User talk:JASpencer/Archive 4

Catholic temperance movement

Hello, JASpencer, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Catholic temperance movement, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, The Temperance movement in Ireland. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Catholic temperance movement at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Temperance fountains

A tag has been placed on Temperance fountains, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Camyoung54 talk 20:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Editathon

I have sent you site mail, to progress things. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

St Pancras Church, Ipswich

I have left you a message on the talk page of that article, and it is important that you read it.

I presume that you are a relatively new editor. I have been around for years, and I am very rarely as rude to a newish editor as I have just been to you, on that talk page.

The message is think about the meaning of the sentences that you write.

• Present facts as fact. If there is a clear statement in a good source that tells you something is the case then don't present it as mere hearsay.
• Present theory as theory. If something is a theory, then state who the theory is put forward by.
• Present suspicion as suspicion. If something is claimed or suspected by only a specific group of people, then state who the people are.
• Present myth as myth. If something is widely stated and perhaps believed, but not universally accepted as true (or provable), then that must handled by saying which group believe it. e.g. "The Catholic Church accepts Transubstantiation"

What you have done is present a fact that has at least three references, which can probably be supported by parish meeting notes, architect's plans, contracts, payments, local news papers etc etc etc etc..... as if it was nothing more than an urban legend believed by a group of local Catholic people. This is very thoughtless use of your sources.

Here is how its done. Note how each sentence is structured. This is about "How to write Wikipedia". The subject is of no consequence.

• "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa."

The sentence states this as a fact. The factual nature of the sentence is supported by the 16th century writer Vasari. No reliable art historian has ever doubted this as a fact, so it is stated as such.

• "The subject of the painting "Mona Lisa" is generally accepted to be Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo."

The sentence uses "generally accepted". This is supported by references with interpretation of symbolism, and by the findings of documentary evidence

• "Sigmund Freud theorised that the painting is influenced by Leonardo's memories of his mother."

In this sentence the theory is identified as belonging to a particular academic

• "Much speculation abounds on the internet, including the theory that the subject represents Leonard himself in women's clothing."

The sentence makes it clear that this is "speculation". The author of the claim would be referenced.

This list moves from what is known beyond doubt, to what is widely accepted, to an important but unprovable theory by a significant author, to a highly improbable but widely-circulated theory. In each case, the way that the sentence is written takes into account whether the information is reliable.

Stating "Local Catholics claim the building was intended as a cathedral...." gives a verifiable fact no credibility whatsoever.

Amandajm (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Amanda, I rarely need to remind an editor that this is a project to build an encyclopedia and not an online game. I would seriously suggest that you look up WP:CIVIL and the assumption that I was a new editor makes your aggressive behaviour and language less and not more acceptable.

That aside, there were two editors who were very unhappy with the sources being anything other than a claim. If there is a better way to word the claim - or whatever it is - then the best way to do this is to edit the article rather than your rather over the top behaviour.

JASpencer (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting comment on name change

Should we change Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore to Saint Mary Major? I am targetting folk who have altered the entry before. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sarek of Vulcan

Thank you for the notice that you have mentioned my name came up in discussion on SarekOfVulcan's talk page. I have left you a comment there. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

St Pancras (again!)

I made a comment at WP:RSN which I hope you find helpful. Andrew Dalby 13:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Bernardino de Sahagún Good Article nomination

JASpenser, you'll need to nominate this article again on the article talk page, this time with the proper template. The nomination instructions are at WP:GAN; essentially, you need to substitute the GAN template with the proper subtopic, which in turn generates a filled-in GA nominee template. I've reverted the attempt, since the nomination template had no parameters at all, rendering it useless. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Determining a consensus of WikiProject members

Just curious as to why you think it inappropriate to ask the members of a specific WikiProject to clarify consensus on an issue relating specifically to that WikiProject? That's the way its usually done. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a tiny project where all the active contributors are active Freemasons. There's going to be a skew and false concensus. JASpencer (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The point about it being a tiny project is probably valid... your assumption that all active contributors of the project are active Freemasons is not. But even if they were, how would it "skew" the consensus? Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Hi there. I noticed you reverted my edit. I'd like to know why you disagree with the edit, seeing as it is referenced by a link to a respected academic institution. --Île flottante (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We've gone through this before here. JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[[Danegeld]] was paid again and peace was restored. Aldhun was on his way through [[Durham]] to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Gran Priorato Rectificado de Hispania for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gran Priorato Rectificado de Hispania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Larkin, Church and State

