User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Being targeted

I'm being targeted by User:Fram at the comment. He has done this. Draft:Nicholas Lechmere (priest)

Can you see any reason why?

Best wishes,

Bashereyre (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bashereyre: One point is that the Alumni Oxonienses page does not yet exist on Wikisource. I can fix that later today. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have stated my reasons for this article at the talk page of that draft, no need to ask someone else. And the "targetting" I do is new page patrol, and the articles by Bashereyre are way below the standards one would expect from a long established, autopatrolled editor. I hoped that enumerating the problems in 10 consecutive articles recently[1] would help, but apparently all it did was to slow them down for a few days, and get them asking around about me. But they still create articles which have poor sourcing (or like here, a source that doesn't exist at the location they posted), with "facts" which aren't supported by the sources. I've cleaned up one today[2], but the one I draftified was a lot worse. I guess if this continues, the least that needs to happen is the removal of their autopatrolled right. Fram (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a good guess, I would say. The Alumni Oxonienses mistake is obviously a good faith error, and I will sort it out. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering that in the previous article, they also had an Oxonienses link that didn't work[3], it clearly shows that they don't even check the links they add. And in this draftified article, this missing link is just one of the issues I listed, and the least of them. I am not suggesting removing the autopatrolled right based on one mistake in one article obviously. Fram (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

From User:bashereyre I love Alumni Oxon and Alumni Cantab, I read them for pleasure. I used to reference them a different way and have seen my way changed to the way I used today.

I see that Fram is going to remove my autopatrolled right, although I am not sure what that is. Does Fram have that power? I often tell my pupils that the very things that will destroy a mighty edifice are usually there right at the beginning. I have spent years encouraging people to contribute to Wikipedia. In all honesty, I will no longer be able to do that.

It so happens the organisation I work for is updating its civility policy. [4] is as good as an example of how NOT to speak to a colleague as I could find. Furthemore in his eagerness to belittle, Fram has himself not spotted that the punctuation error was in fact a colon, not a full stop.

What a shame that Jimbo's really great idea has become a place where no-one is welcome. Bashereyre (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bashereyre: I think you should concentrate on improving the article under discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to remove autopatrolled (I can't do that anyway), I may suggest at the admin noticeboard that that right should be removed, and then let others decide if that suggestion has merit or not. What it means is that your new articles are no longer considered as "patrolled" automatically, and will get more attention from new page patrollers. Most new page patrollers only look at unpatrolled pages, and don't look at new pages by autopatrolled editors, as these should be good enough to easily pass the new page requirements. And speaking of interacting with colleagues, one way to address someone who comes to your talk page is to reply there, address their concerns, and if necessary at the same time discuss the tone of the original post. Another way is to simply remove the "offending" post, and then go to multiple pages to get informed about the editor who posted to your talk page[5][6][7]. If your main issue is with someone who dares point out the many, many issues with your creations, and not with the actual issues with your editing in the first place, then you perhaps should rethink your priorities. Fram (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

And simply recreating the article is not the way to proceed here. Fix the errors or leave the page alone, whatever you prefer, but don't knowingly post false information to the main space. This is no longer negligence, this is vandalism. Fram (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: Please do not use my talk page in this way. Please read the intro to WP:VANDAL. Considering this as a dispute, I shall try to deal with the issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

When someone informs you, with sources and all, about serious errors in your article; and you deliberately repost the same incorrect information again, then how else would you describe it? I don't know in "what way" I am using your talk page, I didn't start this section, and I didn't intriduce or repeat the misconception that this was just about one poor link in one article. Fram (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: You have introduced the term "vandalism", which you have misapplied. Unhelpful. Your approach here to dealing with the content issues is clearly not working. @Bashereyre: Could you mail me from the sidebar? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have explained why it is vandalism (deliberate, knowing reposting of false information), you just repeat that is isn't. Which is indeed unhelpful. I hope you have more success than me in getting Bashereyre to change their approach to article creation, fact checking, and sourcing. Fram (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

From the guideline: "Mislabeling good-faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia ...". Charles Matthews (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no good faith when someone knowingly reposts false information. You obviously see a different explanation for why they would simply ignore the issues (again, and again, and again, one should say) and continue to post and repost false information in way too many articles. But I guess a WP:CIR link wouldn't be appreciated either. Fram (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see different explanations.

I have pointed out that a key conduct policy explicitly, in clear terms, states that what you have posted here, on my user talk page, is very likely to make things worse. And why. I have asked you to stop that. Your reaction: further provocation.

As I have made clear, you are not someone likely to be able to sort this out. Now please stop wasting my time and get off this page. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wellesley College

We have had friendly inter action a long time ago. Please do not tamper with this article. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Hello again. The article bears the {{refimprove}} template. The edits I made to the Wellesley section may not have been to your taste, and indeed I may have misunderstood something. But there are certainly issues with a sentence like:

In 1940 Mr William Hutton Stevens, who was lame and therefore known to many as ‘Hoppy’, leased the premises from the Wellington Diocesan Board and moved his day school, Wellesley College, which had been situated by the Wellington Club on The Terrace (and was spoken of by some as "not a proper school, a crammer's") to Day's Bay.

