User talk:Verbcatcher

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

Contents

Edits on List of Largest Mosque[edit]

Hey Verbcatcher, for your kind information, I was not threatening someone. I am just trying to make point that Al-Alsa is not considered as mosque in the country where it is situated. And portraying the worshipping place of Ahmeddiya community as mosque considered as blasphemy in the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Wikipedia is the first information source, so incorrect information may lead to confusion. Hope you get my point. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakarmy4923 (talkcontribs) 11:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Verbcatcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I like your additions with precision around Gardiner! - If you have questions, feel free to ask here, I will watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Estorick[edit]

I posted a request at Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Estorick. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have corrected a typo in your nomination.Verbcatcher (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric Estorick[edit]

Given that this article is an example of what you can do now, I'd love to see your future efforts. The only comment that I'd make is probably pulling some of the information that is on separate lines into paragraph form, but that's pretty minor. Welcome!Naraht (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree about the short paragraphs, but I like to keep each paragraph on a separate topic. I hope to get more material to flesh out the existing paragraphs - I have more references to explore. I have also recently written the article on Frances Richards (artist) Verbcatcher (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Estorick[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


Re: Hermann Nonnenmacher[edit]

Thanks for assistance and comments. dnw (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You have made a signification improvement: it looks and reads like a good quality article. Much better than I could do on my own.

dnw (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Query regarding images[edit]

The Nonnenmarcker article caused a chain of thought about a print I own, by Iain Macnab. I have improved the existing article.

Could you give your view on illustrating the article on Macnab with my own picture on a print we have. The only justification would be that it is a photo I have taken (no other rights issue), and 'fair use' which seems to be rather frowned upon but tolerated in certain cases? It always seems a great pity to discuss an artist but not show an image. the image is available here: https://chenopod.net/dnwPhotos/picture.php?/6/category/2

Also if you know your way about UK online newspapers would be able you find out what years was Macnab the president of 'The Royal Institute of Oil Painters' dnw (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the desirability of illustrations. I was pleased to be able to add images to James Dickson Innes and to Malacara. I found both these images on Wikimedia Commons, where someone else had taken the responsibility for posting. I have replied to your question on Talk:Iain Macnab, which seems the best place to discuss it.
I'll look in the UK newspaper archives to which I have access, but I'm not hopeful. I hadn't heard of 'The Royal Institute of Oil Painters', so it's probably not a high-profile organisation. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I found obituaries in The Times and The Glasgow Herald, and updated the article with material from them. They both said he was President of the Royal Institute of Oil Painters, which I take to mean that he was president when he died. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Members of 56 Group Wales[edit]

Category:Members of 56 Group Wales, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Wales listed buildings[edit]

See commons:Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2013_in_the_United_Kingdom/planning#Wales. -- Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Church near Talgarth[edit]

Good to meet yesterday. The church you mentioned is St Ellyw's Church, Llanelieu, and the article mentions the rood screen! Robevans123 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. I took some photos there recently - I'll see whether they are worth posting. Verbcatcher (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of École Gratuite de Dessin[edit]

Hello Verbcatcher,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged École Gratuite de Dessin for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. WMartin74 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See my comments in User talk:WMartin74. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

More YouTube moaning[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher. What's your view on videos at the BBC's own dedicated YouTube channel? Do links to these still break Wiki copyright policy? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert. If in doubt post a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. However, I think it's ok to link to videos on the BBC's YouTube channel. Similarly, I recently posted a link to photos posted on Flickr by the National Library of Wales. If we have good reason to believe that the person or organisation posting holds the rights then its ok to link. We should be able to assume that reputable organisations such as these would not post copyright violations. Be aware that some sites only allow access to users from a limited list of countries. Linking to these is fine for citations, but probably not for External Links. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. Yes, that's an interesting point about different countries having different access. Presumably in all cases the YouTube link would work but, depending on which country you are in, you might or might not hear/see something as a result. My particular bugbear is music companies who globally block material from their label, or of a given artist on their label, regardless of whether or not the company has deleted the work from their catalogue. I'm sure it's a much bigger problem for the artist concerned. Of course, that isn't a Wikipedia problem. It's just a YouTube/record company problem. But YouTube seems to be generally much more permissive now than it used to be - discounting the totalitarian pariah state that is Warner Bros, of course (.. oh dear that probably counts as defamation, had better stop now....) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I have thoughts along some of the same lines. I'd like there to be some form of right of access to copyrighted material, along the lines of the right to roam on uncultivated land. However, we should try to achieve this by mainstream political means, and not by actions that might undermine the good guys such as Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Except that in my case it's called the right to moan. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Default sort[edit]

Just a reminder that DEFAULTSORT is not a template, but a magic word, and uses a slightly different markup, involving a colon: eg. {{DEFAULTSORT:Penrice, Illtyd, Saint, Church}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Penrice, Illtyd, Saint, Church}}. — Paul A (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul A. The confusion isn't helped by title of the the article Template:DEFAULTSORT. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The Template:DEFAULTSORT page was created because a large number of people were already getting confused, in the hope that they'd read it before trying to use the "template". Of course, there will always be people who apply templates without stopping to read the instruction page, but we like to think it's helped. — Paul A (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Castell Coch[edit]

I hope you like the re-wording. And my sincere apologies if I seemed a little possessive. A bad Wikipedia flaw. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No apology is needed. It might read better with a one- or two-word description of Charles Handley-Read, such as "the architectural writer Charles Handley-Read wrote:".
On another topic, I'm thinking of improving Neath Abbey, but I can't find any evidence of the abbey ruins being a listed building. Where would you look? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not quite as easy as one might hope. This site, British Listed Buildings Online (BLBO) [[1]] is invaluable, but it is now out of date, and is not being updated. For England, it has been superseded by the English Heritage database. But this only covers England. The BLBO page for Neath, which I've attached, does not appear to show any part of the Abbey as being listed. However, I'm almost certain it must be a Scheduled Ancient Monument, which is not the same as a listed building. And indeed it does appear on the Coflein site, which is the on-line database for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, here [[2]]. But this doesn't explicitly say it is Scheduled. I shall keep looking for you. P.S. Shall also contextualise Handley-Read - but doesn't everyone know who he was? KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This [[3]], linked to this, [[4]] tells us it is a SAM. Do you have access to John Newman's Glamorgan in the Pevsner Buildings of Wales series? Pages 463 to 471 inclusive comprise a long article on Neath Abbey. I could certainly add some information if you don't have a copy, or access to one, yourself. His article on Castell Coch in the same volume is also excellent, by the way. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
After I wrote my note I decided that Neath Abbey was probably a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Does this preclude it also being a listed building? I have found useful details of Neath Abbey here, which confirms SAM status. There is also useful material in Vol 2 of Stewart Williams' Glamorgan Historian. I hope to expand the article based on these sources and on Newman. I used Newman to expand Castell Coch#Early history; I was pleased to find the old engraving to illustrate this. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Llanfyllin[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher.

I don't agree with all of one of your edits (Article after the edit). One person's "unnecessary and over-technical detail" may be of real interest to someone else (like me) and add some colour to an article. I would like to put some of the detail back in, but I might create a new article for the detail regarding Tomen yr Allt. What do you think?

