User talk:Graham11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Happy New Year, Graham11![edit]

Charles R. Knight New Years's Card.jpg
Godt Nytaar! 1916.jpg
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Manitoba election 2016[edit]

Hi there, I have checked the NDP website and Ted Marcelino, Ron Kostyshyn and Rob Altemeyer are all listed as re-standing, so you might want to avoid reverting if these names are re-instated. 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Frederick Denison Maurice article[edit]

I notice that you made a recent edit to Frederick Denison Maurice. I have spent several weeks almost full time preparing for a major revision of the article. The reasons for my revision are posted on Talk:Frederick Denison Maurice and the draft revision is posted on User:Vejlefjord/---FDM-Draft. I have not reworked External links section, but it needs pruning or deletion. It you are willing to critique the draft, please let me know pronto. I have made only stage in the revision and I will hold off making the revision until I hear from you. Also at age 91 I could become incapable to continue the revison. If so, please do it. Vejlefjord (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have completed all the revision that I now have in mind. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony Penikett[edit]

Tony Penikett[edit]

Unprotection: Expiration. Mo

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Portal bar|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Old Palace, Canterbury coordinates[edit]

I'm not too sure since I don't know the subject matter, but would the coordinates you removed be correct if you changed {{Coord|51.2803|N|1.0817|W|display=title}} to {{Coord|51.2803|N|1.0817|E|display=title}}? --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with the subject matter either – it was purely by happenstance that I happened to notice that the coordinates pointed to Hampshire – but I think you're right. Google Maps suggests that your coordinates point to somewhere on the cathedral grounds, so I can only assume that they are correct. Graham (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bent Gestur Sivertz[edit]

Hello, I see you removed a reference from the above article to "Canadian Civil Servants" and added one for "19th Century Canadian Civil Servants". As Mr. Sivertz lived all but a few years of his life in the 20th Century, I was wondering what the rationale for this change was? Thank you.BCER (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. You're right, I had meant to write "20th". I'll have it corrected. Thanks for letting me know. Graham (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello. I am not sure why you reverted this. Nynorsk is at the list (under 100,000+). Now there is an entry which says (250,000+): "Norwegian" and another under 100,000+ which says "Norwegian (Nynorsk)". Maybe you didnt see it? Have a nice day. Christian75 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid changing "Trump" to "Drumpf"[edit]

Hi Graham11. In one of your recent edits, you changed the word "Trump" to "Drumpf". I assume that this was unintentional and caused by having the Drumpfinator extension enabled. To avoid this kind of mistake in the future, please disable the extension before editing articles that use the word "Trump". Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! Graham (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <blockquoteThe treaties with most of the larger [[Native States|States]] are clear on this point.
  • | last = Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. III | first = | title = The Indian Empire, Economic (Chapter X: Famine, pp. 475–502 | publisher = Published under the authority of His Majesty's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Charles Dodgson (archdeacon)[edit]

Just being curious: do you want to move the article? Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox officeholder on labor articles[edit]

I see you added {{Infobox officeholder}} to the article on Philip Murray. From what I can see, the infobox is for public officials, not elected officers in nonprofits, corporations, trade unions, and the like. {{Infobox person}} is used for corporate, association, and private sector officials, whether member-elected or appointed. If there's some discussion that's occurred on the {{Infobox officeholder}} that makes it appropriate for trade unions, I'd love to see it as I'm unaware of any. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I've often seen the infobox used in biographies of senior elected trade union officers, particularly in those of British and Canadian trade unionists (though I'm not sure why that correlation exists). Given that the template is called Infobox officeholder, I hadn't inferred the broad restrictions on its use that you're describing. Looking at the infobox's documentation, there's no indication that there's a consensus that it isn't to be used in biographies of elected officials of membership organizations who are notable primarily on the basis of the offices they hold, and I haven't come across any discussion where such a consensus was reached, so I've just been going off of the plain meaning of the documentation. Graham (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Pianist move[edit]