Really not in Wikipedia's house style, is it? Charles Matthews (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does bear the ref improve template, perhaps its reasonable, perhaps not. I think not but I am not going to do anything about it. In what respect is it "not exactly house style"? Eddaido (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Points include "Mr William Hutton Stevens" where the Mr title is superfluous, inclusion of a derogatory nickname, and an unreferenced piece of gossip. Also it's a long sentence that would be clearer as two. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

He was Mr., the derogatory nickname was acknowledged but less so as he grew older, the "gossip" can be cited. You are in a foreign country. Eddaido (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Well, to put it bluntly, you are in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V if you defend that content, and geography has less than nothing to do with it. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, well, well, to put it bluntly, I am reporting history from a neutral point of view. Eddaido (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC) PS, use New Zealand English

Take it to Talk:Wellesley College, New Zealand. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, its there already. Eddaido (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Multiplicative effect on odds

Hi, Dr Matthews! I've been a conversation with another editor (on WT:V), which was initially about the extent to which simple mathematics is self-verifying, and went off on a tangent. Anyway, noting that I profess to be able to perform simple calculations involving logarithms, she asked me to write Draft:Multiplicative effect on odds. So I thought that before I take my 'A'-level maths from 32 years ago and dive in, I'd ask someone properly qualified to write it: is that a page that would interest you at all?—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I see it is a fairly low-level probability and statistics topic. The first thing you need is the topic sentence, i.e. the initial sentence "The multiplicative effect on odds is the name given to ..." that defines what the article will be about. Could you provide that? Charles Matthews (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

With pleasure!—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: OK, I have added an example. Since I'm not actually familiar with the phrase, is that what we are talking about here? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I think your example is germane, but let me ping @WhatamIdoing: the requesting editor just to make sure I'm not going off on a wild tangent. WhatamIdoing is active in medical topic areas (among others), and I think her angle will be about heuristic bias in doctors and other decision-makers.—S Marshall T/C 17:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Searching on "multiplicative effect on odds"+"odds ratio" suggests that odds ratio is a normal context for what we are discussing. In terms of a 2x2 box "odds" is a way of expressing the ratio of two numbers in, say, a row. The "multiplicative effect" apparently is a way of expressing a percentage change in it, instead by using the natural logarithm. Am I getting closer? Odds ratio in the medical context is defined at https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D016017. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I encountered the phrase here: https://wikimedia-research.github.io/Reply-tools-analysis-2021/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: OK, there are some 2x2 boxes there. Take the Dutch Wikipedia results. They start with

38 9

45 40

with the first column being total trials and second column successes, first with text editing and then with the reply tool. To convert to odds:

29 9

5 40

where the first column is now failures. To write these as "odds":

29 9  i.e. 3+ to 1 against

5 40  i.e. 1 to 8 against, or 8 to 1 on

The point at issue is how to express the improvement in chance of success as an odds ratio, in other words to produce a single number that represents it. The usage in that report is that, taking all the Wikipedias together, completion of a reply was a bit more than seven times more likely.

So in this case "multiplicative ratio of odds" is a compact statistic for the reporting. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is about seven times as likely, then why did it only result in about three times as many editsS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: On the total figures

1301 359

1311 956

the first step is to go to

942 359

355 956

and the computation to do is

942x956/(355x359) = 7.066201...

I believe. For

a b

c d

you should take ad/bc, which makes mathematical sense because if the odds are the same, that will be 1.

Your question is about what the number means. The odds have been pretty much reversed, in this case. If it were

a b

b a

then we are working out a²/b² which is the square of a/b. So when I said "likely", that wasn't clear: the ratio of probabilities is more like √7=2.645..., while the "odds ratio" is close to 7. The ratio of probabilities is calculated from

1301 359

1311 956

with the same ad/bc formula, but here the numbers in the first column are nearly equal so the result is close to d/b.

Anyway, I suppose this example is going to make matters clearer. It has for me. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think that was incredibly helpful. Looks to me like odds ratio already contains all the maths we're using.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Should multiplicative effect of odds redirect to odds ratio? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that it should become a section there, and redirect to odds ratio#Multiplicative effect of odds. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

About Treaty of Sèvres

Hello. I wish you a good day, sir.

Can I ask you to help with something? There is an English-Turkish treaty in history called the Treaty of Sèvres (1920). The Wikipedia map of this treaty is not correct. They map out the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. I put it right but it was taken back.

I put the proofs of the treaty, I put the sources. Can you please have a look?

http://sam.baskent.edu.tr/belge/Sevres_ENG.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175547/http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/pdf/1920/TS0011.pdf

However, this 1916 agreement never entered into force. Because a revolution took place in Russia in 1917. The Bolsheviks came to power and the treaty was annulled.

It was also decided that Turkey would remain independent according to Wilson's principles. In 1918, Britain promised that the Muslims in India would not harm Turkey and the caliphate, and thus received 1 million 160 thousand soldiers.

Istanbul and Anatolia were given to the Turks. Only Armenia, Kurdistan and Izmir were mentioned in the agreement. A sphere of influence for Italy and France does not exist in the treaty. This map is completely fake. The first person who prepared the map prepared it wrong. Then everyone copied from him.

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevr_Antla%C5%9Fmas%C4%B1#/media/Dosya:WholeRegionSevres.gif

This is the real map.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres_1920_-_English.png

This is the colorized version.

There are other sources as well.

The Truth About The Peace Treaties Vol-2(1938) page 1339-1340.

Cabinet Papers, Cab 24 / 95, ANGLO-FRENCH CONFERENCE ON THE TURKISH SETTLEMENT, Appendix to Minutes of First Meeting, First part of M. Berthelot's note of the 12th December with comments of Political Section of British Peace Delegation, p. 4 Cabinet Papers,

Cab 24 / 95, Fourth Meeting: Turkish Settlement, p. 31

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/sykes-picot-treaty-of-sevres-modern-turkey-middle-east-borders-turkey/

https://www.juancole.com/2010/12/turkey-1920.html

https://mesopotamianmarine.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/a-semester-in-review-the-microcosm-of-iraqi-kurdistan/

This is the Sykes-Picot map. But according to this treaty, Armenia and Istanbul must be given to Russia. This treaty never happened. It was just a project. The Wilson principles of January 8, 1918 prevented this.