Emerald (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Emerald-wiki: I removed (Tomen yr Allt, the caput of the commote of Mechain Uwch Coed in the cantref of Mechain) because I had to look up most of these terms to make sense of the phrase, and caput does not mention Wales. Presumably the meaning is equivalent to The central settlement in an Anglo-Saxon multiple estate. The reference I deleted probably justifies a change to caput to include Wales. We could have the central settlement of the commote of Mechain Uwch Coed in the cantref of Mechain, and maybe explain commote and cantref, but I still think this is too much detail.
I removed (or Cynfyn; Madog's fuller name would be Madog ap Maredudd ap Bleddyn ap Cynfyn) and Bell Lloyd inherited the house in 1758, but the work he had carried out resulted in huge debts, he died in the King's Bench debtors' prison in London in 1793 because I think these give too much detail in the context of an article on the town.
On reflection I would restore the name Tomen yr Allt, particularly if a new article is forthcoming. I will change the text to It is likely that a house was built on the site after the destruction in 1256 of Tomen yr Allt, a motte and bailey castle which stood on the hill above. I don't think we need wooden.
I encourage you to write a new article on Tomen yr Allt or on Bodfach Hall. Thanks for your work on this article. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Emerald-wiki: Of course this is just my opinion. We could continue this discussion at Talk:Llanfyllin. Is Mechain Uwch Coed an old name for Llanfyllin? If we can find a good reference this should go in the history section. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: The cantref of Mechain became the hundred of Llanfyllin. Infact 'cantref' means hundred in the sense of a hundred settlements. So, no, Mechain Uwch Coed wasn't the old name for Llanfyllin it was the name of an area which would have included several parishes, Llanfyllin being one of them. Emerald (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Arthur Giardelli[edit]

Hi. "Disease-related deaths, would not be significant for death aged 98". Of course at age 98 that is no surprise. However, the Deaths from disease category is often used as a catchall -- especially so the place of death can be categorised -- where there is no evidence of a non-disease-related or "unnatural death" (i.e. road accident, airplane crash, homicide, suicide, terrorism, et al), because everyone dies of something, but when no specific cause of death is provided publicly.

It's a case by case thing -- if no cause of death is given but the decedent is, say, 40 years old, obviously no way. But at 98, sure, especially as there is, understandably, no category for Deaths from old age. It can always be removed or updated later if further info becomes public.

Yours, Quis separabit? 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I removed the Category:Disease-related deaths in Wales because the cause of death is not given in the two cited obituaries. Also, this is not a defining characteristic of Giardelli, which is a guideline for categorisation. WP:NON-DEFINING says "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining".Verbcatcher (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
We will have to agree to disagree. I did not revert your edit. Quis separabit? 01:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rms125a@hotmail.com: What are you disagreeing with? I am saying:
  1. Cause of death is not a defining characteristic for this article
  2. Defining characteristics is a key Wikipedia guideline for avoiding over-categorisation
Are you disagreeing with one of these statements, or are you saying that this Wikipedia guideline is foolish? Do you favour having a cause of death category in all biographical articles? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that cause of death is often not a defining characteristic in biographies. But that doesn't mean we ignore it. As far as the categories go, the deaths in ... are usefui for categorising the place and year of death, as simple biographical info, when such info is available. If a category exists there is no reason not to use it if one is willing to make the extra effort. I am not going to discuss it anymore. Quis separabit? 02:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC) BTW: listen no hard feelings. You and I just have different mindsets. There are categories which exist and are used but which I suspect (let me know if I am wrong here) you would have little or no use for, such as Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Place of birth missing, Category:Year of birth unknown, Category:Place of birth unknown, Category:Year of birth uncertain, Category:Date of birth missing, Category:Date of birth unknown, etc. If you want to get rid of them as flawed methodology via CFD, go for it. Less work for me, anyway. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The missing categories are useful for Wikipedia editors but not for the general user. They should probably be subcategories of Category:Wikipedia cleanup, and be hidden categories. We should try to avoid overcategorization. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Twm o'r Nant[edit]

I really like what you have added. Do you know of any translations? My grandfather had a tatty old copy of the "Gwaith.." but I never read it (and I don't know what happened to it anyway) and now I would definitely need a translation, my limited kitchen-Welsh isn't up to poetic prose! Notice you live near Cambridge - me too, practically neighbours! Emerald (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Emerald. I have not found any translations, but I have just found a English language play by Dedwydd Jones that I have now mentioned in the article. This probably includes translated quotations from Twm. I guessed that you had a Cambridge connection from your edit history (only low-grade stalking!). Perhaps we could meet at a Wikipedia meetup. I attended one last year. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Emerald, George Borrow has a translation from Riches and Poverty in Wild Wales chapter 60, available here. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Verbcatcher, I do have my grandfather's old copy of 'Wild Wales' and just read the translation. I like Borrow's name for Twm - Tom o' the Dingle - quaint! Emerald (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Báthory[edit]

Hello,
It's somewhat difficult to define the book of the French writer/poetess Valentine Penrose. It is both a historical essay and a "smuggled novel" ("L'infidèle biographe de la Bathory, Valentine Boué-Penrose, avait su se départir de la modération française pour offrir au lecteur dans son roman de contrebande quelques belles pages convulsives.", to quote the French essayist Michel Meurger, who has written furthermore a short study about the iron maiden myth).
That is why the French Wiki rightly classifies this book in the bibliographic section "Literature".
Regards. Guise (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guise: I was guided by the novel article which says "A novel is a long narrative, normally in prose, which describes fictional characters and events, usually in the form of a sequential story." Báthory was not a fictional character. However, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. My dictionary (Collins English Dictionary, 2nd ed.) has an extended work in prose, either fictitious or partly so, dealing with character, action, thought, etc. esp. in the form of a story. I don't know how much of Valentine Penrose's book is fictitious but it is probably more significant whether she believed it to be fictional. Penrose was a surrealist poet so I would expect her writing to be imaginative and symbolic. I'm not sure where this book should be placed in the continuum between scholarly history and speculative historical fiction. In view of this uncertainty I felt "novel" could be misleading, and preferred the neutral "book". Does Littérature in French imply fiction? It does not necessarily do so in English.
It's difficult to know where to place this book in the article. As far as such distinctions are valid, this book is probably high culture rather than popular culture, so it doesn't fit in the Folklore and popular culture section or in the Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture article. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 July[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Welsh-speaking people[edit]

Unfortunately, as I am sure you will appreciate, it is particularly difficult to find a web-page that states "This person speaks Welsh" for every Welsh-speaking person on Wikipedia. Indeed, in most cases, it is impossible. Whilst you now appear to acknowledge that Rhodri Jones is a Welsh speaker, (a fact that I had attempted to note by the addition of that particular page to the Welsh-speaking people category), it is disappointing that you seemed to assume that he was not a Welsh speaker and hastily removed this page from the Welsh-speaking people category, rather than attempting to find a reference for this prior to deletion of this addition to the Welsh-speaking people category. It is even more disappointing that you felt the need to delete all of my other contributions to the Welsh-speaking people category. Whilst I acknowledge that to be able to reference this would be useful, as mentioned above, this is not always possible. Even so, the fact remains that these people are able to speak Welsh! Please note that numerous other pages exist that state that a person can speak a particular language without providing a direct reference in support, for example Brian Wilson (Labour politician). Without being able to refer to a web-page, can you please suggest how this matter may be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haul~cywiki (talkcontribs) 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Haul~cywiki, I did not "assume that he was not a Welsh speaker", I merely removed unsourced material about living people. I am not questioning whether these people speak Welsh, they probably do.
Providing reliable references is central to Wikepedia. See Help:Introduction to referencing/1, which says

One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material.

