User talk:JimKillock

Welcome!

Hello, JimKillock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Should British Rubber Producers Research Association be one page or two? It's now Malaysian, and know by a different name.

I would leave it at one article, with the other titles created as redirects. --Stephen 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: British Rubber Producers Research Association. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JimKillock. You have new messages at Borkificator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, JimKillock. You have new messages at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page.
Message added 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, JimKillock. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LRG Treloar article

Hello, JimKillock. Just thought I'd drop you a note to thank you for the work you did in creating the LRG Treloar article. I did a bit of work on it this evening, citing various sources on the web. Since you seem to know something about Professor Treloar, I wondered if you might take a look and make sure it's OK. Best regards – Hebrides (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work too - and I will take a look! I don't know a lot about Professor Treloar, I found some info on him through my research into the British Rayon Research Association and talking to User:Michael P. Barnett who does however, as he knew or met him at the BRRA. Jim Killock (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dodford, Worcestershire

Hi Jim. Thank you for your work on Dodford, Worcestershire. I have reviewed this article and upgraded it from stub to start class. I don't know why I didn't get round to this sooner. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael P. Barnett

Hi Jim. Recent discussions here in Malvern have suggested that there may be some minor inaccuracies in this article. One point that has come to light is: At the Royal Radar Establishment, Barnett held a Senior Government Fellowship. He worked on aspects of theoretical solid state physics, that included the properties of organic semiconductors. The question has been raised because no one here, particularly those who were senior research scientists at RRE at the time and involved in semi conductors is aware that the UK government conferred fellowships. This is linked to a source (#12) that is apparently a work that Michael either authored or edited himself. Anything you can do to elucidate, or provide a reliable, independent third-party source for this would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Just a nudge. Michael is a valued contributor to the Wikipedia and I would just like to be sure that everything about him is accurate. I've just returned from Malvern where I have had many happy reunions with former RRE employees, and their offspring. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Feckenham Forest

As you said on my talk page, I am not sure that there is that much more in the way of sources, but I suspect there is room for fleshing out the article in respect of the history and personel of the forest. At present, we have two keepers named, but it should be possible to assemble a longer list. At the core of the forest was the park (in Hanbury parish); it should also be possible to trace its descent and determine the relationship between the forest and the park. Some years ago, Birmingham University undertook a historical survey of Hanbury, which may provide information that could be used, possibly published in the Occasional Papers of Leicester University department of English Local History. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Access to Knowledge movement

Category:Access to Knowledge movement, 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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

HI, I've replied extensively on the categories for discussion page, I can see why this cropped up but it is a genuinely recognised movement, described in literature, used by multiple campaign groups and mentioned in international draft treaties and so on. Jim Killock (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying a year ago. I am again looking at what you did and the way things are and thinking about how to sort things. I do think that the Access to Knowledge campaign needs its own category but am also wondering what other categories should exist. Hmm... Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Digital Rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (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) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

March 2015

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Government Communications Headquarters, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

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.

Leicester Forest

added a link pointing to Court of Exchequer

Malvern Chase

added a link pointing to King Charles II

Western Rising

added a link pointing to Court of Exchequer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

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.

Royal forest

added links pointing to Carlisle, Lee, Kingswood, Clarendon, Delamere, Ongar, Hainault and John Waller

Feckenham

added a link pointing to Edward Leighton

Western Rising and disafforestation riots

added a link pointing to John Essington

William Ashton (MP)

added a link pointing to Robert Cecil

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 September

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 Royal forest page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arden, Warwickshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National forest. 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) 09:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JimKillock. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Worcestershire Project Barnstar.

Hello JimKillock,

If you will have a couple minutes, please have a look at brand new Worcestershire Barnstar, created for the Worcestershire Project and, as participant of this Project, please give your support, if you will like it, on the Wikipedia Awards talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards Your participation will be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Regards Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

In this edit you copied text from the article Charles I of England into the article Personal Rule without indicating that you had copied the text from the the Charles article. That was a breach of copyright. Please read WP:Copying within Wikipedia. The reason I noticed this was because of the additional problem explained in the section "Other reasons for attributing text". You copied across the text with short citations, but you did not copy across the long citations in the references section that support the short in-line citations. -- PBS (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JimKillock. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

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

History of London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort

London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort

Norman and Medieval London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort

Timeline of London (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

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

Charles Beyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Humphreys

Institution of Mechanical Engineers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Humphreys

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of History of Worcester

Hi there,

Please see the discussion on Worcester. There was reasonable discussion about doing this, and I have already taken out content from the history section of the Worcester page so the content is different. I had planned to be doing further stripping back today. Jim Killock (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was just doing recent changes patrolling and felt like I mistakenly reverted your edits so I reverted my revert right away, as the page looked like it was under construction. FlyingLeopard2014 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

