User talk:Gaia Octavia Agrippa/Archive 103

Twitter and Paton as Army Sergeant Major
Hello,

Remember this Talk? I posted the British Army's tweet on WO1 Paton as the next Army Sergeant Major but it was news via social media so I didn't add it to the article. Then you said, barring any other news release, it is acceptable and added it. I reverted and then re-added Gavin Paton on the British Army article but there was a complaint that there's no evidence Glenn Haughton left his post although quite evidently the MOD posted this. The debate continued on the British Army talk although I didn't even start a debate--just said Haughton clearly left, Paton replaced him.

So are twitter news from official accounts accepted? And to clear things up, Haughton is clearly no long the Army Sergeant Major right? At least WO1 Gavin Paton is, even though there's still no secondary source/news about his appointment?

Thanks and sorry for this long talk.

Sammartinlai (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Royal Holloway page
"Hi Imperial12345. The main article for notable academics and alumni of Royal Holloway, University of London is List of Royal Holloway, University of London people. The list at Royal Holloway, University of London#Notable people is supposed to be very short and include only the most notable people (think prime ministers and noble prize winners). Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)"

Thank you Octavia Agrippa Talk for your comments. There are 140+ significant higher education institutions in the UK, and if we restricted ourselves to prime ministers and noble prize winners then there would be nothing in the entries of 130 out of the 140. That would be quite an elitist position, and inconsistent with the values of Wikipedia.

I am not an employee of Royal Holloway, but rather someone interested in the institution. I have set the bar high for people who are notable:

- Peers, knights, dames and commanders in the UK honours system (a minuscule proportion of total UK honours) - Fellows of the Royal Society - Bishops - Vice-Chancellors of significant UK universities (more than 10,000 students) - Heads of Oxbridge colleges - Regius Professors - A very small number of notable people beyond this who are extremely notable (e.g. George Elliot, Emily Wilding Davison)

I struggle to see how such people could not be considered "notable". These people are extremely rare and distinguished. I would not therefore wish to make any changes. At the same time, I do not plan to add more people. I have reviewed the pages of other institutions (e.g. Exeter, Birmingham), and this page is wholly consistent with these. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial12345 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Imperial12345, thank you for your reply. All those categories of people are of course notable. That is not what I am saying. There is whole Wikipedia article dedicated to notable people associated with Royal Holloway (its this one ---> List of Royal Holloway, University of London people). The section on the main page has to be short because the article as a whole is getting too long. Therefore, the people who appear in both the section of the main article and the dedicated article should be a very select few. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

GMB new clip on British Army Army SM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4iQ1Rgz850

Reliable source to really show he is the next Army Sergeant Major?

It's youtube. But GMB is a news series widely publicised (it is via ITV, check out https://www.itv.com/hub/good-morning-britain/2a3211a2403, also on the youtube channel). It is at least a news link, not a tweet like the one posted. Does it fit to show WO1 G Paton is the Army Sergeant Major?

Thks.

Sammartinlai (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally (and according to WP:TWITTER), the tweet from the official account is a reliable source. As I've said elsewhere, we may see him being referred to as the Army Sergeant Major without any other official announcement: your spot shows that to be the case. No need to worry about finding any more sources, unless its a longer official announcement. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Confused. So is the Youtube clip from GMB, a news release, reliable not not reliable? Sammartinlai (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not a news story about Paton, its one about the new fitness test. I've had a quick look at the video, and except for the caption, does it mention in the video itself that he is the new ASM? Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, but it shows him wearing the Army Sergeant Major rank on his right shoulder and not the WO1 rank slide. In my view, as a news source, it is more reliable than the B Army tweet which shows him wearing a rank slide. Sammartinlai (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That observation would fall under WP:original research. The tweet is literally an official announcement by the British Army: is a reliable source and the only actual announcement we have. It is fine. The GMB video is NOT about the new ASM - he just happens to be on it wearing (what you think is) the ASM rank slide. Your observations are not a reliable source. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sad. Sammartinlai (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Michael Metcalf
Hi, thanks for moving the article, will you check for incorrect incoming links or shall I?TSventon (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, and I'm already moving through the incoming links! I think I've corrected all of them. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Scottish Gaelic surnames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page McAra ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Scottish_Gaelic_surnames check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Scottish_Gaelic_surnames?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2018
Delivered December 2018 by MediaWiki message delivery.

If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

John Prescott
Members of the Privy Council use the title 'The Rt Honourable' and the suffix 'PC' - this is the same thing. When one resigns from the PC they lose both the PC suffix and the style 'The Right Honourable'. Happy to provide you with a dozen references to this including from the official announcement of Lord Prescott's resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4321edit1234 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello User:4321edit1234! The Right Honourable is the title for barons, viscounts and earls (and their female equivalents). PC is used for lords who are also members of the Privy Council to differentiate them from those who aren't. The Rigth Honorable (but not PC) is used by commoners who are members of the Privy Council. When Prescott resigned he obviously lost the PC, but he didn't lose The Rt Hon because he is automatically granted that as a baron. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are factually incorrect. Where is your reference? Having been based in Parliament I know very well you are wrong! I am happy to provide sources from the Privy Council website etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4321edit1234 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martin Bommas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle Kingdom ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Martin_Bommas check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Martin_Bommas?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia calls "consensus"?
Thanks for your support on Talk:Faculty of Oriental Studies. I took your comments as reassurance that one loud voice would not outweigh several other voices ... but as you can see, that was not the case. One person shouting loudly enough can create "consensus" even when everyone else disagrees. How disappointing and absurd. (sigh) I was thinking of replying, but that user was clearly determined to have the last word, no matter what I said, and that game was just too silly. This is one of the reasons I left Wikipedia in the first place. While in some ways, it seems to have improved, it's still got a long way to go. Too many users see this as a social media site, first and foremost. Anyhow, thanks again for your support. LibraryGeek (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi LibraryGeek, thank you for your message. I am also very disappointed in this. I can't see how the reviewer looked at that and saw consensus swinging towards that one person. At the most, it should have been no-consensus. Thank you for trying. I stopped because it felt like bashing my head against a brick wall! I thought the reviewer would see that too. Obviously not. Don't get too disheartened, most of us are here to improve Wikipedia! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and encouragement. I think I was more upset over the process (or the lack thereof) than the result.  I've had many bad experiences with Wikipedia in the past, though every few years, I try again and see if I can find a corner where there are adults in the room, or at the very least, a minimum of kids.  I really don't have much patience for a teenager who's just gotten admin privs. and spends his/her time trying to be a self-appointed "rules" enforcer, rather than trying to actually build something constructive.  BTW, thanks for the clean-up on that article, I appreciated that.  I hope we'll meet again, soon.  I'm working on a major clean-up of the old Libraries WikiProject.  It's not ready for prime-time yet, but when it is, in a couple months or so, I could use a UK-based hand on the other side of "the pond".  LibraryGeek (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)