Hi Graham, can you explain this move? The last CFD found no consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, I had moved it to bring it in line with the rest of Category:Female musicians and Category:Women in music. I was not aware of that CFD until now, but of course consensus can change, so I would be open to having a discussion on the topic opened. Graham (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like most of the "classical" categories were all consistently using the "Women" designation - cellists, oboists, violinists, etc. Suggest moving back pending a new discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have also noticed you are mass-moving women-categories to female-categories (female is viewed as derogatory), against consensus. Will you revert your moves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talkcontribs) 13:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Hi Graham

Consensus can change, but it takes a discussion to determine whether it has actually changed.
I will now revert all such moves, per WP:BRD.
You can of course open a new CFD discussion if you think that a new consensus may be formed .... but have that discussion before the moves, not after. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I second @Nikkimaria and BrownHairedGirl:'s concerns. I have been getting a whole lot of notices on articles I have written about category changes to female. Female is typically preferred only when one is speaking about animals or writing scientifically. A woman is a female human, just as a hen is a female chicken, a doe is a female deer, etc. The preferred forms for humans are woman and women. Otherwise, that female musician is akin to an avian species, which is probably not what was intended. [1], [2] SusunW (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Reversions done[edit]

Notifying: SusunW and Nikkimaria (who both posted above) and also Ottawahitech, who posted on my talk[3] to ask me for help with this issue.

I have now reverted all (or I hope all) of Graham11's moves of categories from "women" to "female". Per WP:BRD, this a reversion of some be-bold edits, and the next step is consensus-formimg discussions.

I have done one pass of checking the completeness of my reversion, but others may want to do their own checks. The list of categories which Graham11 moved can be found in this snapshot of the move log ... and here is the list of moves which I actually reverted:

Women→Female Category moves which I reverted
  1. Category:Women pianists to Category:Female pianists
  2. Category:Women diplomats by nationality to Category:Female diplomats by nationality
  3. Category:Canadian women diplomats to Category:Canadian female diplomats
  4. Category:American women diplomats to Category:American female diplomats
  5. Category:Women Mesoamericanists to Category:Female Mesoamericanists
  6. Category:Women nutritionists to Category:Female nutritionists
  7. Category:Women sports owners to Category:Female sports owners
  8. Category:Women sports agents to Category:Female sports agents
  9. Category:Women classical pianists to Category:Female classical pianists
  10. Category:Women jazz pianists to Category:Female jazz pianists
  11. Category:Women stockbrokers to Category:Female stockbrokers
  12. Category:Women bankers to Category:Female bankers
  13. Category:American women bankers to Category:American female bankers
  14. Category:British women bankers to Category:British female bankers
  15. Category:Women hoteliers to Category:Female hoteliers
  16. Category:Women financial analysts to Category:Female financial analysts
  17. Category:Women investors to Category:Female investors
  18. Category:Women stock traders to Category:Female stock traders
  19. Category:Women rulers to Category:Female rulers
  20. Category:Women art dealers to Category:Female art dealers
  21. Category:Women police officers to Category:Female police officers
  22. Category:American women police officers to Category:American female police officers
  23. Category:British women police officers to Category:British female police officers
  24. Category:Women sheriffs to Category:Female sheriffs
  25. Category:Woman landowners to Category:Female landowners
  26. Category:Women orientalists to Category:Female orientalists
  27. Category:Women spies to Category:Female spies
  28. Category:Women philatelists to Category:Female philatelists
  29. Category:Women urban planners to Category:Female urban planners
  30. Category:Women veterinarians to Category:Female veterinarians
  31. Category:Indian women choreographers to Category:Indian female choreographers
  32. Category:Women choreographers to Category:Female choreographers
  33. Category:Women theatre directors to Category:Female theatre directors
  34. Category:Women directors to Category:Female directors
  35. Category:Women oboists to Category:Female oboists
  36. Category:Women double-bassists to Category:Female double-bassists
  37. Category:Women flautists to Category:Female flautists
  38. Category:Women cellists to Category:Female cellists
  39. Category:Women violinists to Category:Female violinists
  40. Category:Women conductors (music) to Category:Female conductors (music)
  41. Category:Women inventors to Category:Female inventors
  42. Category:Woman instrument makers to Category:Female instrument makers
  43. Category:Women farmers to Category:Female farmers
  44. Category:Women farmers by nationality to Category:Female farmers by nationality
  45. Category:American women farmers to Category:American female farmers
  46. Category:Women collectors to Category:Female collectors
  47. Category:Women chefs to Category:Female chefs
  48. Category:Women sports announcers to Category:Female sports announcers
  49. Category:Women air force personnel to Category:Female air force personnel
  50. Category:Women soldiers to Category:Female soldiers
  51. Category:Women generals to Category:Female generals
  52. Category:Women air force personnel of the Soviet Union to Category:Female air force personnel of the Soviet Union
  53. Category:Women Protestant religious leaders to Category:Female Protestant religious leaders
  54. Category:Women Lutheran clergy to Category:Female Lutheran clergy
  55. Category:Women Christian religious leaders to Category:Female Christian religious leaders
  56. Category:Latvian women curators to Category:Latvian female curators
  57. Category:Nigerian women curators to Category:Nigerian female curators
  58. Category:Indian women religious leaders to Category:Indian female religious leaders
  59. Category:Women dentists to Category:Female dentists
  60. Category:Woman motivational speakers to Category:Female motivational speakers
  61. Category:Women curators to Category:Female curators
  62. Category:Women curators by nationality to Category:Female curators by nationality
  63. Category:Women ambassadors to Category:Female ambassadors
  64. Category:Women labour leaders to Category:Female trade union leaders
  65. Category:Women theologians to Category:Female theologians