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

Geoffrey Dear, Baron Dear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Mullin

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Donald Shaw

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoops

Apologies about blanking one of your articles! I accidentally clicked rollback while searching for vandalism on recent changes. Since it only takes one click to execute, it wiped everything. It has since been restored! INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 06:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know Jim Killock (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Bromsgrove

How about getting it to GA? It's a almost ready and I've just reassessed it as B, but as a long article there will be a bit to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure,Kudpung I'd be happy to give that a go. The pictures are very old, so they will need replacing. I'll need your guidance about the steps (I've read the process somewhere sometime). Jim Killock (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It will be pretty much like Malvern which was the most complex GA I ever did and bigger than most GAs. You can see what it involved at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1. There would be quite a lot to do before submitting it - probably a month's work. I'll help with it. Don't worry about the photos, You can always make some of your own. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, that looks reasonable, happy to give it a go. The reference tidy up looks like the most tedious part. If you want to list out the immediate and obvious steps I can start on that as well. After that, we could maybe turn to Worcester as that ought to be possible to progress as well? Jim Killock (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Honeybourne

Jim, you've moved the content on Honeybourne parish churches to sit underneath history. However it actually contains information on both the past and present - there is present tense as well as past tense. Now you wouldn't want to split this - it makes sense to keep information on the churches togeter, but shouldn't the present take precedence? Malevan (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Malevan, yes, I did see the problem. I felt there was only a small amount of truly current information, essentially the grade II listings, so it made sense to do this. Much of the "present" description otherwise is about construction that took place historically.

However, the parish church section is also just part of the hierarchy so it can simply be changed if it seems wrong to others. I think I added the history section break. I edited a lot of the Worcestershire town pages to ensure they had a history section, and also a back link to History of Worcestershire which I have been expanding. BTW the right place to have this discussion is the talk page for Honeybourne probably! Jim Killock (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks that makes a lot of sense Malevan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Text attribution

I am going through the short citations in History of Worcestershire and fixing some of the broken links between the short in-line citations and the long citations in the References section.

I came across a problem with "Dryer 1917" because the short citation was not supported by a long one. On investigation it was clear that the text was copied from either "Bromsgrove" or "St John the Baptist Church, Bromsgrove" articles, further investigation showed that it originated in the "Bromsgrove" article and had been copied into "St John the Baptist Church, Bromsgrove" by you with the appropriate attribution Revision as of 15:59, 1 July 2018. The problem is that when you copied the information into the "History of Worcestershire" you added no comment at all and so no adequate attribution (please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Other reasons for attributing text).

Where did the rest of the text that you added with that edit and others come from? Did you write it from scratch or did you copy it from other pages?

While looking for that edit I came across a dating issue with Revision as of 11:00, 14 July 2018, is 2014 a typo for 1214? -- PBS (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:PBS, all the text mentioned was written by me. Because I knew this, in certain cases I didn't attribute it because it is my own work to licence as I wish.

I will check the date above also.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JimKillock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 185.222.26.242 . Place any further information here. IPV6 2a0d:3001:2100:b003:1234::242 - addresses in use by VPN provider F-Secure

Decline reason:

The IP address you give belongs to a webhost; using a webhost or VPN to edit is not permitted, as vandals use them to evade detection and blocking. You will have to use other means to edit. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad

Hi there. Do you remain interested in taking West Midlands Serious Crime Squad through the Good Article process? If so I will pick-up the review but would also want to confirm that you'd have enough availability to complete the review by the end of the month. I might have dramatically less availability to finish a review in 2020. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Barkeep49, yes I would be interested and would make time for this, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article West Midlands Serious Crime Squad 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 Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad

The article West Midlands Serious Crime Squad you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:West Midlands Serious Crime Squad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad

The article West Midlands Serious Crime Squad you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:West Midlands Serious Crime Squad for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Worcestershire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoke Prior.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Jim, If you see this message and I haven’t replied to your dm sorry. I have seen it but I’m having some problems for some reason I can’t reply. I will continue trying. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: No worries, probably doesn't need a response, as I say. For completeness, I have added your original proposal to the RFC page for LangCom to respond to. Thank you again for being persistent about this 'ancient' wrong. --Jim Killock (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Newsletter WikiProject Worcestershire

Worcestershire - one of England's oldest and still existing (with some minor boundary changes) ceremonial and political shires, famous for its nearly 1000 year old cathedral, the River Severn, the AONB of the Malvern Hills, some of the oldest schools in the country, England's fastest growing university, apples, pears, cider and cricket, and of course its world famous sauce. The Wikiproject is now in need of some attention. Created 12 years ago, this project amassed a huge resource for editors working on all kinds of articles and categories related in some way or another to the county. Kudpung is more or less retired from Wikipedia getting on for 2 years ago and it would be good if a group of editors could get it up to date and continue to maintain it.
Opt out of this message list here.
WikiProject Worcestershire 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael P. Barnett