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/nuzhno-li-prisoedinyat-rossiyu-k-soglasheniyu-sayksa-piko/

All edits I've made have been reverted, even though I've cited their sources. It was claimed that I did not cite sufficient resources. So, I said, read the text of the treaty yourself. They didn't have time to read the treaty. I should have cited more sources. Isn't the real source the treaty itself? Could there be a higher, more accurate source than this?

I even reviewed the British cabinet paper records on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_Sèvres#Map

The map shown in the article is not the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.

1916 Sykes-Picot agreement project. This is a huge mistake.

I specifically asked people to cite only one source that states that Italy was given territory or a zone of influence.

They didn't give me any sources. In the article, the 1916 treaty is cited as a source. This is so ironic.

The funny thing is that there is no evidence of what they claim. It's purely conjecture.

This is the map shown in greek history.

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Συνθήκη_των_Σεβρών_(Ελλάς_-_Τουρκία)#/media/Αρχείο:Treaty_sevres_otoman_el.jpg

This map is correct, but the zones of influence shown here show the military garrisons that were there at that time.

So it doesn't show the areas given to Italy or France.

You can look at the map in the history of Italy.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trattato_di_Sèvres#/media/File:Treaty_sevres_otoman_it.svg

Both of these maps confirm my words.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Treaty_of_Sèvres_1920_-_English.png

This is the map it should be. But somehow a user (Kevo327) canceled all my edits.

He wants me to prove it. I don't know how else to prove it.

What more can I do? There is no one helping me.

Thank you very much for your interest. Have a nice day and good work.

Luisao Araujo (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I need a million pieces of evidence to convince some people. Because they won't believe otherwise.Luisao Araujo (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Luisao Araujo: You can see what happened at File:Treaty_of_Sèvres_1920.svg#filehistory. Actually, I have consulted a book just now, and it seems you have a good case. I need to think what to do next. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain briefly. That map is not correct. I tried to put it right. A user changed it again. I asked why he changed it. He failed to show any evidence. I cited 20-30 sources. He didn't give me any answer. He just said that I shouldn't touch the map.

I don't understand what logic this is.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Treaty_of_Sèvres_1920_-_English.png

I have read the whole treaty over and over again. The correct map should be like this.

I am giving 2 examples for this.

https://www.info-grece.com/encyclopedia/traite-de-sevres-1920 https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:WholeRegionSevres.gif

Thank you for giving a time. Because there is a huge misunderstanding here. I wish you a good day.Luisao Araujo (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Sèvres&action=history

You should also take a look here.Luisao Araujo (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/large/cab-24-95.pdf Cabinet Papers 24 / 95 page. 421 (or fourth meeting page 31)

France and England (with the exception of Syria and Iraq) say that there should be no territorial division in Anatolia.

All the evidence and sources on the internet that Anatolia was divided are based on the 1916 treaty, which was never implemented. There is no one who can show this in Sevres.Luisao Araujo (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

One last piece of information. You may ask, Then what is Italy doing in Anatolia? In March 1919, the Orthodox patriarch of Istanbul demanded the annexation of Antalya to Greece. If Italy, which was Catholic, had not landed soldiers in Anatolia, a great Greece would have emerged. In other words, Italy took out troops to prevent the growth of Greece. At the same time, he hoped to gain commercial privileges to deal with the Turks. Another aim was to weaken Greece by starting a Turkish-Greek war and to reduce the influence of Greece in the Balkans.

At that time, Italy had 25,000 soldiers in Albania. In Anatolia, 12.000. So the place where he wanted land was Albania and Fiume (Croatia) region.

However, if he could establish good relations with Turkey, he would also prevent the Italian opposition in Tripoli, which was dependent on the Ottoman Empire until 1912.

You can review all the resources. During the 1919-1922 Turkish-Greek war, Italy always helped the Turks. And during this period, there was not even the slightest conflict between Turkey and Italy. You can examine Count Carlo Sforza on this subject.

In the Treaty of Sevres, Italy received only the 12 islands and Rhodes.Luisao Araujo (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

2 accounts that undo my changes, Kevo327 and ZaniGiovanni.

If you look carefully, you can easily see that both of them are of Armenian origin. Since the Armenian region was defined in the Treaty of Sèvres, they are very interested in it. And as I understand it, they may be happy to see a smaller Turkey in the Treaty of Sevres.Luisao Araujo (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It is better to discuss the content. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This is impossible. Nobody answers me. All they do is cancel all the information and changes I showed evidence of. They're just defending something for which they can't show a single piece of evidence. Luisao Araujo (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My recommendation is that you allow me to handle the situation with other editors. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at File talk:Treaty of Sèvres 1920.svg. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Coxe

Things are looking up. I just looked at your original version of Daniel Coxe. It is consistent with my source, which claims the Daniel Coxe described in that article is Daniel Coxe III. And yet the current version of the Daniel Coxe article calls him Daniel Coxe Jr., but his son is also Daniel Coxe Jr., which makes no sense. My source calls him Daniel Coxe IV. As for verifying the information in my source, the author is deceased and wrote his article ten years ago. His newspaper republishes his old articles because people enjoy them.