A mass reversion like this is an unusual thing, so I want to explain why I did it.

I assume that Graham11 acted in good faith. However, I do believe that Graham11 was reckless in proceeding with such a widespread set of changes without seeking consensus first, and repeatedly negligent in not checking for previous consensus-forming discussions.

Several of the categories moved by Graham11 had been renamed to their present titles as a result of a consensus at a WP:CFD discussion. In each case that fact of a previous CFD was evident from the revision history of the category page. Graham11's reply above is that he was unaware of those discussions ... but if Graham11 had done proper checking before moving, he would have been aware. That was negligent.

In addition to those individual categories, there was a CFD discussion in April 2013 which sought to standardise on either "Female" or "Women" in these category titles, but did not reach a consensus. Again, that discussion was evident from the history of some of the categories which Graham11 moved. If Graham11 had done proper checking before each, he would have been aware of that discussion, and aware that there is no consensus for the far-reaching changes he implemented. That too was negligent.

The wider context is that category moves are usually performed only after consensus-forming discussions at WP:CFD, or (in a set of tightly-defined exceptions) by speedy moves at WP:CFD/S. There are two reasons for that:

  1. Category moves, mergers and deletions affect a lot pages, and are hard to reverse, and can have unintended disruptive effects. That's why WP:BOLD specifically warns editors against being bold when moving categories (see WP:Be bold#Category_namespace), and advises them to seek consensus first.
  2. Until recently, category moves were complex and time-consuming, so were in practice most easily done by the bots which implement the decisions of WP:CFD and WP:CFD/S.

Some recent technical changes to the mediawiki software have made it technically easier for editors to move categories without relying on the bots. However, the issues in point 1 above about disruption and consensus still apply as much as ever. The fact that it is technically possible to bypass CFD does not make it a good idea to do so.

My reversion of Graham11's changes took several hours of my time, and over 2000 edits. So the combined effect of move-and-revert amounts to over 4000 edits, beating up the watchlists of many editors. Not a good thing.

With categories, it is much much better to seek consensus first. Both CFD and CFD/S nominations are very easily handled by WP:TWINKLE, and in most cases it actually requires less time and effort to use CFD than to make the change yourself.

Note that I do agree that some renaming is needed. There are many categories where "Women Fooers" is a subcat of "Female fooers" (or vice versa), and CFD discussions are needed to try to standardise each of those on one form or the other. The April 2013 CfD found no consensus for an overarching change, but a new proposal might achieve a different outcome. However that discussion left open the possibility of case-by-case fixes, and it will probably be better to follow that approach.