Hi Jim. It's good to see you are still around. I'm largely retired from Wikiedia and I don't think I ever thanked you for writing the article about Michael. He was a significant contributor to Malvern, Worcestershire and I've added that to his article and added him to the list of notable people in the Malvern article. It's highly possible that he knew my Dad who was also a senior scientist at TRE/RRE at the same time. Dad passed away at 96 in 2016 and that was the last time I was able to visit the UK. Having survived 9 weeks in hospital with COVID-19 here in Thailand this year, with its lasting effects I'm not sure now if I will ever be able to visit my home town or Europe again. Stay well. Chris (Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC))

Jim, could you please chime in at Talk:Michael P. Barnett? I seem to have opened a can of worms there and invited what I put down to bad faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

List of original books in Latin

I have a few minor queries on that article. I thought I'd better address them directly to you rather than put them in the article and reveal my ignorance!

No problem and thank you for checking and asking about these.

• For the H J Hardy book, the date appears to be in the wrong column.

Corrected, thank you

• For Io Puella Fortis, is the "and" actually part of the title, and if not, why is it in italics?

Corrected, thank you

• In the Poetry section, is "Modern Latin" the name of the publisher or the reader level?

It's the 'reader level'; by which I mean it is written without concessions to the skill of the reader

• The spelling Cothvrnvlvs" appears to be inconsistent with the convention adopted elsewhere in the article. Speminallium (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the spelling the author uses for the book. I haven't changed spellings of book names. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Tuppence worth

I think you could use reading WP:BLUDGEON. Nardog (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to avoid making more comments. I'm afraid I've got a bit distracted by feeling like the points being made aren't very focused or relevant, and attempting to steer back to the point, but I can see that's not helpful. Jim Killock (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Synopsys of criteria regarding New Latin vs Neo-Latin vs Modern Latin

For Requested move for New Latin to Neo-Latin

Comparison of terms by WP criteria

Criterion	Policy synopsys	Neo-Latin	New Latin	Modern Latin
WP:CRITERIA	Fits the five criteria of "common name", recognisability, naturalness, precision and concision set out below	Fits all criteria	Fits some criteria	Fits few if any criteria
WP:COMMONNAME	"generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)"	All the major recent studies use the term Neo-Latin, likewise all of the courses and programmes in Universities on the topic. A quick look at the sources at the foot of the main page show fourteen books using the term Neo-Latin, for example.	Used in dictionaries along with Neo-Latin. Used in older scientific texts.	Few if any attested recent uses; some dictionary entries
Attestation: encylopedias	"Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register"	Used in encylopedias for the Renaissance period and Latin-related encylopedias and elsewhere	Unknown	Unknown; Early Modern Latin may be used.
Recognizability	"The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."	Used in most recent histories of Latin; used in encylopedias as above; used by all research bodies and academic studies as above; should be known to most people "familiar with" the topic.	Should be understood by someone familiar with the topic as an Anglicisation of "Neo-Latin". Recognisable to scientists familar with etymologies.	Confusing as not used very much. A knowledgeable reader ("familiar with the subject area") could be misled by the name to think Latin 1700 onwards, or contemporary Latin, for instance.
Naturalness: used to link	"The title is one that … editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."	Vast majority of sources use this term, as do most WP articles. Academics in the field, such as Jürgen Leonhardt, Jozef IJsewijn, Milena Minkova or Terence Tunberg. Pages for authors writing in Latin during the period in question use it, eg Nicholas Hardinge, Jean Salmon Macrin, Jean-Jacques Boissard, Jakob Balde. Most pages citing the origin of terminology typically use it, Languages of Switzerland#Neo-Latin, Interlingua (disambiguation), Tomopteris, Potassium, Diplodocus, Molybdenum, List of Leopolitans, Anabaptism, Subbuteo	Some pages use the term New Latin, mostly for scientific terms where citing dictionary entries, such as Endopterygota, Centipede and Jackdaw	Occassionally used on pages, for word derivations such as Little grebe, Custos rotulorum and Irpinia. Sometimes just as a way to say "a recent coinage", such as Calendula, but as here is often unlinked when the term appears, suggesting it is not associated with a Latin period in the minds of the editors.
Naturalness: search	"The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for"	The term is not familiar to a wide audience, but is familiar to people with some knowledge of Latin's history	The term is not familiar to a wide audience, the term is not typically used by people familiar with the history of Latin, but may be known to people using scientific terminology	The term is not familiar to a wide audience, but may be searched for, but not necessarily expecting Latin for this period.
WP:PRECISION	"titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that"	The term is within English (and German, Swedish and Dutch) sources very clear, meaning Latin from Petrarch to present. As with any large expansive topic, edges can be blurry and authors can choose parts of the topic to study rather than the whole. This may be perceived as reducing precision, but not in terms of the "scope of the article". Critically Neo-Latin should be understood as a style of Latin within the noted period, overlapping with other styles of adjacent periods. Fuzziness in time and definitions of style is natural, and not an argument for "ambiguity". Most of the time, the variations in usage of the term relate to the relevance of Neo-Latin in different contexts. Neo-Latin styles start and end in different ways in different countries. There is nineteenth century usage and dictionary entries for Neo-Latin languages meaning Romance languages, but this is no longer common and can be dealt with by a hat note as at present.	Following Neo-Latin, it is equally precise	The topic covers a bit of the medieval period, early modern and properly modern Latin, this seems quite imprecise as a title. It could mean just Latin after 1700, or Contemporary Latin.
WP:CONCISE	"The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects"	Concise	Concise	Concise but lacks precision, so does not meet the criterion
WP:CONSISTENT	"The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."	Each kind of Latin (based on style or period with blurry dates), ie Classical Latin, Vulgar Latin, Late Latin etc, is given the name used conventionally by Latinists in English, so Neo-Latin meets the criterion. Within pages on the topic, eg: Neo-Latin studies, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Neo-Latin Studies, the phrase Neo-Latin is used, as this is the commonly accepted title, or part of institutional names.	Following Neo-Latin, New Latin partially meets the criterion	As the term is not widely used, it does not meet the criterion.
Other factors
Objections to the term	Suitability or objective criticism of the term is not a criteria	Neo-Latin can be regarded as implying a 'revival' of the language, as opposed to a 'revival' of Classical standards or liguistic renewal through standardisation.	Similar objections could be made	The term relates to period but the period is not wholly modern

