User talk:JimKillock/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, JimKillock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Should British Rubber Producers Research Association be one page or two? It's now Malaysian, and know by a different name.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * I would leave it at one article, with the other titles created as redirects. --Stephen 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

 * For Requested move for New Latin to Neo-Latin

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

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

LRG Treloar article
Hello, JimKillock. Just thought I'd drop you a note to thank you for the work you did in creating the LRG Treloar article. I did a bit of work on it this evening, citing various sources on the web. Since you seem to know something about Professor Treloar, I wondered if you might take a look and make sure it's OK. Best regards – Hebrides (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work too - and I will take a look! I don't know a lot about Professor Treloar, I found some info on him through my research into the British Rayon Research Association and talking to User:Michael P. Barnett who does however, as he knew or met him at the BRRA. Jim Killock (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Digital Rights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Access to Knowledge movement
Category:Access to Knowledge movement, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * HI, I've replied extensively on the categories for discussion page, I can see why this cropped up but it is a genuinely recognised movement, described in literature, used by multiple campaign groups and mentioned in international draft treaties and so on. Jim Killock (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying a year ago. I am again looking at what you did and the way things are and thinking about how to sort things. I do think that the Access to Knowledge campaign needs its own category but am also wondering what other categories should exist. Hmm...  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

March 2015
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Government Communications Headquarters, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Leicester Forest
 * added a link pointing to Court of Exchequer


 * Malvern Chase
 * added a link pointing to King Charles II


 * Western Rising
 * added a link pointing to Court of Exchequer

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


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


 * Feckenham
 * added a link pointing to Edward Leighton


 * Western Rising and disafforestation riots
 * added a link pointing to John Essington


 * William Ashton (MP)
 * added a link pointing to Robert Cecil

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

Reference errors on 1 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Royal forest page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=678991558 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F678991558%7CRoyal forest%5D%5D Ask for help])

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arden, Warwickshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National forest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Worcestershire Project Barnstar.
Hello JimKillock,

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Worcester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dissolution ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Worcester check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Worcester?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * History of London ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/History_of_London check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/History_of_London?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort
 * London ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/London check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/London?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort
 * Norman and Medieval London ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Norman_and_Medieval_London check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Norman_and_Medieval_London?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort
 * Timeline of London ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Timeline_of_London check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Timeline_of_London?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Simon de Montfort

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grafton Manor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harcourt ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Grafton_Manor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Grafton_Manor?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Charles Beyer ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Charles_Beyer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charles_Beyer?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Edward Humphreys
 * Institution of Mechanical Engineers ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Institution_of_Mechanical_Engineers check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Institution_of_Mechanical_Engineers?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Edward Humphreys

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

Reversion of History of Worcester
Hi there,

Please see the discussion on Worcester. There was reasonable discussion about doing this, and I have already taken out content from the history section of the Worcester page so the content is different. I had planned to be doing further stripping back today. Jim Killock (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I was just doing recent changes patrolling and felt like I mistakenly reverted your edits so I reverted my revert right away, as the page looked like it was under construction. FlyingLeopard2014 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Geoffrey Dear, Baron Dear ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Geoffrey_Dear%2C_Baron_Dear check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Geoffrey_Dear%2C_Baron_Dear?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Chris Mullin
 * West Midlands Serious Crime Squad ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/West_Midlands_Serious_Crime_Squad check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/West_Midlands_Serious_Crime_Squad?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Donald Shaw