Please see Talk:Louis André#Larkin, Church and State -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for help

User:MSJapan has begun what can only be described as a scorched earth campaign regarding both my past edits and even my status as a Wikipedia editor. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would deeply appreciate any assistance in this matter. Kingstowngalway (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion has been started toward deleting a creation of mine Category:Reign of Terror perpetrators. I have attempted to defend both its relevance and my own motivations in creating it. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in some circles to always assume bad faith on my part. Might I again ask for your assistance?Kingstowngalway (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Montgomery (1720–1800), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Act of Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JASpencer. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page.
Message added 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haggerston by-election, 1908 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• resulted in a gain of the seat by the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]] from the incumbent [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberals.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Holy Trinity, Dublin: Augustinian Friars

FYI, I have added some references to Holy Trinity, Dublin: Augustinian Friars. A better title would be Augustinian Friary of the Holy Trinity, Dublin, but a move during AfD is not a good idea. -- 101.119.15.3 (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Creating Re-direct pages

Hi. I am an editor who tends to seek out red-linked pages which are awaiting articles to be written and then write them. Today I have come across a page that I wanted to add to and I discovered you had created a re-direct. When someone creates a re-direct it turns a red-link blue, and I never realise unless I stumble across it, that an article needs to be written. I notice that you have created a number of re-directs. I am wondering if this practise is not counter-productive. Graemp (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirects create a link to an a more informative article than no article. In the case of by-elections they can be of three types, either a link to the constituency with no information about the by-election, a link to the result with nothing else or a link to some considerable text, almost an article in itself - such as the Paddington South by-election, 1930. For a reader or researcher all three results are more useful than a red link.

However if writing stuff I can understand the frustration. There is a quick way to find these articles and that is to go to go to Category:By-elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and look for any italicised articles which will be redirects. The child categories will also have a number of redirects as well. JASpencer (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation and the info about the category page. Regrettably I tend not to create articles in such a systematic fashion and so am unlikely to use the category list. When I do create articles in a systematic fashion I rely for instance on List of United Kingdom by-elections (1900–18) which is chronological. I think if a policy of establishing re-directs to turn the whole of wikipedia blue were introduced, we would see a substantial reduction in the number of new articles being created. Graemp (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There are still an enormous amount of red links about by-elections left if that concerns you. I think that creating redirects adds more value to the reader and so that is what I will continue to do. JASpencer (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of West Surrey by-election, 1870

The article West Surrey by-election, 1870 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 18:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tipperary by-election, 1869

The article Tipperary by-election, 1869 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 18:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Queen's County by-election, 1870

The article Queen's County by-election, 1870 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ...William 18:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Where's your source for all these articles?

You took down the PRODS then tagged the articles as unreferenced even though you created them. There has to be a source for these, written or on the internet. What is it and why not put it in the articles?...William 18:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken them from List of United Kingdom by-elections (1868–85). JASpencer (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you're violating WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia can't be a source....William 19:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be true if I was citing the page. I'm not. JASpencer (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If that page isn't your source, what is?...William 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JASpencer. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion.
Message added 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic missionary orders

Category:Roman Catholic missionary orders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Kilkenny City By-election

It's more complicated than it may seem, especially given the fluidity of party labels at the time and the fact that the modern Home Rule party was really only beginning to get going. Whitworth won Kilkenny as a Liberal (and apparently an anti-Home Rule supporter). He then ran for Drogheda and let it be known that he was actually in favour of Home Rule, and won against another Home Rule candidate. Smithwick was described in the Times as a Liberal, but a letter to the editor said he was known as a pro-Home Rule candidate. He won the general election months later as a Home Rule candidate, against another Home Rule candidate. The Times still described him as a Liberal, though.--Rbreen (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, despite a reasonably good knowledge of Victorian British politics I don't know as much as I should about the Irish side once you get beyond Parnell and the Kitty O'Shea. It gets better as I get closer to our times, but I probably know more about Nineteenth-Century Irish politics in New York than in Ireland. JASpencer (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 November