The changes which have been reverted here simply restore the status-quo ante. I hope that Graham11 will learn from these good-faith errors, and that he will in future use the consensus-forming processes rather than unilaterally moving any category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl, sorry for all the trouble this seems to have caused. And thanks for sorting it out! Graham (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for being so nice about it, Graham. And sorry that a lot of your time got wasted too :(
You were right to identify that there may be too much inconsistency, and that some changes would be helpful. Hopefully we can have some CFD discussions to find some solutions. Actually, it would probably better to start with an RFC, since there are some conflicting principles here which could probably do with being explored in a more fluid setting, without a 7-day deadline.
Would you be interested in helping set up such an RFC? I was thinking of starting a discussion on what issues that RFC might examine, and it looks like this discussion has brought together a group of interested editors who might help us frame the RFC questions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Theresa May 22nd July 2014[edit]

Apologies, my mistake. However, PC is wrong- it's reserved for Marquesses and Dukes in the UK. Privy Councillors are indicted by Rt. Hon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajdsmith (talkcontribs) 18:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My impending Michael Turnbull revision[edit]

I have posted the following message on that says in effect,

I am working on a major revision of the article:
  • formatting with a Lead and sections (it is all one section)
  • expansion by using unused reliable sources
  • adding references/citations: there are only three and 1st reference is dead link
A draft of my revision is at User:Vejlefjord/TurnbullDraft. Suggestions welcomed.

I notice that you made an edit to [[Michael Turnbull] so I am thinking you might be willing to review my draft before I post it. Please let me know. Vejlefjord (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hidden notes on musician pages[edit]

Hello! You seem to have been removing hidden notes on musician pages which say "Do not add an infobox, per policy...", with the edit summary: (Rm note per WP:HIDDEN). But this makes no sense: WP:HIDDEN describes these notes, and suggests that this is exactly the sort of thing they should be used for. Has there been a change of policy to include infoboxes? If so, please reference -- otherwise why remove the hidden notes? Imaginatorium (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose Graham11's removal is technically in line with thoughts expressed at WP:HIDDEN, although I have my reservations about a How-to page masquerading as a guideline. MOS:DONTHIDE, or rather MOS:COMMENT, says nothing of the sort. Further, removing those comments might increase the occasions when editors unfamiliar with the contentious status of infoboxes will attempt to add them and then triggering another round of pointless discussions where consensus (I know) has established their unsuitability. Those comments should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Who do you think would be interested in more discussions? I am not. When an infobox I added is reverted, I only add it to our list, - life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would hope that, after the experience of recent years, either the addition or reversion of an infobox would be the subject of appropriate relevant discussion on the article talk page. Whilst the apparent injunction of the texts removed by User:Graham11 may indeed be inappropriate, what could be useful, and might avoid future potentialy lurid disputes on, e.g. Richard Wagner page, would be to mention in hidden text something like 'Editors considering adding or reverting an infobox are advised to commence by raising the proposal on the article talkpage (and, if appropriate, consulting previous discussions at [[article talkpage or talkpage archive ]]'). I am sorry to learn, by the way, that Gerda appears constitutionally averse to disussions. - Smerus (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
"constitutionally averse to disussions" - I am open to discussions, in general. However, I found no infobox discussion illuminating so far (possibly with the exception of Siegfried which was short, literary and entertaining), and Wagner particularly seemed a complete misunderstanding: I had only suggested to have an infobox on the talk page. - I don't have the time to write all the articles I would like, and the reviews, and the encouragement of editors, - preferring all this to infobox discussions. Composers with an infobox include Bach, Beethoven, Verdi, Max Reger and Peter Maxwell Davies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
ps: how could I forget the birthday child of 9 August (featured article for that day), Albert Ketèlbey, who wrote In a Persian Market? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking back, I think my original objection was really to the edit summary: WP:HIDDEN is about how to do this, and leaves the curious editor wondering what it means. As Smerus said above, rather than being removed they should be replaced by a comment (as brief as possible) along the lines of "Discuss on Talk before adding an infobox" plus link to the current "policy", whateveritis. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • My approach would be to drop the note without replacement, just to keep things simple. If somebody new arrives and adds an infobox, somebody else can revert it, note or no note, by WP:BRD, and ask for discussion. This "consensus" of 2010, a time when I for example had not even discovered what an infobox is, is outlived and nothing to still refer to. To request any "permission" before making an edit seems no true Wikipedia spirit. My 2ct, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be all in favour of maintaining such notes. But that's a very different situation from having a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First we were told that failure to have a hidden comment made it hard for editors to know not to add an infobox. Now you say that the hidden comment has a "chilling effect." The fact is that you just want to have a pile of code at the top of every article containing redundant infobox information, even in these arts biographies, usually riddled with errors and always emphasizing unimportant factoids at the expense key information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No, first you were told not to have hidden comments that just expressed your OWNership of an article. Where there has been no debate and hence no consensus, you have no right to forbid other editors from editing in good faith. Much as you'd like the right to decide not to have infoboxes on YOUR articles, that can only be decided by consensus at each article. The fact is that you don't want readers to have an at-a-glance summary of key facts because you insist that everybody has to read through your entire article just to find one small piece of information that they were looking for. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, the unfounded OWN accusation favoured by IB warriors. It never takes long for rex to crowbar it into any discussion that isn't going his way. As to your edit consensus "no debate and hence no consensus", that's not always the case; see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. – SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
And the usual deflection into ad hominem by those who can't answer the argument. I'm glad you mentioned WP:EDITCONSENSUS, although you really should have read it beforehand. It is very clear that anybody who wishes to add an infobox may do so, with the backing of that very policy. Your attempts to prevent those editors lies at the very root of these misleading comments. Nobody should be prevented from making any good-faith edit that is not against consensus, and there is no consensus on any of the pages in question to disallow an infobox. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
You throw out unfounded OWN accusations, then accuse me of coming up with the ad hominem comments. pmsl. Please try and not mislead with falsehoods: I have not tried to "prevent" editors doing anything. – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Since the discussion appears to have moved, I have replied at Talk:Toru Takemitsu § Hidden comments. Graham (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of your edit[edit]