– and –

If you are adding such new content, it is your responsibility to add source information along with it. Material provided without a source may be removed from an article. Sometimes such material will be tagged first with the {{citation needed}} template to give editors time to find and add sources.

Basically, you shouldn't add facts to a Wikipedia article just because you know them to be accurate; you should cite a reliable source. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons. I know that thousands of Wikipedia articles have uncited facts, but we should try to improve Wikipiedia.
Even though it was your responsibility to provide a source, I had a quick look at the existing sources cited in these articles and found no support for your edits.
Incidentally, it is not always desirable to add an article to a category, even if it meets the criteria. See Wikipedia:Categorization, which says:

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.

Although I feel this "defining characteristic" guideline may be be too restrictive, I'm clear that an article should not be included in a category if the characteristic is not important enough to mention in the main text. For example, I think that being Welsh-speaking is not a defining characteristic of Jamie Jones (DJ) (unless he performs in Welsh), so I would not add him to the category even if I had a good source (but I probably wouldn't revert it if someone else had added it).
You refer to the inclusion of Brian Wilson (Labour politician) in Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people. While the article does not specifically say that Wilson speaks Gaelic it says that "He was Scotland's first designated Minister for Gaelic", which sort of implies that he speaks the language. It I had a source I would add "A native Gaelic speaker," at the start of that sentence. However, I am not defending that article, which another editor has already tagged with {{More footnotes}}.
However, I'm nobody special and you don't have to take my advice. If you are unhappy with my actions or you want an independent view then you could ask a question at Wikipedia:Help desk. I am sorry if I seem heavy-handed or didactic, I am aware that you are a new editor and I do not want to put you off. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

John Thomas (photographer)[edit]

I can thoroughly recommend the 1977 book by Woollen and Crawford. Many bargain copies are available the net - mine cost 64p. Among the most notable images is this one of David Lloyd George. Might be a good addition to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123, : Do Woollen and Crawford support the identification of Thomas in File:A group of walkers (?) NLW3366276.jpg, as discussed in Talk:John Thomas (photographer)? The Lloyd George picture is already in Commons at File:David Lloyd George NLW3362532.jpg. We should add a few photos to the article. Here is my suggested selection. What do you think?
A woman knitting in a black hat)
A woman in traditional dress
An old woman sitting in a doorway
A woman who saw Twm o'r Nant installing a grate
Portraits by John Thomas
Men standing on a quay with a sailing ship in the background
Aberdyfi regatta
Cattle in a river with houses in the background
Cattle by the river, Llandysul
A donkey-cart and several people in front of an inn
The Ship Inn, Aberdaron
Photogtaphs John Thomas
Verbcatcher (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a gallery containing all of these would be a fine addition. Curiously neither the "My mother (sitting)" nor the "group of walkers" appear in the book. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Just for future reference, the plates which do appear in the book are as follows:
  1. W. Evans' Boat, Llanddulas F3
  2. Cemaes R78
  3. Angels TT9
  4. Drawing Room Scene TT10
  5. Independent Ministers BB31
  6. Group of Ministers, Liverpool 1867 BB11
  7. Dr. Owen Thomas, Liverpool LL19
  8. Rev. L. W. Hughes HH80
  9. Little Jones the Poet, Llanboidy JJ71
  10. Lloyd George K45
  11. Welsh Costume KK35
  12. Pegi Llwyd W3
  13. Woman in Shawl EE11
  14. Cadi'r Big y Ro-wen, Denbighshire U78
  15. Two Girls with Cups KK15
  16. Mrs. James W Cost, Old Lady KK15
  17. Bet Foxhall (Whitland) KK44
  18. The mother of John Davis, Nerquis c.1865 Bb53
  19. Cellan Factory DD38
  20. Cilgerran Fair B64
  21. Llanwrst Bards 1876 J85
  22. Shearing Sheep J54
  23. Carno Mill R52
  24. Robert, Clysyblaidd, Cerrigydrudion CC30
  25. Penllechog Mill, Llanaelhaiarn DD68
  26. Gwaith Sets, Llanaelhaiarn A12
  27. Dick Pugh KK83
  28. Davis, the Joiner KK52
  29. The Tailor Bryndu KK57
  30. Lord Penmachno, father of all the quarrymen BB17
  31. Joiners, Carwen KK50
  32. Business Bob, Llanwrst Q36
  33. Morris 'Baboon' Kk73
  34. Mr. Roberts, Harpist BB28
  35. Drovers, Montgomery KK56
  36. Sleeping Beauties Q72
  37. Morax Workers, Aberffraw S5
  38. Llanfair Post Office R66
  39. Capel Garmon Natives EE7
  40. Six men in fancy costumes 02
  41. Group of Cricketers, Newcastle Emlyn C53
  42. Old Women of Ysbyty (Ifan) Alms House FF7
  43. Cerrigydrudion Alms Houses CC27
  44. A Starved Boy JJ82

Cambridge meet-up[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the "heads-up" about this meeting. I am a bit snowed under with work (in my retirement!!!), but I have put myself down as possibly attending. It will be interesting and I would like to meet you too, so I will try very hard! Emerald (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wandlebury Hill Fort[edit]

Just to let you know that I agree wholly about not tampering with text (however bad) where it is a direct quotation. In this instance, I debated with myself whether or not to make my alteration, but decided it would be in order as the text in the reference source is merely a translation of the true underlying source, which is in Latin; hence I saw my change as being a difference of translation rather than interference with a source quotation. However, I accept you can argue it either way and I'm not too fussed one way or the other. Meantime, I have been trying to lay my hands on the Latin text, but it seems too obscure to be readily available online, and the asking price for it in book form is extortionate! The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Sage of Stamford, I take your point about it being a translation. However, I feel that "of which" reads better, albeit maybe a little old-fashioned. There is also a potential issue of the copyright status of the translation. If you can get the original Latin text and you have the necessary skills then a fresh translation would be good. A list of available editions is here, which leads here and here. This pdf file has what appears to be an extended extract of Otia Imperialia (page 419, pdf page 460). However, it's not searchable, and I haven't found the paragraph we need. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

...for all your cleanups on Rosalind Franklin. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Coleg Trefeca[edit]

Hello, Thank you for identifying this problem but after 7 years I would not remember the reason for the edit. This editor abandoned the name "Felix Folio Secundus" a while ago and adopted his present name. It would not be directly copied from the website to which you refer; I think "text from other article" would mean that it had been created on Wikipedia by an earlier editor but that I decided to move it into this article (Trefeca) leaving a redirect behind.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Johnsoniensis, thanks for replying. The same text is in Calvinistic Methodists, so you probably copied it from there. When you copy between articles you should specify the source article in the edit summary, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
FFS did edit the Calvinistic Methodists article:see here; whether it did come from there I really do not know. (I do not like many other editors' habits of using uninformative abbreviations like "ce" which only insiders would understand.)--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lists of teachers and students[edit]