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

• On the Isaac Butt page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

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

Armagh City by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Vance and George Beresford

Belfast by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to William Johnston and William Ewart

Berwickshire by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to William Miller and David Robertson

Cirencester by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Allen Bathurst and Thomas William Chester-Master

Donegal by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to William Wilson and Thomas Conolly

Donegal by-election, 1879 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to William Wilson and Thomas Lea

East Cumberland by-election, 1879 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to George Howard and Charles Howard

Kirkcaldy Burghs by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to George Campbell and Robert Reid

Renfrewshire by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Archibald Campbell and Henry Bruce

Richmond (Yorks) by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lawrence Dundas and Roundell Palmer

Richmonds (Yorks.) by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lawrence Dundas and John Dundas

South Derbyshire by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Henry Wilmot and Sir Thomas Gresley

South West Lancashire by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Charles Turner and John Ireland Blackburne

West Norfolk by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to George Bentinck and Thomas de Grey

Bedfordshire by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Francis Russell

Bewdley by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Cunliffe

Birkenhead by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Laird

Birmingham by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Dixon

Bridgnorth by-election, 1870 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Henry Foster

Burnley by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Richard Shaw

Clare by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Judge Advocate General

Cockermouth by-election, 1879 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Fletcher

County Limerick by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Postmaster General

Dorset by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Digby

Dover by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Jessel

Dublin University by-election, 1870 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anthony Lefroy

Dumfriesshire by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sydney Waterlow

Dundee by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Armitstead

Dungarvan by-election, 1877 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John O'Keeffe

Durham City by-election, January 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Judge Advocate General

East Aberdeenshire by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexander Hamilton-Gordon

East Gloucestershire by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Hicks Beach

East Kent by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Deedes

East Somerset by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Richard Bright

Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Postmaster General

Exeter by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arthur Mills

Falkirk Burghs by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Ramsay

Frome by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Lopes

Galway by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Galway (UK Parliament constituency)

Galway by-election, March 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Galway (UK Parliament constituency)

Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Watson

Great Grimsby by-election, 1877 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Chapman

Hartlepool by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Richardson

Hereford by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Clive

Hereford by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Arbuthnot

Hereford by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Arbuthnot

Huntingdon by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Baring

Kerry by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rowland Blennerhassett

Kidderminster by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Albert Grant

Kilkenny City by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Gray

Kincardineshire by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Balfour

Kingston upon Hull by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Clay

Leeds by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Barran

Leith Burghs by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Andrew Grant

Liverpool by-election, February 1880 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Whitley

Londonderry County by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Richard Smyth

Longford by-election, 1879 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Justin McCarthy

Louth by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Louth (UK Parliament constituency)

Mallow by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Sullivan

Mayo by-election, 1870 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Henry Moore

Meath by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Martin

Meath by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Martin

Mid Somerset by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Gore-Langton

Mid Surrey by-election, 1870 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Brodrick

Monaghan by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Leslie

New Ross by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Dunbar

New Shoreham by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Judge Advocate General

New Shoreham by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Walter Burrell

Newry by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Kirk

North Lincolnshire by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rowland Winn

North Norfolk by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Duff

North Norfolk by-election, 1879 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Duff

North Nottinghamshire by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Monckton-Arundell

North Staffordshire by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Adderley

North Staffordshire by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Adderley

Northampton by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Gilpin

Nottingham by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Seely

Oldham by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Platt

Oxford by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Vernon Harcourt

Perth by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arthur Kinnaird

Plymouth by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Collier

Reading by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Palmer

Renfrewshire by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Bruce

Ripon by-election, 1868 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord John Hay

Ripon by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord John Hay

Roscommon by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles French

Roxburghshire by-election, 1870 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sir William Scott

Rutlandshire by-election, 1876 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gerard Noel

Shaftesbury by-election, 1873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Glyn

Southampton by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alfred Giles

Southern West Riding of Yorkshire by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Walter Spencer-Stanhope

Tipperary by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Moore

Tipperary by-election, 1877 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edmund Dwyer Gray

Truro by-election, 1871 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James McGarel-Hogg

Wakefield by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Green

Wallingford by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stanley Vickers

West Cumberland by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Lowther

West Somerset by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Gore-Langton