Hi: I reverted your edit to the Hillary Clinton campaign page, but didn't leave an edit comment, for which please accept my apologies. I've put a comment on that article's talk page to give you my rationale for reverting your edit. -- The Anome (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted! And I replied on the article talk page, but that's a fair point re it being a reasonable exception in this case to WP:EMBED. Thanks, Graham (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rv addition of non-Wikipedia:bidirectional sidebar[edit]

Can you tell me what this means? When I go to pages in category "Right-wing populism in the United States", I see Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, but you deleted the populism sidebar from that article (with the above subject comment). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (a section of the categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline) provides that "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." While the right-wing populism sidebar may be suitable on the Donald Trump article, it is not suitable on the article on Trump's campaign as the article is not linked from the sidebar. Cheers, Graham (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I still don't follow you. has Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 listed and the right-wing populism sidebar you removed was from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, why is that not bidirectional? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not about the category in which it's contained, but rather whether the article is linked from the sidebar itself. In {{populism sidebar}}, Donald Trump is listed under the people header, so the sidebar may be appropriate for that article. The sidebar does not, however, link to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, hence the sidebar's exclusion from that article. Graham (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum pronunciation[edit]

Graham -- I put a lot of effort into pronunciation for this (see here with the upshot here). But LlywelynII removed that with this edit per his explanation here referring to policy re Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. I do think including pronunciation for popular phrases that are often mispronounced is of value. Thoughts? humanengr (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I got linked in, I'll mention that besides Wikipedia NOT being a dictionary, (a) we have a dictionary where the pronunciation is already available in both classical and ecclesiastical Latin and (b) there is no "mispronunciation" of the phrase in English. If some people say the G differently from classical Latin, modern Latin speakers don't pronounce it that way either. We aren't proscriptivist here and any attempt to plug in all twelve or so variant and regional pronunciations of American vs. British /ō/ &c.—besides being pointless—runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. It's great you put time into it; I hope it was educational and please help elsewhere or add English variants to the Wiktionary page. Just don't gunk up the page here, if you don't mind. — LlywelynII 02:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
LlywelynII, Thx for the elaboration and pointer to the Wiktionary entry. humanengr (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Keep up the good work, Graham :) WpgJets4Life (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

A peace offering for Graham11.