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

Whoops
Apologies about blanking one of your articles! I accidentally clicked rollback while searching for vandalism on recent changes. Since it only takes one click to execute, it wiped everything. It has since been restored! INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 06:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for letting me know Jim Killock (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Bromsgrove
How about getting it to GA? It's a almost ready and I've just reassessed it as B, but as a long article there will be a bit to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure,Kudpung I'd be happy to give that a go. The pictures are very old, so they will need replacing. I'll need your guidance about the steps (I've read the process somewhere sometime). Jim Killock (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It will be pretty  much  like  Malvern which  was the most  complex GA I ever did and bigger than most  GAs. You  can see what  it  involved at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1. There would be quite  a lot  to  do  before submitting  it - probably  a month's work.  I'll  help  with  it.  Don't  worry  about the photos, You  can always make some of your  own. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, that looks reasonable, happy to give it a go. The reference tidy up looks like the most tedious part. If you want to list out the immediate and obvious steps I can start on that as well. After that, we could maybe turn to Worcester as that ought to be possible to progress as well? Jim Killock (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Honeybourne
Jim, you've moved the content on Honeybourne parish churches to sit underneath history. However it actually contains information on both the past and present - there is present tense as well as past tense. Now you wouldn't want to split this - it makes sense to keep information on the churches togeter, but shouldn't the present take precedence? Malevan (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malevan, yes, I did see the problem. I felt there was only a small amount of truly current information, essentially the grade II listings, so it made sense to do this. Much of the "present" description otherwise is about construction that took place historically.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I will check the date above also.

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
Hi there. Do you remain interested in taking West Midlands Serious Crime Squad through the Good Article process? If so I will pick-up the review but would also want to confirm that you'd have enough availability to complete the review by the end of the month. I might have dramatically less availability to finish a review in 2020. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there Barkeep49, yes I would be interested and would make time for this, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article West Midlands Serious Crime Squad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Worcestershire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Allen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Worcestershire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoke Prior.

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

Comment
Hi Jim, If you see this message and I haven’t replied to your dm sorry. I have seen it but I’m having some problems for some reason I can’t reply. I will continue trying. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, probably doesn't need a response, as I say. For completeness, I have added your original proposal to the RFC page for LangCom to respond to. Thank you again for being persistent about this 'ancient' wrong. --Jim Killock (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

List of original books in Latin
I have a few minor queries on that article. I thought I'd better address them directly to you rather than put them in the article and reveal my ignorance!
 * No problem and thank you for checking and asking about these.


 * For the H J Hardy book, the date appears to be in the wrong column.
 * Corrected, thank you


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


 * In the Poetry section, is "Modern Latin" the name of the publisher or the reader level?
 * It's the 'reader level'; by which I mean it is written without concessions to the skill of the reader


 * The spelling ''Cothvrnvlvs" appears to be inconsistent with the convention adopted elsewhere in the article. Speminallium (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the spelling the author uses for the book. I haven't changed spellings of book names. --Jim Killock (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Latin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin School.

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tunberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Tunberg.

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

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


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

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of Neo-Latin authors
 * added links pointing to John Lloyd, John Owen, William Drummond, Thomas Wilson, Thomas Watson, John Lynch, John Bridges, James Ware, William Vaughan, Joseph Hall, Thomas Chaloner, Anne Seymour, Arthur Johnston, John Brinsley, Pierre Dupuy, Francesco Colonna and John Stradling

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New Latin poets


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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New Latin


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

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

List of Neo-Latin authors moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, List of Neo-Latin authors, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel 5969  TT me 10:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


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

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Neo-Latin authors (June 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Neo-Latin authors and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:List_of_Neo-Latin_authors Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbritti&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:List_of_Neo-Latin_authors reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Worcestershire Newsletter - September 2023
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited History of the Jews in England (1066–1290), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exodus.

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Edgar Samuel


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

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

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


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

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


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Edict of Expulsion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edict of Expulsion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hereford Mappa Mundi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix.