The discussion in Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students also applies here. However, the case for moving the lists from this article to a separate List of faculty and alumni of the Académie de la Grande Chaumière is less strong, because these lists are shorter and the rest of this article is smaller. However, we should not include any names that are red-linked and unreferenced. I propose to delete these names from the article, and move them to this talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Obsession? Repeat Obsession, "should! would !" By the way who is this we?;) --DDupard (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
We are the community of editors of English Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Then please do show that you are an editor who can contribute positively --DDupard (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my record of creating new articles and adding new material to others. Removing unreliable information is also a positive contribution. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Roles limited to that of gate keepers, fact checkers or "guidelines" pushers are indeed limited in that they are missing the essence of the project--DDupard (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not try to insult me. What justification do you have for characterising me as a gate keeper, a fact checker or a "guidelines" pusher? Most of my contributions are adding new, properly-sourced material. As with many editors I also keep an eye on a selection of articles, and when I see something undesirable in one of them I try to resolve it. Adding unsourced material is missing the essence of the project. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add references to a few articles, particularly: École Gratuite de Dessin--DDupard (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
And citations to section alumni Howardian High School and section students William Grant Murray--DDupard (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
École Gratuite de Dessin is a stub, if I had usable references I would add them. I will comment on your merge proposal. I have commented on your other requests in Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A stub still has to contain minimal source(s)--DDupard (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
See my comments in Talk:École Gratuite de Dessin#Merge. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sources please? Or is it original/personal research?--DDupard (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
May be you want to decipher, translate, and write something with this [5] or that [6] and then possibly, thank me--DDupard (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Those appear to be good sources, thank you. However, my French is not adequate to extract much useful information. I indicated the source of my material in my check-in comment on 22 May 2014: Stub based on École nationale supérieure des arts décoratifs. I should probably have added a tag to the talk page to indicate this. Unfortunately there are no citations in École nationale supérieure des arts décoratifs, so I can't cite them here. Please redirect your fire on that article, you appear to be waging a vendetta on articles with which I have been involved. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Charming!--DDupard (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There cannot be a double standard, remember; If you tag an article for lack of sources, others can do it as well.--DDupard (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not objecting to your tag of École Gratuite de Dessin. However, your criteria for tagging should not include the identity of previous editors of the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Was there any source? Guidelines apply to all articles --DDupard (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Princes of Wales[edit]

Hi, Verbcatcher. I'm a little confused by your recent edit with the accompanying edit summary which seems to indicate that the category Category:Princes of Wales is a subcategory of Category:Princes of the United Kingdom. Neither of those two categories should be a subcategory of the other: Not all Princes of the United Kingdom are Princes of Wales; not all Princes of Wales have been Princes of the United Kingdom. Can you help me understand what's going on? - Nunh-huh 05:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh. Category:Princes of Wales is a subcategory of Category:Princes of the United Kingdom. My understanding is that an article should not be a member of a category and of one of its parent categories, and that the categories should be organised accordingly. I agree with your point, some Princes of Wales lived before the United Kingdom was established. On the same basis, Category:Princes of Wales should also be removed from the following categories: Princes of England, Princes of Great Britain, English royal titles and Heirs apparent. Feel free to make these changes yourself. However, I'm not 100% confident of the rules here, and I want to look at the guidelines again before I change this. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The category system here is to me a confusing mess, so I am not the person to straighten it out. But this particular issue may be fixable. I encourage you to try. Like you, I think the rules are rather complicated, and I'm also not convinced that categorization is useful as we've implemented it. It should be a system of boolean categories that you could search in combinations, instead of a nested collection of categories (so you have to imagine what category a French-born naturalized American female actor who died in 1913 of tuberculosis might belong in.) - Nunh-huh 02:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, my interpretation is that Category:Princes of Wales is for Princes of Wales from the English, British and United Kingdom royal family. Category:Welsh princes is for Welsh princes before the Statute of Rhuddlan (1384). I have edited the category descriptions to clarify this. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for making sense of it! - Nunh-huh 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Italic Ship Names[edit]

Hiya, I'm a little confused by this edit, especially as the guideline you refer to says the complete opposite of what you claim. Ship names should be italicised, just as the guideline says: "Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof:... Ships, with ship prefixes, classification symbols, pennant numbers, and types in normal font: USS Baltimore (CA-68)." Note that it says prefixes pennant numbers and types are in normal font and, in the example, the ship name is italicised. Ranger Steve Talk 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I misunderstood this phrase in the guidelines: "Ships, with ship prefixes, classification symbols, pennant numbers, and types in normal font". I have self-reverted.
I looked into this when "Warrior's" struck me as ugly (with the s not in italics), it seems more natural to italicise the whole word: "Warrior's". I couldn't find any guidance on this. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem, and good catch on the rename date. I do have to agree on the pluralisation/italic thing, it does look quite odd. But it does seem to be the correct standard, not just on wiki, but in the wider world. I work in maritime, and I still think it looks strange! Ranger Steve Talk 10:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for absence..[edit]

Hi, just to apologise for not responding at Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière, but travel commitments for work over the last two weeks meant I have had limited time for Wikipedia, and indeed for several days little net access. For what it's worth I think you have done the right thing with your recent edits on that article and obviously done the research required to back up the edits. Thanks for the good work.14GTR (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Please continue to watch the page. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Verbcatcher. 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)

Re: RCAHMW[edit]

Dear Verbcatcher, thank you for making me aware of this! Following a recent talk by the Wikimedian in Residence for National Library of Wales, I thought it was time to update the Commission's page and on doing so noticed a multitude of different spelling for the Commission within Wikipedia. I am not an expert on the way Wikipedia works, so, sorry for any misconceptions on what I was trying to do. Best regards, Charles.rcahmw (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Al Azhar University[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher,

I think I'm ignorant of Wikipedia policy and the change I've done was beacuse I'm working for Al Azhar University, so I thought it's my responsibility to upgrade the humble content at the Wikipedia page of Al Azhar University.

Al Azhar University-Gaza is not to Al Azhar University in Cairo.

Hence, I'm kndly asking for a way to upgrade the content? Ghadasal (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadasal (talkcontribs) 06:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirects[edit]

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. There is no need for you to waste your time, and server resources, by "fixing" redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Sant Jordi Awards) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Sant Jordi Awards, Verbcatcher!

Wikipedia editor Ajpolino just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

hopefully you can find more sources to expand the page! See Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb

To reply, leave a comment on Ajpolino's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Ajpolino (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

references for medical school staff and LMI presidents[edit]

Hi, thanks for your feedback.I'm new to wiki editing, so I'm grateful for being pointed in the right direction. My copy of Kelly's History of Liverpool University arrived in the post today, so I should be able to reference the first chairs of anatomy, physiology, Medicine and surgery from there. The LMI presidents list, including Thelwall Thomas, were from T. Bickerton's History of Liverpool from the earliest days until 1920. I supposed these men to be notable by being LMI presidents, but I'm still learning the criteria for what is meant by notable. My research at the moment is looking at connections between C 19th medical networks e.g. medical school and LMI. I'll try to get some references tomorrow and will probably make a more thoughtful selection of notable alumni/staff during the course of my research. EstherCole (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) EstherCole (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Islam in the UK[edit]

A 12% increase in 3 years looks to me a very strong (explosive) growth, when comparing it to the 2-3% increase for non-muslims in UK, while white brits does not have it all... –TLA93 (talk) 14:10, March 25 2017 (EET)

It is a significant increase, but in my view "soared" and "explosive" suggest a more substantial increase and reflect the style of the Daily Mail to which they are sourced. Wikipedia should aim for more neutral language, particularly on sensitive subjects. The figures are estimates, not census figures. I was also concerned that I could not find the figures on the ONS website mentioned in the Daily Mail article, but decided not to tag the figures as {{dubious}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Images for Newman and Hando[edit]

I have no idea whether photographs I have taken of books that I own are breaches of Wikipedia copyright policy. We shall now find out and, if they are, the articles will be diminished by their removal. If you have copyright-free images of Newman and Hando, do please use them. While on the topic, I would suggest your having approached me to discuss the issues would have been a rather more collaborative action, and a better use of your time. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: I am sorry that you are upset by my nominating these pictures for deletion. In my view they are clear copyright violations. If so this is not an issue of editorial judgement, and discussing the issue did not appear to be productive. However, I am happy to discuss my reasons and to advise you as best as I can.
The copyright rules for Wikimedia Commons are summarised in c:Commons:Copyright rules. Specific guidelines for book covers are given in c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Book covers, which says:
Book covers

Book covers, unless they are very old, usually carry copyright-protected designs, and photographs of them may not normally be uploaded to Commons. The fact that you are the physical owner of a book does not mean that you are authorised to replicate the cover design by uploading a copy here. A rare exception to this rule would be a book cover which is simple enough to not exceed the Threshold of originality.