West Sussex by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Wyndham

Westminster by-election, 1877 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Henry Smith

Wexford Bourough by-election, 1872 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Archer Redmond

Whitehaven by-election, 1875 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Judge Advocate General

Wigtown Burghs by-election, 1869 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Young

Wigtown Burghs by-election, 1874 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Young

York by-election, 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Lowther

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Irish by-elections

It is very unencyclopaedic to write that elections are fought, they are held. They are not wars even though some people might think so. I've refined a few that I saw, perhaps you can edit the rest. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Very unencyclopaedic? By-elections are often referred to as being "fought" and there is no realistic danger of confusion in the use of the term. Held is better, and I will in future try to use that term, but I don't see the danger of leaving "fought" in the current by-election descriptions. JASpencer (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is very unencyclopaedic but that's my opinion. Confusion is not really the issue but the word fought implies something different than held even though some people do use it. It is not a danger to use it, however I'll change any others I happen across but appreciate you using held in future. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say by-elections are fought - to read the history of UK by-elections, it's interesting to see how much violence was commonplace in 19th century contests. But even figuratively, there is certainly a contest, and often a heated one. I would avoid, however, saying that an election was 'fought' on a particular day. I tend to write 'took place on' or 'was held on' because that's when the votes are cast and that's usually quite quiet; in unopposed elections it really doesn't make much sense to say 'fought' at all. Where there is a contested election, though, I would often write of it being 'fought' by the parties in the period between the declaration of the election and the casting of the votes. That's just my opinion, of course. --Rbreen (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland by-elections

Hi, firstly a small point regarding the Clare By-election of 1826 - there's a difference between Daniel O'Donnell and Daniel O'Connell. (I fixed this one) ;)

However, it's an anachronism to move by-elections from the category "By-elections to the United Kingdom Parliament in Irish constituencies" to Category "By-elections to the United Kingdom Parliament in Northern Irish constituencies". There were no 'Northern Irish constituencies' before 1922. They were all Irish constituencies and were so regarded at the time. Anyone searching for information about elections in Ireland in the Victorian era would certainly expect to find Antrim, Donegal and Dublin in the same category. And nobody in 1885, for instance, would have considered Donegal to be anything other than northern Ireland - politically, the six-county concept of "Northern Ireland" didn't exist then. I believe that category was intended for post-1922 constituencies. A case could be made for those counties to be in both categories; but they would certainly have been regarded as in Ireland. --Rbreen (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but on the other hand there's a discontinuity between Belfast by-elections before and after partition. There's probably a philosophical point there about the nature of time, but this is not the place to explore it.

It would probably be best to create a category of pre-partition by-elections in the six counties that would become Northern Ireland and have this as a sub category for both Ireland and Northern Ireland. Alternatively there could be categories created for all six counties and these could be sub categories of both areas.

As to O'Donnell and O'Connell all I can say is sorry.

JASpencer (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Catholic politicians

Category:Anti-Catholic politicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note that creating large numbers of disambiguation links, as indicated by the above notifications raises a WP:COMPETENCE issue; at the moment, you are Wikipedia's single biggest source of disambiguation links needing to be fixed. Please fix the links you have created accordingly. There's a "fix with Dab solver" link next to every instance that will help you to do this quickly and efficiently (you can skip the links to Postmaster General, as I have already taken care of those). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you got any proof for this?

On a side note I think that you are confusing the creation of articles with the completion of articles. If a large number of DAB links were being created in existing articles (as in the single article above) then that would be bad. If however DAB links were being created in newly created articles, this would be preferable to articles with no links. Similarly it's better to have stub articles rather than no articles (which I think is he root of your objection).

JASpencer (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Large numbers of disambiguation links being created anywhere is a bad thing, because someone is going to have to go fix those - and since the person creating an article is the one most likely to know which subject on the disambiguation page is being referred to, any later fixer is more likely to mistakenly point the link to the wrong subject. Since these are, as you point out, stubs, it would be very, very easy for you to check the links leading to common human names and make sure that they point to the right subject. Otherwise, the readers of your stubs are going to get confused when they seek more information on those subjects. (Also, re: proof, here's the dab dashboard for the past week; I should have said the biggest source of new disambiguation links needing to be fixed). bd2412 T 14:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)