I have corrected a mistake in the Daniel Coxe article. Although we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a source, the person who I linked to is the person being described.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. Things are clearer if you sign. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I needed to recheck something and didn't realize I hadn't signed yet.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I checked the history and went ahead and made the necessary corrections. It seemed an IP introduced the idea that the subject of your article on Coxe was Coxe Jr. and the subject of the other article was Coxe III, but gave no source. I had a source for changing them to Coxe III and Coxe IV. The more controversial action will be to move Daniel Coxe Jr. to Daniel Coxe IV.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		A (belated) barnstar for you for almost doubling the prose size of my page! Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 21:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do some patrolling of articles without Wikidata item, and William Trench, 5th Earl of Clancarty caught my eye. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Komi (go)

The article Komi (go) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Mystical Body of the Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mystical Body of the Church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 8#Mystical Body of the Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lancelot Holland (British Army officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Whitbread.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

• Library design improvements deployed
• New collections available in English and German
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Henry Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ongar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-Nazi Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rearmament.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1722 disestablishments in Great Britain

A tag has been placed on Category:1722 disestablishments in Great Britain 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!} 19:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Robinson baronets of Newby (1660) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robinson baronets of Newby (1660) 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/Robinson baronets of Newby (1660) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

John Fairbairn

I am compiling a list of books on Go (here, FYI: User:Coastside/List of books about Go, and in the process I noticed that the article on John Fairbairn was deleted on the grounds that he was not notable. Needless to say, of course he's notable. Once I have the list complete and his 10 books listed, with cross-references to John Fairbairn (writer), I will restore the article on him, including a bibliography with all his books. Stupid beaurocrats... Coastside (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, OK. I commented in the deletion debate. The British Go Journal online may possibly help. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Summa (mathematics) for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 14:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Diabertus

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 Diabertus, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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.

--Yoshi128k (talk) 17:57, 10 November 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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Gonner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merchant Taylors' School.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dixie baronets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosworth Hall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

"Quadratic extension" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Quadratic extension. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 1#Quadratic extension until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Schools inspector" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Schools inspector. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 21#Schools inspector until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 02:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Personal infallibility" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Personal infallibility and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Personal infallibility until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Theological definition" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theological definition and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological definition until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Theological definition (Catholicism)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theological definition (Catholicism) and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological definition (Catholicism) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Theological Definitions" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Theological Definitions and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Theological Definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Handle id

Hi Charles

Something went awry in this edit[8] to Gilbert Wakefield. One of your additions to the list of works uses the cite parameter |handle ID=, which is unsupported. I am not sure what you intended, so thought it better to notify you.

Beannachtaí Na Nollag BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

d:Property:P1184 on Wikidata is Handle ID, which is available often now when DOI is not. Evidently it has not yet reached that {{cite web}} template, where it would be useful. Thanks for the headsup - I have removed the field. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William James Joseph Drury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Blackwood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Finite fields has been nominated for renaming

Category:Finite fields has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Computer processor" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Computer processor and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Computer processor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikiversity Node Cambridge, 19-20 January, 2022

Following the success of the Decolonise Art History Wiki Jam in November 2021 our next step is the establishment of a pop-up Bricks and Clicks Wikiversity Node.

Please see Wikiversity Node Cambridge. Leutha (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Leutha: Might be able to make the Wednesday session. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to unblock this name

hello admin how are you User:Charles Matthews I created this article and believe this person meets the criteria for wikipedia Can you move this draft to the home page please --Kemal bey ne oldu (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kemal bey ne oldu: OK, I have been reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Al Suleiman (journalist); and the history of a speedy deletion of Ali Al Suleiman. So I see that historically there have been issues around this topic.

I have decided that the topic is notable by the standards of English Wikipedia. Therefore I am moving the article out into the main space, as you request. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind reply and all respect to you @Charles Matthew: I wish you to protect the article, or if the article deleted, restore it As it happened before stay safe --Kemal bey ne oldu (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is a further deletion process, I shall participate in it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Charles Matthew: Also there is a problem with the categories , can you help with this , I wish you a happy and healthy life thank you again --Kemal bey ne oldu (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Admin , can you help me for this issue also Draft:Orta Dogu Haberleri The site ranks is well according to Alexa and has achieved great fame since its establishment in a short period and there are independent sources about it, https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/ortadoguhaberleri --Kemal bey ne oldu (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better to create a section about Orta Doğu Haberleri on the page Ali Al Suleiman, initially. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you help with that subject please you know more than me , I think the page will be deleted, there will be no discussion. What is solution with your opinion? also By the way, I think the person is only interested in a page about him, and there are sources, not the vandalism Thanks for your interest again--Kemal bey ne oldu (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That's speculation. I'm available for discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding to Orta Doğu Haberleri section, can you create some information about it in the article please? It may be in the title of" The first independent Turkish news site in the Middle East" Perhaps two lines will be suffice.Thank you Kemal bey ne oldu (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have some interest in Turkish history, but I have no expertise in these matters. I notice that articles about the website were deleted from the French and Danish Wikipedias in December. That makes it important that anything here about Orta Doğu Haberleri is supported by appropriate references. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot , and the article about ali is ok per your opinion Is this correct? Have a nice day Admin . Stay Safe Kemal bey ne oldu (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Public worship" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Public worship and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Public worship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ali Al Suleiman, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that PageTriage would include with this the message I wrote, given that the message box is right next to the "unreview" button, but it seems to have eaten the message instead. Well, no matter...