That directly addresses these two images. However, it is not my decision and an administrator who specialises in these issues will decide whether they should be deleted. You can ask questions at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, and if the images are deleted you can ask on the deleter's talk page.
I added the links to the nominations to assist the administrators by confirming that these are book covers and to establish when the books were published. This is particularly relevant for the Hando book as the design is somewhat retro and it might have be old enough to be public domain.
In this case there might be a way around the problem: post the images to Wikipedia as non-free files (Wikipedia and Commons are different things and have different rules), and add a fair use justification, see Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. When I was last involved in this I used File:Nicholas Monsarrat - The Cruel Sea book cover.jpg as a model, or you could look in the subcategories of Category:Fair use images of book covers.
Book covers are typically used to illustrate articles on the book. I have not found an example of book cover to illustrate an article on an author and such use might not meet this rule in Wikipedia:Non-free content:
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
You can ask about non-free content at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
On another topic, I noticed that these image pages include a camera location. This was probably derived from the metadata attached to the image by your iPhone. This may reveal where you live, which you might want to keep private.
Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

why i began scratch orchestra article[edit]

hi, verbcatcher. i started the scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) article because another article in Wikipedia mentioned a scratch orchestra (it was an article about some aspect of ballet, but I can't find it at the moment), and I thought it would be powerful to have the mention in the ballet article link to an article that described a "scratch orchestra" in some detail?

Is there a way to find which articles in wikipedia link to the scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) article? Greg Dahlen (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greg Dahlen, my main concern is that the article does little more than define the term. There appears to be little scope to extend the article. Almost by definition, there are unlikely to be examples of 'notable' scratch orchestras, and I am not aware of an substantial "scratch orchestra movement".
You can find which articles link to another by clicking on the "what links here" link under Tools on the left of the page. The only article that links to Scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) is Ballet company.
There is a dictionary definition of 'scratch orchestra' here. You might add a definition to Wiktionary, which includes this definition in its scratch page:
6. Made, done, or happening by chance; arranged with little or no preparation; determined by circumstances; haphazard.
a scratch team; a scratch crew for a boat race; a scratch shot in billiards
a scratch race: one without restrictions regarding the entry of competitors
You might add
a scratch orchestra: one put together for a particular concert or project
However, I am unfamiliar with the rules and conventions that apply to Wiktionary.
Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


---Thanks, Verbcatcher. Well, the article I started on Wikipedia includes examples of situations under which a scratch orchestra would be put together. It seems to me that describing these various situations goes beyond what a dictionary would do. On that basis I would think it qualifies for an article? Do you agree? I would think the article has some capacity for expansion. For example, it may be that information has been published, or will be published in the future, about different details of how a scratch orchestra is put together, or problems encountered in putting a scratch orchestra together. Someone may have published, or will publish, specific experiences in putting together a scratch orchestra. On that basis, too, it would qualify as an article, perhaps a stub? Greg Dahlen (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It still seems too thin, and there may be a problem with identifying acceptable sources. The article currently only cites one source, which is a blog posting that does not qualify as reliable.
I think it would be best to convert the article into a paragraph to the Orchestra article, and to convert Scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) into a redirect to this paragraph. The redirect could be tagged {{R with possibilities}} and at some stage replaced with an article if adequate material and sources can be procured to justify a separate article.
I envisage a expanding the Amateur ensembles section of Orchestra using the following outline:
  • Types of orchestra
  • Symphony orchestras
May also be called 'Philharmonic' or 'Philharmonia'
  • Opera and ballet orchestras
May also play orchestral concerts
  • Chamber orchestras
  • Scratch orchestras
  • Amateur ensembles
(using the existing text)
Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


---hi, Verbcatcher. Why are you thinking "amateur" ensembles since I believe "scratch orchestras" in most cases are paid? Btw, for me to get a note that you replied do you have to tag me in the reply? If so, and you reply, please tag me in the reply so I'll know you replied. I actually didn't know you had replied here, I came looking for how to markup certain edits and then noticed you'd replied. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Greg Dahlen:, I am sorry if I was unclear, my proposed change to orchestra was to rename the Amateur ensembles section to Types of orchestra with a short subsection on the main types of orchestra, as outlined above. Scratch orchestras can comprise professional, semi-professional or amateur musicians, or a mixture. Btw, 'professional' is not the same as 'paid': amateurs are sometimes paid and professionals sometimes play for free. I apologise for not pinging you with my earlier response – I usually add pages that I have edited to my watchlist. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


---Verbcatcher, I am sorry, when I read your proposal I heard the phrase "amateur ensembles" and missed the detail and scope of what you were proposing. You do realize that the introductory section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra gives a little detail on some of those categories you thought to include in the expanded section? Would the subsections within the newly expanded section over-repeat what's already contained in the introduction to the article? As an example, the introductory section says, in the third paragraph from the top of the article: "A full-size orchestra may sometimes be called a symphony orchestra or philharmonic orchestra. The actual number of musicians employed in a given performance may vary from seventy to over one hundred musicians, depending on the work being played and the size of the venue." Would you more or less repeat this information in the proposed newly expanded section? Greg Dahlen (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Greg Dahlen, I admit I have not studied the orchestra article in detail, I was looking for a place where a paragraph on scratch orchestras could usefully be added. The lead section of an article should be an introduction and summary (see MOS:LEAD), so some repetition between the lead and the rest of the article is to be expected. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
hello Verbcatcher. Well, I'm not sure either. Not being very knowledgeable about orchestras, i don't know how much there is to say about each kind of orchestra. Until we decide, what about simply giving "scratch orchestras" their own section after "amateur ensembles" in the orchestra article? Although scratch orchestras might not be assembled that often, still I would think it is an important enough phenomenon within the orchestra world to warrant its own section within the article. After all, amateur ensembles got their own section. Greg Dahlen (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Greg Dahlen, that makes sense. I would be inclined to put it before the "Amateur ensembles" section, because some would place a scratch orchestra above an amateur ensemble in the pecking order. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
hmm, Verbcatcher, sorry I don't reply so fast, I don't have a computer at home but only use them in public libraries. I'm a bit inclined to put it after because i think "scratch orchestras" are probably assembled far more rarely than amateur ensembles? Altho not an orchestra expert, I kind of guess they're assembled quite infrequently. But I'm going to ask on that quora blog where I got the original info on "scratch orchestras." I'll get back to you. Greg Dahlen (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Greg Dahlen, I don't think they are infrequent. Many amateur choirs (and possibly amateur musical theatre companies) assemble an ad-hoc orchestra of professional players for each concert. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

---Verbcatcher, if you think it should go before, I don't have strong feelings about it. I can move it if we're agreed? Or you can. I would think we have to keep the blog footnotes because those are the only place I could find anything substantial on "scratch orchestras."

