanks to you and User:TheresNoTime for your work at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jajang Surahman. Please could you check if User:JassenMarang17 was in fact the original account rather than the sock? It looks like Jassen might be older than Jajang. The reason I ask is because Jajang has created a whole bunch of articles after Jassen was indeffed for their behaviour so articles created by Jajang are likely eligible for WP:G5. Please could you or TNT check? Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point Spiderone. The oldest account, and therefore technically the one that should be tagged as the master, is WukiCaytho457, but you are correct that since JassenMarang17 was blocked in January, all edits since that date are block evasion, and G5 would apply. I can't seem to move the case at the moment, there is an issue with the SPI Handler script which is preventing me from committing the changes (and I don't fancy trying to do it manually), but you can go ahead and tag any articles they created since the block as G5. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

SPI

Hi GS - hope you are well. For info, the blocked user A.A Prinon was confirmed to be socking post-block per this SPI report. I thought I'd let you know, as they were pinging you a lot regarding their unblock request. Thanks for your help with this issue earlier in the year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Girth Summit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 09:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)