WpgJets4Life (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Christopher "Chris" Whitelaw Pine[edit]

You did this to my edit. Please tell me why at Talk:Nickname#nicknames_before_or_after_middle_names.3F while i rearrange Pine's name "correctly".  ;-)

Signed, R2- (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello. Would you please consider closing this rant? Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Chris Troutman (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Navbox cages[edit]

Hello, and I hope all goes well, haven't spoken to you since that stuff about vegan and vegetarians lists being linked in "See also" sections. On the navbox cage, there seems to have been agreement on the navbox page, and don't ask me to find it because I don't keep track of the hundreds of policy discussions taking place on Wikipedia, most of which are attended to by a tiny percentage of editors. But, thank God, enough of the various factions of navbox editors at least agree that four or five pertinent collapsed exposed templates should be allowed on pages. Putting templates into navbox cages seems to some, at least to me, to be the most disrespected feature on a page. A few collapsed templates take up the same amount of room, in most cases far less vertical space, as respected page sections like "Further reading", "References", "External links" and often "Categories" and "See also", etc. Gathering them up and putting them behind a one-line template then hides them even more than their already present location way down near the bottom of the page. Anyway, thought I'd drop by to talk it out further here, among you and your fine page watchers. Thanks. Randy Kryn 3:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randy, what article is this in reference to? Graham (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess all of them that contain navbox cages, but this one is for Gilda Radner in particular. I got to editing Gene Wilder topics today after hearing of his death, and have now branched off into various Willie Wonka-lands. I'd put some additions into the Wilder template, and then placed them on pages of a few newly-created links, including Radner's. Randy Kryn 4:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, right. But on the broader issue, I don't know of a central consensus on the matter. Personally, I usually won't use {{navboxes}} if there are three or fewer, but I usually use my discretion when there's four. In this case, I thought the stack of bars at the bottom (the four navboxes plus the portal bar and authority control bar) looked kind of tacky and excessive and considered that together with the fact that they weren't particularly useful as navboxes go (as is often the case with award navboxes), but to be honest, I wouldn't lose sleep over the matter either way in this case. If there was a central consensus reached, though, I'd be curious to know what it is. Graham (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I know that award boxes are kind of tedious, and wonder if they're useful, but they are inclusive of the subject of the article. Maybe putting all the awards into a single-navbox cage often makes sense, while leaving other templates exposed on the page, which would cut down their number on some of the pages. The discussion was somewhere on the central navbox page, but I don't think it was a closed/consensus discussion. Let's call Robsinden in, Rob seems to keep track of these matters and was involved in that discussion, so might be able to link to it and/or offer an opinion. On a related note, I'm often amused at the amount of templates on sports pages, especially American baseball, which can reach the double digits without slowing down. I never cage those though, just on vertical inches alone even those take up the space a good reference section takes up. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Gene Wilder[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 30 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gene Wilder, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC[edit]

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


Currently there are 314,844 articles with "Citation needed" statements. You can help reduce the backlog!

Hi, I noticed that you added a "Citation needed template" to this page even though there was already an inline citation and that is why I am writing you this message.

In general, when you use this template you should always try to take the time to write a reason in the tag to explain to other editors why you think a citation is needed and what statement you are asking other editors to verify. You can write a reason in the tag template: {{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=January 2017}} or use the talk page if extra room is needed to discuss improvements to the article. Much better than using this remplate is, if you are able, fix the page yourself by looking up a reference and adding it to the page. Since most people who use Wikipedia have access to the internet[citation needed], it's a good idea to try this first.