One thing I would like is that if someone comes on Wikipedia to search for info about scratch orchestras, when they write scratch orchestra in the search box it would bring up the scratch orchestra section within the orchestra article. but i'm not sure, does the search box ever bring up sections, or only full articles?

Interestingly enough, I just attended a performance by a "conductorless" orchestra. They claimed to be one of the few in the world. That probably should become a section within the "orchestra" article as well. Oh wait, I see now there is a full article on conductorless orchestras.

By the way, would you give me your opinion on another article I wrote? It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Makdisi. I think with what I currently have sufficient notability has been established for the article to remain, but another editor put an "inadequate notability" tag on it. Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

NPRN number[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher,

That paragarph is fine, NPRN stands for: National Primary Record Number. Sorry can not think of a source that springs to mind.

As for the National Monuments Record of Wales, take a look at the following links: https://rcahmw.gov.uk/services/royal-commission-archive/

https://rcahmw.gov.uk/national-monuments-record-of-wales/

Not every site on Coflein is a listed building or Schedualed Ancient Monument. Over the last one hundred years the Commission has amassed a huge amount of information from site visits and various other sources.

You may also be intrested in the Historic Wales website which can be explored via organisation data layers and overlays of current OS mapping and OS 1st Edition Mapping.

Thanks, Charles.rcahmw (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

BDS[edit]

I don't understand why you made this edit. Care to elaborate? --GHcool (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@GHcool: Based on the article, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is a movement that campaigns against the Israeli government's policies and actions concerning Palestine and related issues. In the BDS disambiguation page we need a short phrase that describes the topic of the linked article, which should be factual and non-contentious. I have reverted two of your recent changes to this:
I reverted this with the summary Possible POV edit: campaigning against the policies and actions of the Israeli government is not the same as "against Israel". By this I meant that the BDS movement was not campaigning against Israel in general. The article does not say that the campaign is against the existence of the state of Israel (although some of its supporters may be). "Possible POV edit" meant that I suspected that your edit might have been influenced by your personal views on the topic. This was not intended to question your good faith but to alert you other editors to this issue.
This is worse. I reverted it with the summary focuses on the Palestine issue. Israel's policies and culture are wider than this. The culture of the state of Israel is much wider than this, see the Culture of Israel article. Based on the article, the BDS campaign is not against Israeli culture, although it might oppose some manifestations of this to try to pressurise the Israeli government.
The current text (a pressure group in support of Palestine) is not ideal because the BDS campaign is also concerned with the Golan Heights, the rights of Arab-Israeli citizens and the right of return of refugees. However, the following sentence indicates that support of Palestine is the main objective:
  • On 9 July 2005, a broad spectrum of over 170 Palestinian non-governmental organizations initiated a campaign for a boycott, divestment and international sanctions against Israel in support of the Palestinian cause.
The current text does not mention Israel, but that connection would be assumed by most readers.
We could put A campaign against the government of Israel, but I prefer the existing text.
I am happy to discuss this. I do not have a special interest in Israeli or Palestinian politics, I originally came to BDS looking for the dental degree. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I would feel more comfortable with A campaign against the government of Israel. BDS's support for Palestine is much more suspect than its opposition to Israel. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's lack of support for BDS is the smoking gun for many suspicious of the campaign's pro-Palestinian bona fides, but there are other reasons to conclude that BDS is an oppositional force. --GHcool (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You seem like a reasonable person. If you agree with this edit, I won't fight it. If you think my argument of 28 April makes sense to you, I'd appreciate it if the disambiguation page can say what we agreed to. --GHcool (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have been away. The edit you have linked (this edit) restores the text to my version here, so I am ok with it. Have I misunderstood something? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The edit in question restored your wording despite your concession that A campaign against the government of Israel would be acceptable to you and my acceptance of that wording (see above). --GHcool (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
GHcool, I didn't actually say that I would accept A campaign against the government of Israel (if I implied this then I ave changed my mind). On reflection, the current wording is clearer and is accurate. It is usually preferable to say what an organisation or a campaign is favour of rather than what it opposes. The few examples I have found follow this format:
None of these are exact parallels to BDA, but they support my preferred wording. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, but I accept your judgment and will not fight it. Thank you for your time. --GHcool (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Pseudechis[edit]

If these are General references, then please cite them in the text, at least once. Just floating them on the page is neither nice nore acceptable, because no one can figure out what information is coming from them. Or just put them in a section called "General references". Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dominion of Pakistan[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher, please see the talk page Dominion of India. You'll see the same British Empire project tag there.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@NadirAli: I think that the wikiproject is also wrong in Talk:Dominion of India. I have posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Empire#Was the Dominion of Pakistan in the British Empire? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Commonwealth#Was the Dominion of Pakistan in the British Empire?, but neither wikiproject appears to be very active, so we may not get a response. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Verbcatcher, Pakistan was not part of the British Empire. It had a separate parliament, like India, but shared the same monarchy with the British Empire. However if you choose to replace the tag that it, I will trust your judgement. It's not that big of an issue for me. But it should be changed on both talk pages then.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@NadirAli: this is related to the distinction between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy. Pakistan was a constitutional monarchy where the monarch did not set public policy or choose political leaders. Sharing a monarch with the UK did not mean that Pakistan was ruled from or by the UK. I'll give the Wikiproject members a chance to comment before making more changes. The same issue applies to Dominion of Ceylon and other British ex-colonies.
However, it's not totally clear-cut. Commonwealth of Nations#Origin quotes Queen Elizabeth describing Canada as the "first independent country within the British Empire", but she was referring to 1867 when the terminology was different. It's not a big issue for me either, but I like things here to be accurate. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand your argument and I agree with it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dynamic columns in reflist, to allow for different viewing devices[edit]

Your {{Reflist|40em}} works for me on Leander-class frigate. The reason I changed {{Reflist|30em}} to {{Reflist|2}} was that {{Reflist|30em}} gave me too many inconveniently narrow columns when used on my normal monitor. Your solution is a better solution than mine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1:, thanks. We should try to take account different viewing devices, including tablets, phones and perhaps virtual reality headsets. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Continuous change of my edits[edit]

You are continuously reverting edits of mine, changing them, or just completely removing them. Please stop doing that. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hiitsmebobby:, from what I remember I concluded that one of your edits was undesirable, and something about that edit made me suspect that you might have made similar edits elsewhere. Following-up another editor's edits in this way is a common practice on Wikipedia. Please do not take this personally, I am not meaning to harass you. I always try to give a clear reason when I revert, either in the edit summary or the talk page. I am happy to discuss any my edits, please identify any which you disagree. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: The present tense on British-Russian relations was needed. "Since 2017". It is 2017. The UK and the US are still discussing it, and changing the Ukraine support was really unnecessary. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2017.
@Hiitsmebobby: I made this change mainly because your text was likely to become outdated, see MOS:DATED. I have come across many Wikipedia articles where a paragraph like this has not been changed since it was added several years before. Your paragraph was:
This text may be totally inaccurate in a few years time. There may be major improvements in relations next year, or a major war that would make the statement ridiculous. We cannot rely on a Wikipedia article being updated in any given timeframe. Also, Wikipedia articles can be used to create books which freeze the text at an arbitary moment, see Help:Books. I always aim to edit articles so that they make sense at any time in the future.
Also, reliable sourcing is a central tenet of Wikipedia. Your sources are newspaper articles dated January and April 2017. They cannot be used to support statements about what has happened since then, so your statement "are discussing sanctions on Russia" is unsourced. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

new article Paolo Aldighieri (sculptor)[edit]