To elaborate, I unreviewed the page procedurally after tagging it for G4 speedy deletion. I tagged it for G4 speedy deletion because the current text of the article does not substantially differ from Ali Al Suleiman (journalist) as it existed when Premeditated Chaos closed the AfD with consensus to delete. As such, respectfully, the page cannot be restored by unilateral admin action; recreation would rather require DRV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I have contested the speedy, so we can discuss. First point: that AfD was half a year ago, and traditionally articles can be recreated after that length of time. I thought there might be a second AfD, certainly. I was then going to argue that we should settle the matter on the merits of the sourcing, treating it as a notability matter. While clearly the past history is an unhappy one, I'd like to see that kind of discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have never heard of six months being a short enough period of time to recreate a page with mostly-identical content. What has changed since the AfD that makes Al Suleiman notable now, when he wasn't six months ago? The whole reason that G4 exists—and for that matter the whole reason that DRV exists—is so that we don't have to have a second AfD when little to nothing has changed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: For one thing, the website Orta Doğu Haberleri mentioned in the thread above. I disclaim any specialist knowledge here: of its significance, and about its claims of independence in the field of Middle East news, and of its date of foundation (apparently in 2021). But it does appear to be a new factor, and something that can be taken into account.

Here's what I think: someone else with a better idea of our processes has been asked to help out. Comparing the versions you are calling "mostly-identical", the deleted one had 10 references, and the new one 19 references. This is something rather than nothing. It is what you might get with someone who has more of a clue involved. As there are references in Arabic script, I can't tell you that much about them, right now.

Obviously there are a number of questions here, but those two points seem substantive to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but... You moved a page through protection, in contravention of AfD consensus, because sources you can't read may or may not support the fact that the subject is the editor-in-chief of a publication we don't have an article on? That's enough to get us from "AfD says not notable" to "Marginal enough that it's okay to recreate without DRV"? I think you're not giving enough consideration to the fact that moving through protection is a privileged action, and thus one for which one is held accountable by admin standards, not just a regular content decision. It's also effectively a revert of another admin's action, which generally should not be done without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.

And not to bury the lede here, but there is also the matter that this is a page that has been the target of a sockmaster in the past, and was salted for that reason, and a new account's first edit was to recreate it, clearly based on the content that was deleted in July (meaning that they either saved a copy then or are in touch with someone who did), and then subsequently canvassed four editors to review their draft as soon as possible. I do think that, when asked to move over a socking-related salting, an admin needs to consider whether they're perpetuating that socking. Which this is. I'm going to endorse a check at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/علي_أبو_عمر presently, but Kemal is DUCK-blockable regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sock has been blocked, article has been salted. I'm sorry your time was wasted with this, but this is yet another of of hundreds of socks this user has created to forum shop; the user is banned from Wikipedia, and nothing has substantially changed with the notability of the subject. Pinging User:Drmies and User:علاء for visibility. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is verified that the editor in question is an identifiable sockpuppet, that's another matter. It is not the same matter as whether we need an article on the topic. Which is what I was addressing. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It has been addressed. By AfD, six months ago. With a pretty strong consensus that we don't need an article on him. If you disagree, you can do what every non-admin has to do in that situation, and go to WP:DRV. Having the technical ability to create a page does not exempt you from policies regarding consensus. ArbCom has been clear about that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely. A sockpuppet investigation I take to be conclusive. I did spend three years on ArbCom. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser, but the quacking here is absolutely deafening. You can see here the consistent pattern of soliciting other editors to circumvent the page protections for him. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Last Word. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right. A former arb should know policy well, rather than needing it explained to them (at length) by a non-admin. Next time I'll skip straight to AN, since you clearly aren't interested in responding to feedback about your misuse of administrative tools. See you around the wiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see this documentation. I remembered Jimfbleak comment about this LTA, that: "I don't know why we are wasting time on this serial self-promoter and sock master. He's not notable, and shouldn't be rewarded with an article here" --Alaa :)..! 16:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Alaa . I absolutely stand by that remark, this persistent socker has tried every trick in the book to get this article through under one title or another, and it's really disappointing to see someone who should know better subverting our own procedures to reward this non-notable disruptive editor with what he wants, but doesn't deserve. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Charles Matthews. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Who are you? Just sending me a mail from Wikipedia doesn't entitle you to a reply. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Sorry i am --Hussam El Masry (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you are in communication with Ali, please tell him to stop the lose-lose nonsense here. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Tradtitionalists" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tradtitionalists and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Tradtitionalists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mercat crosses

Greetings. I noticed you redirected “Edinburgh Market Cross” to “Mercat Cross, Edinburgh” several years ago. I’ve created other mercat crosses recently, and an editor (who follows me around a lot) moved one I made yesterday from Crail mercat cross to Crail Market Cross. Correct capitalisation aside (mine may have been incorrect), his edit summary here raised a couple of questions I was hoping you might have comment on. I’m happy to keep the page move, but the fact that Edinburgh’s mercat cross article uses the Scots description, it had me wondering. Seasider53 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Seasider53: I have included a link to mercat cross. You should probably concede the point on the title. "Mercat" doesn't seem to be the dominant spelling. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Kinda El-Khatib for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Kadıköylü (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kinda El-Khatib

A tag has been placed on Kinda El-Khatib requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A7, Also this article created by Ali el Suleiman's socks in various Wikis. Spam