References

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

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

List of Neo-Latin authors

added links pointing to John Lloyd, John Owen, William Drummond, Thomas Wilson, Thomas Watson, John Lynch, John Bridges, James Ware, William Vaughan, Joseph Hall, Thomas Chaloner, Anne Seymour, Arthur Johnston, John Brinsley, Pierre Dupuy, Francesco Colonna and John Stradling

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New Latin poets

A tag has been placed on Category:New Latin poets indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New Latin

A tag has been placed on Category:New Latin indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Neo-Latin authors moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of Neo-Latin authors, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is extremely easy to fix. No big deal to have moved it off publication but I'll fix when I have an hour spare. Jim Killock (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Neo-Latin authors (June 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Neo-Latin authors and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JimKillock! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:List of Neo-Latin authors has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of Neo-Latin authors. Thanks! Pbritti (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Worcestershire newsletter

Note that if you are in mobile view you will have to enter desktop view to see the Newsletter.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Worcestershire Newsletter - September 2023

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Congrats for entering List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000! Keep up your good work! Timothytyy (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited History of the Jews in England (1066–1290), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exodus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Edgar Samuel

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Edgar Samuel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14324/111.444.jhs.2023v54.10. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no copyvio :) See https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.jhs.2023v54.10. Jim Killock (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Holbein-tube.png

Thanks for uploading File:Holbein-tube.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers has been nominated for merging

Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edict of Expulsion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edict of Expulsion 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this :) Jim Killock (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Holbein-tube.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Holbein-tube.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edict of Expulsion

The article Edict of Expulsion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edict of Expulsion for comments about the article, and Talk:Edict of Expulsion/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Thank you very much for completing your checks and your edits, which all seemed good to me :) Reviews are clearly quite hard work so I very much appreciate you doing this. Hopefully my next submission will be a bit easier for the next reviewer as well, as you've helped me understand some of the style guides better, so thank you again! Jim Killock (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome JimKillock! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:52, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hereford Mappa Mundi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Edward I

Hello. I am quite low on energy, so please excuse the grogginess. I am compelled to request that you slow down on working on Edward I. There seems to be enormous chunks of text (of dubious factual accuracy) that are uncited and full of typos; those that are cited are formatted improperly. The mechanics and readability of the article are disoriented; I suggest that you make these changes in your sandbox before willy-nilly bombarding a high-visibility article with careless edits. This leads us to an even more contentious issue: the sheer amount of text being added to the article is all in support of a pro-Jewish agenda that seemingly victimizes the Jewish people by creating a dichotomy between them and Edward. As other users, such as @Ealdgyth and @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz have entreated in the past, this article is not the place to be doing that. It adds undue weight to a niche issue that is seldom discussed in academic scholarship. Wikipedia is not the place to be reevaluating a historical figure's legacy. That is the job of professional scholars, academics, and historians. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)