Hi, i'd like to create a new article: Paolo Aldighieri. I write it in my sandbox User:99ernst/sandbox. What can you think about it? Can i create it? --99ernst (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page at User talk:99ernst#Paolo Aldighieri (sculptor). Verbcatcher (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Paolo Aldighieri[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher, I read you review, absolutely excellent. The article is notable. He has a couple of entries in Worldcat, which makes him automatically notable. I think the sculptor has had a bad run on WP, there has never has been anybody who has written a decent about him, they are all rank. scope_creep (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Like you[edit]

I am interested in sculpture and architecture ad particularly where the two set intersect (Architectural sculpture), but was surprised to see (without seeing a picture of the whole building) your pictures of the National Museum Cardiff where the figures are described as being pediment figures, but there seems to be no pediment. To me these look like what we in the colonies would call "attic figures." Just a thought. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Einar aka Carptrash: Hi, You appear to be correct, but I am unsure of the right terminology. The building is shown in File:Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Caerdydd.JPG and File:Rear of the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.jpg. There is a projecting horizontal feature around the building below roof level, and these sculptures are positioned on top of this. To me, attic means either an internal roof space or the adjective for Attica. "Attic figures" is ambiguous, and I think the primary meaning would be ancient Greek or neoclassical figures. A Google search supports this.
My best source for this building is:
  • Newman, John (1995). Glamorgan: (Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-071056-4.
This says "The sculpture on the attics is tightly integrated with the architecture" (page 228, not currently available in Google). This avoids the confusion with Attica, but I think this use of attic is confusing for the general reader. The Public Monuments and Sculpture Association describes the "sequence of allegorical sculptures on the façade of the building",[9] but I think these sculptures are above the façade, not on it. I think "above the façade" is clear and accurate, and I will probably use this on the images that I have uploaded. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies re SPA[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher .

Sorry re not linking SPA. Some one else linked it afterwards. I had thought SPA was a well known abbreviation. I will link in the future, I was just in a hurry.

Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

CAPE TOWN PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher

I re-wrote the article on its Talk Page. Above it, I wrote an Affidavit, stating that I am a keen listener. How can I improve the article not to have it 'declined'? Sjalkema (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

LLANDAFF EDITION[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher

I don't know why you reverted my edit in Llandaff article. In addition to the listed episodes (Human Nature, The Family of Blood and The Eleventh Hour), DOCTOR WHO shot a fourth episode, Vincent and The Doctor, where Llandaff was faking the church at Auvers which Van Gogh paints in the plot. There are lots of references in the internet about it, check this one: https://moviemaps.org/locations/1nh

Thanks.- Casette (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Casette: I reverted your addition of Vincent and the Doctor from the Llandaff article because:
  1. You did not cite a source
  2. Location filming in Llandaff is not mentioned in the Vincent and the Doctor article, which states that "The episode was filmed in Trogir, Croatia".
  3. The episode is largely set in Arles in southern France, where the streets and landscape are very different from Llandaff. This makes location shooting in Llandaff unlikely.
Most websites for Doctor Who locations are self-published fan sites and as such not reliable sources for Wikipedia, see WP:SELFPUBLISH. The source you suggest here appears to be one of these. Ideally we should cite a BBC source for this. The BBC page cited in the Llandaff article does not mention this episode.
However, I have just watched the episode, and have convinced myself that the exterior and most of the interior scenes at The Church at Auvers were shot at Llandaff Cathedral (which I know fairly well). This is confirmed by the sculpture shown in File:Llandaff cathedral entrance.JPG, which appears clearly in one shot. However, adding to Wikipedia on this basis would break the Wikipedia:No original research rule.
I have found a mainstream newspaper article that supports this. It is not ideal but I think it is an acceptable source.
I will restore you addition, and add this source. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Mandatory notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--John (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

John, please clarify your motivations for issuing this notice. It appears to have been prompted by my edits on your talk page and at Talk:Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury. If I have made any edits that conflict with WP:BLP or other Wikipedia policies then please be clear and specific.
The notice threatens me with sanctions. The edit is tagged with "discretionary sanctions alert" and has been logged as such. This implies that I have misbehaved in some way. Is this justified by my edits? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You indicated here that you intended to restore tabloid material to a BLP. This would be a problem and I wanted to formally flag up to you what sort of problem it would be. I am glad you have not done so. --John (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@John: I explained in Talk:Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury why, in my view, the material did not conflict with the WP:BLPSOURCES policy. Rather than engaging with my comments you have issued a "Mandatory notice". The link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons is unhelpful, and this notice and your action in posting it give an impression of intimidation and bullying where guidance and education would be more appropriate.Verbcatcher (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

I like the reformatting of the individual shots on Calan (band) and will use that on future pages. I'm going to make the group shot just a tad larger, but not nearly as big as before. Lhcollins (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't added audio clips yet. Would you consider adding a clip for "Kan" off their latest album? Lhcollins (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lhcollins: I can't find an article on Kan and I am unfamiliar with the band. I added the clip to Calan because it was available on Wikimedia Commons, having been released with a suitable license by the Sain record company. The Sain clips are listed in c:Category:Audio files by Sain (Records) Ltd. If a clip is on Commons then it is easy to add it to a Wikipedia article, otherwise it is much more difficult. You are unlikely to obtain the copyright clearance required to upload a music clip to Commons (unless you are a record company boss). You may be able to upload a music clip to Wikipedia as a non-free file with a non-free use rationale, but the rules for this are restrictive. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lhcollins: You have inspired me to investigate the rules for non-free audio clips and also how to capture them from websites. I have just added a clip to Yesterday (Beatles song). New files are often checked by new page reviewers, and non-free files may be checked more intensively. It remains to be seen whether my contribution will be reverted or updated. If my contribution is kept then I could add clips to other articles. If you want me to do this then please let me have a URL where the music is freely available (i.e. without having an account, e.g. an iTunes preview) and the article where the clip should be added. Alternatively, you could set up the technology yourself, I started here. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I was inspired by seeing that it is possible to add brief audio clips. I plan to research that as well. I do my own photography for the pages I create because of the copyright issues connected with using pictures by others. I see that one way bands can add album covers is through MusicBrainz. That was new to me. I'll let you know what I find out. Lhcollins (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I found the clip of "Kan" that Sain posted on Wikimedia and added it to the page. It works! Lhcollins (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lhcollins: It looks odd to have two clips there, I thought one was sufficient. I chose Synnwyr Solomon as it appears to be the title track on their latest album. We could include all the Calan clips in a List of songs recorded by Calan, as has been done on Welsh Wicipedia at cy:Rhestr o ganeuon a recordiwyd gan y band gwerin Calan.
"Core data" at MusicBrainz is licensed under {{Cc-0}}.[10] This license is ok on Commons. However, "Supplementary data" is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. This license is not acceptable on Commons because it does not allow commercial use, see c:Commons:Licensing. It is unclear which license applies to cover artwork. If you post any Cc-0 items to Commons the I suggest you use the {{LicenseReview}} tag to request that the licensing information on the source website is documented, see c:Template:LicenseReview. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Other people usually add the detailed album info, but I will keep that info in mind. I usually just write about bands' backgrounds based on newspaper and magazine articles and post photos. I chose Kan because it is the first track on the album and is the one being circulated in the US, where I am. It is a powerful track. It does look a little odd, but it may be good to have a couple samples, then refer them to that other page for more. Unless that is cheating...I'll copy it over the English wiki. Then I have to get back to my day job... Lhcollins (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lhcollins: You are allowed to copy content from another Wikipedia language if you give the information needed to maintain the attribution history. According to WP:TFOLWP you should indicate the source in your edit summary and add the the {{translated page}} tag on the talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyancain's book[edit]