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kadıköylü (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• With all respect, I find it absolutely unbelievable and disgusting that someone who has been on Wikipedia longer that I'm in this world falls for this trap time after time. Isn't it pretty weird that despite admitting to not being able to read Arabic sources literally a few weeks ago, you use Arabic sources in the article above? Today, out of the blue, a (now g-locked) user appeared on Vikiolog's talk on the Turkish Wikipedia, with a typical علي أبو عمر styled text about how there is this guy on the English Wikipedia with an article and that she should help him with translating it. With the discussions on your talk page above, and you being the creator of the article, it's quite obvious that you didn't make this on your own. Please be aware that you are making edits on behalf of a banned editor who is known to be an UPE, and that you are seriously coming close to meatpuppetry. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 22:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Styyx: Please note that I am in touch with Ali for discussions that include his stopping socking here; and have briefed ArbCom on the nature of these discussions. That includes caveats about use of meatpuppets. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Has Ali said that he'll stop socking? Because he's currently socking at the AfD for this exact article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: He said he'd stop editing for some months. I'm reluctant, therefore, to accept any "duck test" evidence to the contrary. See the caveat about meatpuppets. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow what that caveat means. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Hi - there is a discussion at ANI which involves some of your recent editing. I closed the thread initially per WP:DENY after I blocked the OP, but there is some post-close discussion that touches on your actions - I imagine you have received the pings, but am notifying you here to ensure that you are aware. It is at WP:ANI#request_for_a_Temporary_ban. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

• 1Lib1Ref 2022
• Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Over expression" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Over expression and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Over expression until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"John Mason of Cheshunt" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect John Mason of Cheshunt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#John Mason of Cheshunt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Words (in Canon Law)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Words (in Canon Law) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Words (in Canon Law) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WelshBiographyOnline

Template:WelshBiographyOnline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the help and support yesterday! I'm still #TeamGoogleScholar :) Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Good meeting you. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Latin Letters used in Mathematics

Dear Charles Matthews,

Kabiryani here or Kabir for short! I am a new Wikipedian but I have set out to fully reference the 'Latin letters used in Mathematics' article! I see that you are an experienced Wikipedian and your help would be much appreciated. I would be especially gracious if you could inform the members of the Mathematics WikiProject about the lack of citations on this incredibly important page! --Kabiryani (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll look at List of mathematical uses of Latin letters at some point, but it seems that others are helping out. It is not the sort of list where absolutely everything needs a reference - there are some generic uses, e.g. A for abelian group. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Advice and/or Assistance

I am working on the biography page for Martin Kulldorff, a scientist and one of three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial document written by three scientists regarding COVID-19 lockdown policies. The biography sits at the intersection of several policy issues such as MEDRS, BLP, FRINGE/ALT, and also the discretionary sanctions of COVID-19 and biographies of living persons (arbitration you were part of). Part of the challenge may be that I am putting too much weight or stock into the policies and recommendations (such as from essays) regarding biographies. In other words, maybe I'm putting too much importance on the biographies. And that get's me to the advice or assistance I am requesting.

Is that 14 years old BLP arbitration still relevant and something that editors should carefully understand and heed, or are there more recent or more relevant decisions to help editors navigate content and conduct decisions regarding biographies? I am having both content and editor-conduct issues with the biography and I am trying to avoid going to ANI for resolution if I can. Knowing what the current atmosphere is regarding biographies would help me, I think (hope).

To put it differently, and more bluntly; the arbitration verbiage made it seem to me like biographies were a bit of a dumpster fire in the past and reading through the arbitration documentation and thinking about my experience with the Kulldorff biography, it seems relevant and accurate still. It would help me to know if there's no longer enough will 'at the top' to address it, or if what I'm experiencing is a one-off caused by too many factors overlapping and it's just not worth the time and hassle of so many people (going to ANI). I don't see the {{Ds/alert|blp}} banners used very often in the biographies listed in your contributions page so I am beginning to wonder if it's a cultural thing related to the biography I'm working on or more specifically the fringe/alt/pseudoscience crowd involved.

And for what it's worth, this is my first biography to work on and really the first time to edit articles outside of my core area of expertise (coffee) so it's quite possible it's also a newbie/greenhorn thing and I'm learning the wrong editing habits from the wrong editors.

Sorry for the long post. It's a complicated and even complex issue (for me anyway). Thanks in advance for any advice or assistance.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 08:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: OK, what I would always recommend is, first, read the nutshell summaries only for the basic underlying policies that apply to BLP. This will give you first principles on content. See if you are on board with those principles. They are what you are trying to apply in writing.

Around the basic principles there is much implementation detail, and apparently relevant precedent. Precedent doesn't stand for so much, except to establish and calibrate expectations in the community here.

The point about BLP is that NPOV requires much attention, RS has to be applied rigorously, and so on. Tone has to be managed in line with "house style", i.e. in a register that is slightly careful and understated. Various constructions such as appositive phrases need to be kept under full control, and the overall style should be what is expected of Wikipedia.

Hope that helps. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That does help, especially as a base, a foundation, or a centering tool.

But the devil is in the details, and what I'm gathering from your response is that I'll likely need to go to ANI for clarification on what the house style is in this case, and what the greater community expectations are.

Your advice is a big help. Thank you again.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 08:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: I don't think ANI is compulsory. I haven't looked yet, but my experience is that, if there aren't genuine factual issues, problems come down very often to writing issues. And getting the writing straight is more about facility, within the framework.

If you would like me to intervene, I'll do what I can. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, writing issues (surprisingly, basic stuff sometimes) are part of the overall problem I am trying to work through. Neutrality is quite difficult to achieve in one's own writing and even more difficult to effectively and successfully point out in another's writing.

There are some factual issues as well and both sides believe they are in command of the facts. It seems crystal clear to both sides and for weeks we've just been talking past each other and either regurgitating the same arguments or resorting to incivility. One side is on a pro-science crusade and the other is on a pro-biography crusade.