About the specific article you tagged, Thinking_outside_the_box, since you didn't leave any explanation it wasn't clear exactly what you were thinking, but judging from your placement of the tag, I'm guessing that when you read the article maybe you either didn't believe that the phrase "thinking outside the square" is used with identical meaning to "thinking outside the box" (possibly because you hadn't heard/read it before) or you didn't believe that it was used by Australians (possibly because there's not many aussies in the peg and you might not watch much tele from the land down under), or both. In any case, I thought I'd take a little time to write you and maybe put your mind at ease; both are absolutely true, for some reason many Australians seem to use 'square' instead of 'box' with regard to this phrase. If you checked the inline citation reference you found an example of an Australian publication where an Australian author uses the phrase. I also added a couple of other aussi examples in a comment.

I first heard "outside the square" being used on Australian television and I initially thought it was just a stupid mistake, but I kept hearing it and eventually curiosity got the best of me and I looked into it. Sure enough, it a thing in Oz. Now while there is no recorded history of why or how this variation occurs, it was easy to verify just by searching publications for the phrase like this google scholar search, and sure enough there's lot's of examples of it's use and it seems mainly by Australian authors. So, yeah, in this case, citing even just a single example of it's use is probably good enough. It obviously wouldn't work to cite them all, so one that is easily verifiable(e.g. on the web) should probably be sufficient.

There's a lot of articles tagged with "Citation needed" already so, it's always great if you take the time to try and verify yourself before tagging, and if you have any extra time it's also great if you want to check some of the tagged articles and see if you might be able to help out!

Hope you enjoy my comment! Cheers! --goldenboy;-) (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

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.

Hubert Burge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Edward Talbot
John Robinson (bishop of Woolwich) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bishop John Robinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory[edit]

Can I ask why you are messing with the citations in this article? It just went through FAC, where there was an enormous fight about citation formats. Is swooping in and changing them really the best move? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear from the above, I have reverted you on the basis of WP:CITEVAR. I don't particular mind the dashes-in-place-of-names thing, or the way you spaced out the bibliography, but I strongly resent the HEY-YOU-FIX-SOMETHING-I-WANT-YOU-TO banner, and I do mind the in-line interwiki links and redlinked name-of-living-person-in-citation. The first I object to for obvious reasons: templating a new FA is exceedingly bad form, and demanding ISBNs in references is ridiculous. The second I object to because it's frowned upon at FAC; it's not something that exists in any real-world style guide. The third is advised against in the MOS (redlinked biographies are problematic, and redlinks are not ideal in citations- and I say this as someone who loves redlinks). I'm sorry if this comes across as a little curt, but I am sick of dealing with this kind of thing. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've replied to you there, but, to be frank, it's hardly my friendliest comment and I'd rather throw myself out of a window than have a big, long, winding discussion about this. I don't think either of us would enjoy it, I think both of us would come to resent the other (you seem like a decent person, and I'm not a monster; there's no reason we have to go at each other) and we could be doing something more productive. If there's a particular change you want to make that doesn't fall under those to which I have expressed particular opposition, go for it, and we can move on. If you strongly feel that one of the changes you made to which I did express particular concern needs to be made, I suppose we're going to need to have a discussion, if you think it's worth it... Josh Milburn (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for posting again: I know this is something ridiculous to get worked up over, and you can probably tell how frustrated I am. If it provides any context, here is a comment I made about 24 hours ago. I think I came across your edits at precisely the wrong moment. Again: as best as I can tell, neither of us are terrible people, and neither of us want anything radically different; let's not fratch. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

DYK for Richard J. Scott[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 13 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard J. Scott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before he became Chief Justice of Manitoba, Richard J. Scott served as the trial judge in R v Lavallee, a case which granted legal recognition to battered woman syndrome as a defence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard J. Scott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Richard J. Scott), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]

50k Challenge poster.jpg You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Graham11. 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)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

When you have time[edit]

When you have time, would you be able to drop me a line as previously discussed? Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Your propossed merging has been rejected[edit]

Look at Portal talk:Latter Day Saints. Please stop the proposal.--Broter (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject![edit]

Hello, Graham11! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)