Hello Verbcatcher,

Thanks ever so much for your invaluable help in improving the page on the book. --Elnon (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Elnon: I'm pleased that you approve. Did you base the article on a translation of Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire in French Wikipedia? If so you should tag the talk page of the English article with {{translated page}}, in order to maintain the attribution history required by Wikipedia licensing (even if you wrote the French content). Verbcatcher (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much for the info, Verbcatcher. The page in English indeed can be considered as a translation of its French counterpart. I have added the required tag to the talk page. --Elnon (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Trying to be helpful[edit]

For the record I was trying to be helpful. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the value of a news article which can no longer be accessed. Paulharding150 (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Paulharding150: the reference in Winston Churchill (1940–2010) was to an article printed in The Guardian. Printed copies of the newspaper are available in libraries. Sources do not need to be accessible online. I'm sure there is a Wikipedia guideline about this somewhere. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Verbcatcher. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Price Thomas[edit]

Thankyou for going through this article Clement Price Thomas. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: I am glad to be able to help. My interest in Price Thomas is mainly because of his Welsh connection. I have no expertise in surgeons, although I did write the William Thelwall Thomas article. It would be interesting to know more about Price Thomas's parents. It is unusual for a grocer in a small town in industrial South Wales to send his son to an English public school, particularly his ninth child. This was a boom time in the South Wales coalfield and it attracted many dynamic and ambitious people. This family history website gives details of his ancestors (not citable here). "Price Thomas" was Clement's surname but not his father's surname. It is unclear whether Price was originally his second forename or if he used his mother's maiden name. It was not uncommon for Welsh professional men to assume doubled-barrelled surnames because they are more memorable (Wales has a national shortage of surnames), an possibly to give an upper-class impression. We say that Clement was deeply religious, so it would be good to say which denomination he followed. He was buried with his parents at New Bethel Chapel, Mynyddislwyn which indicates that his parents were non-conformist, and that he did not reject their religion. However, it was common for those joining the English upper-middle classes to join the Church of England, and this might have helped his career. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
He gets more interesting day by day. Thank you. I'm planning a dyk...if you have any ideas. If I can come across anything else. I'll forward to you or add to article. Please do add anything if you find anything of interest. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
is it ok I took out comment from dyk ..:*Avoid ALT1, because a contemporary article in Time indicated that is was normal for the king's doctors to be unpaid.[11] Verbcatcher (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)and amended DYK accordingly. Thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Tudor Edwards[edit]

Thank you for your help so far. Your grammar is far better than mine. Please feel free to look over Arthur Tudor Edwards. I am still working on it so your advice is appreciated. Whispyhistory (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Sir Horace Evans. Anyway, thank you for everything and have a lovely Christmas Whispyhistory (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
You've restored my faith in collaboration among editors. Thank you so much for working with the other editor who is improving the article Clement Price Thomas. Thank you for adding so much to Wikipedia. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   and Merry Christmas 12:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Clement Price Thomas[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 13 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clement Price Thomas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1951, thoracic surgeon Clement Price Thomas removed part of King George VI's lung in Buckingham Palace? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clement Price Thomas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clement Price Thomas), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion for Internal conflict in Bangladesh[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Internal conflict in Bangladesh —has been proposed to be renamed and moved. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

Just FYI, I did submit a deletion review request, which was almost immediately close for being the wrong venue. Unsure of what else to do, I created this RfC if you care to comment there: Talk:Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo#Request_for_comment:_Should_the_article_"Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo"_exist_in_main_space?.

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: the admin may have been mistaken when closing the deletion review. His comment This is a content issue looks wrong – I think it is a notability issue. You could him to explain his reasons and advise on how to proceed. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I tried pinging them, but no response. Either way, the RfC is now ongoing, so we'll see how that turns out. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Links to other language Wikipedias[edit]

Well, I'm sorry about that. I didn't know that there was such a convention, and I felt that a straightforward link looked much better. You can tell that it's an interwiki link because it appears in lighter type than a normal link - at least, it does in my browser. I would have thought that the interpolation of an abbreviation like "cy" would be confusing to most people, who would have no idea what it meant. Feel free to revert and I'll start a discussion on the MoS talk page. Deb (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If Ye Love Me[edit]

The license of the YouTube seemed fine to me, could you explain, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: although the YouTube page you linked says "Licensed by GimellRecords (on behalf of Gimell); Public Domain Compositions, and 2 music rights societies", in my view this is not sufficient evidence that the YouTube user had obtained a licence. This text could indicate how a licence would be obtained if someone needed one.
In addition to WP:ELNEVER, please see WP:YOUTUBE, WP:LINKVIO and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube. Although none of these explicitly say so, in my view we should only link to a commercial recording if the website or account is clearly controlled by the record company, or a performer, or by a major reputable organisation. Neither the YouTube page you linked nor the YouTube user's about page indicate this.
You could ask about this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I only wanted to help readers to listen to an excellent recording, but trust that they'll find it without help. For me, it comes up on top, before our article, which is pretty unusual, - normally when I look for more sources on a topic the first thing google finds is my stub article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, the first minute of this recording is available as a free sample through the Hyperion Records link in our article. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't think my feelings matter ;) - look for "medical" on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for If Ye Love Me[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 12 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article If Ye Love Me, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1565 motet "If Ye Love Me" by Thomas Tallis was performed at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, If Ye Love Me), 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, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Please accept this Barnstar for your improvements to Saint Elli! Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Mary Hopkin[edit]

Please stop your edit war.210.19.117.130 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, please see Wikipedia:Edit warring. Please also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which I am trying to follow at Mary Hopkin. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You are edit warring and it is aggressive, bullying and tiresome. Please desist. There is no reason to keep removing the TV section from this article. None at all. Please stop your harassment and bullying or you will be blocked from editing.27.131.59.42 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

... for this. I found the closure comment unnecessary and inappropriate, but I don't really know what to say or do at this point. I have no idea how my behavior is related to a topic's notability. I'm glad you said something, but I am still very concerned about how the discussion/closure appears to others on the article's talk page. Very unfair, and I still think a notability discussion needs to be had. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: As far as the RFC closure is concerned we should wait for a reply on the editor's user talk page. If the response is unsatisfactory we could challenge the closure, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If you think the remarks concerning you are grossly unacceptable then you could raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but I don't think they amount to a personal attack and I suggest giving yourself an opportunity for seconds thoughts before taking any action. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
No, no, definitely not an attack. I'm not grossly offended, I just don't think my actions in any way justify leaving the topic alone, or denying a notability assessment. I'm happy to wait for a reply from the closing editor. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
"come back after six month(s) with significant new evidence of coverage and create an article" just means the same conversation will have to be had later than sooner. Very frustrating a clearly notable topic can't simply get a notability assessment. I don't get it, but whatever... ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Gren Rugby World Cup.jpeg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply:Covenant University[edit]

The school is a religious school. Very heavy on the whole Christianity faith. I assumed it was theirs because it is not something out of their reach. The school is owned by a church. So only bible stuff.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.242.98.167 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 
I have replied at User talk:197.242.98.167. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)