User talk:Nthep/Archive 34

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2020
Delivered April 2020 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.

13:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Rev-del request at Forbes
Hi Nthep On 27 March you rev-delled a series of edits at Forbes. Unfortunately the racist, degrading, additions have continued. Could I please ask you to rev-del the additions since then? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - Arjayay (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Q
Can you convert the partial block of to a full block? This range vandalized Forbes as well. Aasim 02:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, after a fashion. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wolves
Hello. I'm a new editor & representative of Edinburgh Wolves looking to provide new and up-to-date content for the wiki page.

I was hoping you'd allow me to edit and add content. Any advice or if you would like to chat about the edits you ahve made then I'll be happy to do so.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PDWolves (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded at your talk page. Nthep (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Dafne Keen
Hello Nthep, I noticed that the article on Dafne Keen was recently edited (by someone with the same name as her mother, interestingly enough) to remove the descent from the Earls Howe, and noticed that on that editor's talk page you posted "I'm inclined to agree with you about the genealogy but when a source - normally accepted as authoritative - as Debrett's is listing it as correct that is something to take into account. You need to demonstrate that it is definitely wrong e.g. is it still in the current version of Debrett's?" Just out of interest, may I ask why you're inclined to disregard the published genealogy? Is it just because it "seems a bit unlikely"? I notice the lady didn't edit out the mention of Dafne Keen's aunts Alice Oswald and Laura Beatty; their article talk pages (and that of Dafne Keen and her father Will Keen) give evidence from mainstream published sources that makes it perfectly clear they're all related, and all descended from the 6th Earl Howe- I don't see what harm it does that Dafne Keen's mother would say it's "irrelevant and probably false"?78.144.64.171 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, I've seen correspondence from Dafne's father Will denying the connection. Nthep (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I won't say anything more save that I appreciate it must be difficult as an administrator to have to field matters like this; I do feel, given the circumstances, bound to observe that this is a situation where "he would say that, wouldn't he?" if they decided it was a matter best covered up in light of their media careers and the (albeit surprisingly very rare!) backlash against the domination of the artistic sphere by those of privileged background. One wonders however if Will Keen would acknowledge his parents to be Charles William Lyle Keen and (Priscilla) Mary, née Curzon, in which case the descent from the 6th Earl Howe is set in stone, printed clear as day in Debrett's and Burke's... but as I say I respect the position of administrators and those to whom the task of keeping Wikipedia running smoothly is chiefly left, and don't intend to make a fuss about any of it- just thought it a bit rum in light of similar instances of people trying to cover up this kind of thing! Thanks for a civil interaction.
 * If there was more of a public denial it would have been more prominently discussed in the article but as it's unsubstantiated ("he would say that?" being the very point) it's not something to add to the article. The point about Debrett's et al is that even the best sources have been known to make mistakes and the only citations go back a few editions. If someone would check and verify that the latest editions still carry the same information, it would be a useful exercise. Nthep (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nthep, I definitely understand your point; after all there is always room for error to have been made in books of that sort given the amount of information they deal with! However, I had a bit of a look around online, and came across the following clearly identifying Mary Keen as daughter of the 6th Earl Howe: - The book "First Ladies of Gardening: Designers, Dreamers and Divas" by Heidi Howcroft (2015), where Mary Keen is interviewed, gives: "Although from an aristocratic family and as the daughter of the 6th Earl Howe entitled to be addressed as Lady Mary Keen, she comes across as free of affectation and is an expert in the art of understatement." - an interview with Mary Keen at The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardens-to-visit/the-very-private-eden-of-eythrope/) gives: "Lady Mary Keen is the eldest daughter of the 6th Earl Howe, but her parents divorced when she was three, and she moved with her mother and sister to Whatley Manor in Wiltshire..." it mentions "Charles Keen, her future husband" and "Her four brainy children include the actor Will Keen and the poet Alice Oswald." Note it states "the" actor Will Keen, which makes it clear it refers to the only notable actor of that name, viz. Dafne Keen's father.

This in conjunction with several articles in reputable sources like The Telegraph identifying Mary Keen, wife of Charles, as a garden designer, mother to "actor Will Keen", and Alice Oswald and Laura Beatty: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardens-to-visit/the-world-of-mary-keen/- 'Keen lives in Gloucestershire with her husband, Charles, with whom she has four children... My third daughter, Alice [Oswald, the poet]... my daughter Laura [Beatty], who is a writer...' A Telegraph article on Alice Oswald's poetry collection- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3588888/Going-with-the-flow.html- gives 'Her father is a retired banker, her mother the garden designer Mary Keen, her brother the actor Will Keen.'

These details all match the pedigree of the Earls Howe in Debrett's and Burke's, which shows Priscilla Mary Rose Curzon to have married Charles William Lyle Keen, and their children to be: William Walter Maurice Keen, b. 1970, who m. 2002, Maria Fernandez Hernandez and had a daughter, Dafne Maria, b. 2005; Laura Mary Catherine Keen, who m. Nicholas Beatty; Eleanor Margaret Keen (not famous, so not relevant for the purposes of this argument); Alice Priscilla Lyle Keen, m. Peter C. P. Oswald. The Telegraph articles show Mary Keen, wife of Charles Keen, as mother of Alice Oswald and Laura Beatty, and Alice Oswald as sister of 'actor Will Keen'.