My goal is to improve the article and learn to maneuver various wiki policies effectively because I do enjoy the idea of providing information freely to the public. My concern with going to the ANI is it will most likely escalate, not de-escalate the situation. I am also concerned that too many people will not be able to set aside their opinions about the COVID-19 debate enough to focus on the key points you mentioned above; neutrality, tone, overall style, etc.

If you could take a look at one key issue and if you think I am the problem, you won't need to intervene with the entire group and instead I could follow your recommendations. If instead you find it's a situation that needs intervention, I'd be happy to have your help and to work through the issue with your guidance. The key issue at the moment is what I consider original research. This thread contains our discussion about it. I also eventually took the discussion to the BLP Noticeboard for wider consultation. Two editors at the noticeboard agreed the statement was original research and needed either better sourcing or better wording. Others felt removing it was pro-fringe, added undue weight, and lacked neutrality.

Both discussions are long reads (I know I'm "wordy") and I do appreciate your offer to spend some time helping. If after reading those two discussions you feel I am way off base and I am the problem, I will gladly accept and incorporate whatever feedback you provide based on that.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 10:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Will do. Quite busy this weekend. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: So, I'm seeing perhaps two separate but related points here.

1. The Covid subsection of Martin Kulldorff is functioning something like a summary of Great Barrington Declaration. There is an issue of how much detail from the GBD article belongs in the Kulldorff article.
2. The "herd immunity" views of Kulldorff are associated with a large and contentious scientific debate on Covid. The WP principle is to "report the debate".

While the subsection is of course interesting as it stands, it doesn't really tell me how involved Kulldorff has been in the debate.

There appears to be some sort of organizational weakness in the subsection. So right now the issues you have seem to be linked to "logical flow". Called in as an "article doctor", my first concern would be whether the subsection is overloaded. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and have tried to directly address both issues. I believe an underlying problem is the notion that fringe topics can not be discussed truly neutrally, but must always instead be discussed or otherwise conveyed in the context of their fringe-ness. Failure to repeatedly mention the fringe-ness is pro-fringe and biased. There is a strongly-held belief that neutrality in the context of fringe topics means one side is not taken seriously or even documented at all (see quotes below).

Regarding the amount of GBD content in Kulldorff's biography; I have on a number of occasions mentioned this as 'scope creep' or variously questioning the value it adds to a reader's understanding of Kulldorff, the scientist: [9], [10], [11], [12], (etc.).

Responses to attempts (not only mine) to maintain a biography of Kulldorff and not a tick-tock of GBD controversy is met with comments along the lines of the following:

They only need to be convinced that they will not succeed in turning the article into a fence-sitting exercise.

or

MCW's edit added weight to the fringe view, inserting "The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration said it was mischaracterized as a herd immunity strategy", sourced to the self-published declaration website.

My understanding of the group's view is that the GBD is pseudoscience and must clearly be labeled as such. I agree it is by definition WP:FRINGE/ALT and its 'fringe-ness' should be documented. I also believe the extent to which we document the fringe-ness has useful limits, or a limited return on investment. I believe the article, as currently written, exceeds those limits and it is now counter-productive (poorly written) and likely biased. WP:PROFRINGE is frequently used as a reason not to document both sides of the lockdown/herd-immunity debate, as are assertions of white-washing.

For example, after I argued that we should present both sides of the dispute. This was a reply:

Wikipedia doesn't "state both sides" for fringe ideas.

and...

"Simply stating" anything can give it undue weight.

and...

Stating both sides is the classic WP:GEVAL violation of NPOV.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, my actual recommendation would be to change the section structure to "Career" and "Views". Until that is done, I think that further focus on exactly what is said about the GBD is misplaced. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Anglican archdeacons in Scotland has been nominated for deletion

Category:Anglican archdeacons in Scotland has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Percy John Heawood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wigmore.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

James Peacock (Royal Navy officer)

You seem to be the right person to ask this: do you think I would be correct to rename this article James Peacock (English Navy officer)? As he fought for Parliament and the Commonwealth, I think Royal Navy officer is misleading. Ficaia (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: James Peacock (navy officer) would do. Charles Matthews (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts

Hi Charles, I wasn't too keen on some of the short stubs on Olympians and cricketers that Lugnuts was adding, but he did a lot of groundwork for film articles on Wikipedia, really extensive work which got us most of the articles on award winning films etc. It seems a tremendous shame that somebody with his energy has been banned from creating articles. Particularly when we're still missing thousands of articles on DNB biographies, which already have useable text. I wonder if there is a way to appeal his block on condition that he avoids short one line stubs on things like sportspeople and is permitted to create certain types of articles? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: On DNB, it is still a very interesting source. Complete to about Bi now. I created Jonathan Birch (translator) from it, then Jonathan Birch (EIC captain) who is interesting but not in DNB, then his son William John Birch, then his son William Birch (settler). Which goes to show that it works as a starting point but there are other fish to fry.

I did expand a Lugnuts stub once: a silversmith who was in the art section of the Olympics in the interwar period. That was worthwhile. I tend to find sports figures who appear without any personal background a bit depressing. There may be more information in local newspapers, for example, if they are British. You brought up Boleyn; Bashereyre is a related case, as far as I'm concerned.

I have two kinds of points about this. There is plenty of busywork available on Commons, with the structured data, and on Wikidata, looking at merges of people items. I do both of those, and it's a way to get an education in why providing adequate personal details in biographies helps Wikimedia as a whole. There are literally millions of people items on Wikidata, and when they are sparse it causes issues.