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

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


 * Hi there, many apologies, I don't wish to cause any inconvenience; I'll finish the changes I'm making and ensure that everything is correctly referenced and not full of typos. I would have taken your suggestion up but I waited two months without a response; the changes I've made are in my view quite minor. I've also tried to limit what I have added mostly to error correction. There really is nothing controversial in what I've added. Most of it is in Marc Morris, or the receny book by Tolan, for example, but more importantly, in the scholarship they have drawn on. You can also find the same fully referenced at Edict of Expulsion which has been reviewed to GA level now, so hopefully passes basic muster on neutrality. Jim Killock (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We still believe there is undue weight being attributed to the actions Edward took against the Jewish population of England. While certainly important, it does not justify the amount of information you are inserting. Ultimately, this issue is out of my hands; ever since this brainchild achieved FA, I have found it difficult to maintain its quality. Now that I am virtually semi-retired, I must entrust matters such as these to my colleagues. Best wishes, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm done inserting material - I haven't added all that much in any case. I'd just note that the impact of Edward's actions are highly linked to the development of English and European antisemitism - something highly significant. His contribution to fuelling belief in Blood Libels for instance really cannot be dismissed. The lack of information in Prestwich and older sources has been frequently criticised by academics writing on these topics. I did raise this on the talk page as a potential reason within WP's policies for some extra information to be included, but got no reply. I'm sorry if this has caused any upset. I'd urge you to look at the coverage of this topic at Henry III of England for example, who arguably did less, but has much better coverage of his actions regarding Anglo-Jewry. (I contributed to that article earlier, and of course the information was added and improved rather than removed). Jim Killock (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, @Unlimitedlead, I really would urge you to read Colin Richmond's article. It's not long, it's very entertaining and a real eye opener. It rang very true to me, from much else I've read and seen omitted here on Wikipedia for the reasons he outlines. Jim Killock (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Undefined harvnb reference in Edward I
Hi, in this edit to Edward I of England you introduced, but no source "Richardson 1962" is listed. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Will do, give me 5 mins :) Jim Killock (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @DuncanHill done, thank you for letting me know! Jim Killock (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ecclesia and Synagoga
No, you don't just pre-empt a discussion you have started and change the first para. Wait for the RM to finish. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry John. The edit is accurate surely? Even if WP's policy is to keep the name, it is a simple fact that the majority of the time, the phrase used is ecclesia et synagoga. Jim Killock (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No - referring to the images, that is simply NOT true. See the RM discussion. Anyway, per MOS, the first mention should always be the article title. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

FA Review
I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello JimKillock! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, JimKillock. Thank you for your work on Anglo-Jewish studies. Tacyarg, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tacyarg (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Partial copyedits of requests
Thanks for your help at WP:GOCE/REQ, but please don't accept a request unless you intend to finish it; your making several "first passes" doesn't reduce the backlog. All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Miniapolis, I don't feel confident enough at this point to copyedit without someone else taking a second look. Each copyedit has been a "full pass" edit, but I would prefer a second review. It should help speed up the work, therefore, as I should have removed the most obvious problems. But to me the alternative is that I don't edit at all. Jim Killock (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't stop you from doing what you want, of course, but the GOCE has a number of useful links at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. As far as your threat to quit editing unless you can do it your way ... well, WP:HIGHMAINT.  Mini  apolis  13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not meant as a threat! Just how I see it, so you can understand @Miniapolis. Jim Killock (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Since you're new to WP copyediting, though, you should understand that we have an established system for managing the large number of articles in need of work. Perhaps you should work on backlog articles until you have more confidence; they have less oversight, unlike an article requested by someone who hoping for its promotion to GA or similar. All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Latin writers has been nominated for renaming
Category:Neo-Latin writers has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Eleanor of Castile

 * Hi JimKillock, I've now completed my c/e; I removed quite a lot of what seems to be unnecessary commentary from the article; see my edit summaries for details. I've added a [clarification needed] tag in the final paragraph of "Historical reputation" –&#32;"in recent decades" is ambiguous and needs context. I think "Death of Eleanor" --> "Procession, burial and monuments" could be rearranged to separate the subjects; the journey to London, the burials and the monuments. That's just my subjective view though. Anyway, good luck with this interesting and informative article. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  04:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Would Cookie stuffing get through FAC
Do you think Cookie stuffing pass WP:FAC? If not, what are the areas I should work on for it get through FAC? I wanted to tackle a more limited topic in the security/privacy category before coming back to vastness of Cross-site leaks. sohom@enwiki 05:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Sohom Datta, this is a much simpler topic for average users to understand. At a glance, (1) the lead is expected to summarise the overall topic and work as its own overview. This should cover all the main points. What are the "dubious techniques" is not covered, for example. Mention of the use of pop ups, for example, would help explain this. (2) In the techniques section, I didn't understand quite how redirects would trick browsers into thinking the cookie was set by a different domain. (3) Generally checking for comprehension of tricky concepts is a good idea.
 * FWIW I didn't think Cross-site leaks was far off regarding comprehensibility, but it seemed like the suggestions I'd come up with to resolve the need for easy access to comprehendable content for the for average users didn't feel right to you. This is something of a weakness in the WP approach; one can suggest but it is up to the active editors (in this case you!) what to do. When you come back to the article, I think you just need to decide how you want to tackle comprehension for an average user, and then I and others can help you with your chosen approach. Jim Killock (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tried to address a few of the points you raised. Most of the rest of the article seems fairly easy to read except maybe the 3rd paragraph of Techniques. (does it need some expanding? or is the current prose okay?)
 * Wrt to Cross-site leaks, what killed the project (for now) was not issues surrounding the comprehensibility, but rather the fact that I did not feel that the prose was accurate enough for a FA due to developments over the last few months (there has been at least two new research papers detailing newer attack pattern and a slew of security improvements from browsers (like the third-party cookie deprecation initiative) that should make cross-site leaks significantly harder to execute. <b style="color:#795cb2;">Sohom</b> ( talk ) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sohom Datta Thanks for the info! On Cookie stuffing:
 * it needs a thorough copy edit
 * the introduction lacks some further details to fully summarise the article, eg the impact of cookie stuffing, the kinds of fraud involved etc.
 * wire fraud isn't fully explained, it is assumed we know what it is
 * Jim Killock (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for an FACR
Hi Jim, if you have some time, would you consider adding your comments over at Featured article candidates/Sam Manekshaw/archive5? I do understand you are busy with the FA reassessment of Edward I, but if you could take out the time to comment above, that would be awesome. Also, do you know what is the exact consensus required for FAC reviews? I believe I will not ever be getting a support from one particular reviewer and one FAC coordinator believes the opinion of this reviewer to be gospel and acts only on its basis. Matarisvan (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Matarisvan, the issue seems a simple one at his point: when doing spot source checks, the reviewer did not find the required information. Therefore to get past FAC, you need to go through the article and check each citation provides the information for the sentences or paragraphs, and change the citation where it doesn't match. The criteria is simple enough, it has to be properly and accurately sourced, so getting the reviewers to change their minds is also in principle simple enough. However I can also see that it would be a lot of work.
 * FA and GA reviews are meant to do these checks and be confident of accuracy. Given that sourcing and accuracy is Wikipedia's core principle, you will only get them to budge by doing the work.
 * Otherwise, you could only challenge this by someone else doing source checks and showing that the reviewer was incorrect. The FA co-ordinators don't operate on consensus alone, but also by trust and dialogue. When it comes to source checks, people generally rely on an individual to do the checks because it is a lot of work. If you think he's got it wrong, in the examples he has previously given, you'd need to outline how that is the case. Jim Killock (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for what statements the reviewer found inaccurate and uncited, I have received no response yet. But your idea of showing how the issues noted last time were addressed is brilliant, I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier. Would you be able to comment this time around? Your comments last time were very helpful. Matarisvan (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have replied. I think it would be most helpful to get the scans that were requested. I agree with the reviewer that removing and replacing sources with online sources like magazine sites isn't best practice. They tend to make mistakes, where book authors are more careful. Jim Killock (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim, did you see my latest comment? That reviewer did not even bother to read the updated version of the article and just copypasted their comments from the last FAC review. Does this not signal un-encylopedic and non collaborative behavior? Matarisvan (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)