The other is about Lugnuts and what can be done. Start with back off/don't force the issue/don't obsess. Then, take a break. Then, shift to some other kind of work. There typically is a way back for prolific editors, but it doesn't do to lay down the law on how. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"Euclidean norm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Euclidean norm and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Euclidean norm until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Central element" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Central element and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Central element until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

• New library partner - SPIE
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society

Dear Charles Matthews/Archive 46,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, good of you, but AFAIK I have been here 19 years today. The single edit from 2002 in my edit history is unlikely to be me, and I don't claim it. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Maclean barons

Please review the comments on the relevant talk page. Shipsview (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 16#Holy Catholic Apostolic Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Healx

Given you're running an editathon, it would probably be a wise idea to inform the editors of WP:ATT and our copyright policy as I've now come across at least 2 outright copyright violations and more than 5 attribution violations. They need to be dealt with and fixed by either you or the editors and give proper attribution where appropriate. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

So based on later discussion elsewhere, I now understand that you didn't mean WP:ATT, but the conditions for use of material under an attribution Creative Commons license. So that can be acted upon. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

and possibly advise them of WP:MEDRS since most of this is coming from Frontiersin which is borderline predatory. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The points in later discussion have not been about articles using journals from the "Frontiers in" family. MEDRS doesn't define its terms as far as journal quality is concerned, the experts I know are divided on the matter, and I have spent some time on criteria in this area for automation. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the editathon is now over, and I'm looking at the issues you mention. Most of the people involved in the writing were scientists or professionals in the rare disease field.

Can you be more specific about the alleged copyvios? I was told that material had not been copied in one case. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Being a professional doesn't negate the requirement to use reliable sources that comply with MEDRS nor does it negate our copyright policy. For example, SLC6A1 epileptic encephalopathy is a full on copyright violation and there are dozens of others. I suggest you go through their work yourself and run spot checks instead of expecting the already over burdened NPP editors to do it, as well as tagging for attribution, such as this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I did find copying in SLC6A1 epileptic encephalopathy and eliminated it. But the idea that the article was unequivocal in the sense of G12 doesn't stand up. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I left the event 30 minutes ago, and am indeed looking over what the software has detected. The speedy notice says "This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving". I think you have not shown there is no content worth saving. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? The entire thing save for maybe 3 sentences is from several copyrighted sources. I'm concerned that you did not advise these editors of this policy and I also am concerned that you don't seem to understand it. If I removed all the copyvio, you'd be left with maybe 3 non-sensical, out of context sentences. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) again. Given that the Earwig detector treats "Treatment will depend on the type and severity of the seizures and associated neurological features. A combination of seizure medications is typically used to control the different seizure types", cited in SLC6A1 epileptic encephalopathy as a quotation, as if "" aren't there, you may be overstating your case about that article.

I am certainly serious in content discussions here. I understand the policies. I have quoted verbatim from the speedy notice, and while the duplication software picks up a number of things your conclusion is not one I share. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I literally read the content itself- do you not understand it still can't be copied wholesale? What is your point here? And that doesn't change that that example was an outright copyright violation and several others are attribution violations. As an administrator, you are duty bound to at least understand this much. I know how earwig works. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You have not substantiated your claim - my point - but reasserted it. There may be some copying, and too much close paraphrase. I am concerned to clean up those parts of articles. Are you going to allow me some time to do that? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to copy and paste the content point by point to show you because that would be a time sink and would be reposting a copyright violation - read it yourself, it's in the links provided. Playing games of "you're not telling me" is pointless, a waste of your time and ultimately won't result in an outcome that anyone wants. There is a LOT of exact, word for word copying. Your ultimate lack of understanding here and unwillingness to do the leg work for your own projects is pretty disturbing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out below, the project is not "my own". Charles Matthews (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am answering each of your messages here, and "unwillingness" to look at the issues here is simply unjustified. You overstate, and no doubt would call me unresponsive if I didn't reply. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

For context: I was brought in by Healx (https://healx.io/) to assist with a rare disease event they had already planned. At https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Healx/Healx_rare_disease_editathon I have over 40 participant accounts entered. I was given some limited time on a Zoom call last week, in which perhaps 75% heard me emphasise the nutshell version of MEDRS, and at the beginning of the event for some basic training. Of eight target rare disease topics, one failed to pass a basic notability test; and all rare disease articles are going to have sourcing issues, meaning that flexibility in MEDRS is going to be needed.

I argued for a bottom-up method of writing drafts, but they had other ideas, with articles drafted by small teams. It should be possible to pick up some issues via the dashboard. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Charles! Since you asked for some more instances above, the text that I removed in this edit was copied almost entirely from [13], which is not compatibly licensed (noncommercial license), and text that was added in this edit (since removed) was copied from [14]. While going through some of the reports flagged by the copyright bot yesterday, I did notice that there were copyright issues coming from a number of different editathon participants, so this would be a good thing to address for future events. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Thanks for that. By seeing what links to {{Healxeditathon}} I have collected now 54 accounts involved in the event (there were people editing remotely too). These are in the dashboard software, and so it will be possible to check through. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

I came across User:Charles Matthews/SLC13A5 citrate transporter disorder, which needed WP:RD1 to deal with some copyvios. We don't do selective deletion any more to get rid of old revisions, so I have restored those diffs. If you have questions please let me know. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your recent edits to Cleadon! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 11:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm now deep in trying to sort out the Abbs family. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

• New library partners
  • SAGE Journals
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect
  • University of Chicago Press
  • Information Processing Society of Japan
• Feedback requested on this newsletter
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Set families has been nominated for renaming

Category:Set families has been nominated for renaming. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)