So it would appear that, coupled with the aforementioned possibility of "covering it up for career reasons" (and no, I don't like to make such a disobliging insinuation, but it can't be denied it's a compelling reason if any ever existed!), the divorce of his mother's parents when she was 3 might be a factor in detaching from the Earls Howe, but so many reliable sources specifically identify her as daughter of the 6th Earl Howe, notable enough to have an article here. I mean, the above just seems pretty comprehensive and unequivocal as far as I'm concerned, but I fully appreciate Wikipedia doesn't exist to reflect my conclusions- just rather miffed at the way some people try and bend Wikipedia to their own purposes. I'm sorry to sort of just throw all this at you, particularly when you've no doubt got far more interesting and profitable things you'd rather be dealing with, it's just it sticks in my craw rather that Will Keen or his representatives seem to be acting in a rather disingenuous manner here.
 * I have no objection to information verified from numerous reliable sources which is what you appear to have done. I have issues when people add information on one source or synthesise content which doesn't actually say what the sources say. Here I was dubious because no one was making the positive connection, which you have done, that the articles were talking about the same people; Will Keen isn't an uncommon name. Couple that with a denial by Keen about the connection to the Curzon's and my conclusion was that the article needed better sourcing to support the assertion. WP:BLPSOURCES is a core policy that information about living subjects needs to be well sourced, so when it comes to BLPs if in doubt err on the side of caution.
 * PS can you remember to sign any talk page posts with four tildes ~, that way we know who we are responding to. Nthep (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was a little concerned about the whole BLP factor, but glad to hear it seems I didn't cross any lines with it and that the combination of sources seems to have successfully confirmed the identities of the individuals involved; I suppose the only outstanding factor would in theory be Will Keen's apparent denial of a relationship to the Earls Howe- which in light of the above points I must say doesn't look like it has anything approaching a leg to stand on- but then as you mentioned before it's inadmissible anyway. I wonder if there's some way of protecting this information in the relevant articles, since it's been established that there is a vested interest in its removal? I'd imagine not, short of protecting the whole article, but I'm not entirely familiar with that side of things after all. Thanks for assisting me with this 78.144.73.155 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the articles merit any protection. The thing to do, imo, is to challenge those seeking to remove the content with the evidence you have presented here and ask them to refute it. Much better to discuss than deny the discussion taking place. Nthep (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Two queried stations on the Cumbrian Coast Line
Can I ask that you avail yourself of the information contained in the long-standing website called "Old Cumbria Gazetteer" which contains a vast amount of information on the minutiae of all things Cumbria related. Both Coulderton Halt and Saltcoates Crossing Halt were on the Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway. Both closed in 1861.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The page Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway mentions Saltcoats level crossing - not a station - and makes no mention of Coulderton at all. None of the standard works on railway stations, Quick, Clinker or Butt mention either location. Local papers of the 19th century and none of the Furness Railway WTT I have seen contain any reference to halts at either place. So what evidence is there of the existence of either halt? Nthep (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am always mindful of the motto used by the Old Cumbria Gazetteer......"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absense". In 1861, there was at least one more closure besides those two I named on that railway line.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And in many cases not a bad maxim to work by but it's not how Wikipedia works. Reliable, verifiable sources are everything so until some come to light about the existence of these two they should remain absent. I'm interested to know how you know these closed in 1861, there are two other closures in 1861, Whitbeck and Kirksanton, which are documented but again there are no mentions of Saltcoats and Coulderton. Nthep (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 38, January – April 2020 
 * New partnership
 * Global roundup

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Accidental undo
Sorry about the accidental undo. Slow screen update on my watchlist... I wasn't even on your page. Meters (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * not a problem, thanks. Nthep (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2020
Delivered May 2020 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.

14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news
 * Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
 * Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
 * A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news
 * The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
 * created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous
 * A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve Chalke
Thanks for that. Must've misread the edit in Huggle and reverted the wrong one. Thanks for catching. Glen 11:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, we've all done it and I certainly didn't think you'd restored it deliberately. Nthep (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SQL

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration
 * A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2020
Delivered June 2020 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.

21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Congleton Upper Junction station
moved to Template talk:Stafford-Manchester Line RDT. Nthep (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cumbrian Coast Line RDT
I wonder why the recent matter of deletion of two stations/halts from this template, to which I very recently inadvertently entered into post-deletion discussions upon, has suddenly surfaced in 2020. I would ask you as the deletee how long had both these two items had been shown on the template and who it was who caused them to enter them on the template originally. Have you notified that person also of the deletions.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The links to those two stations have been in and out of the RDT for several years. There is no requirement to inform the original poster of the removal of content (which is not a deletion), especially unsourced content. The most recent reinstatement was in April when we had this discussion about sourcing User talk:Nthep/Archive 34. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, more reliable sources to verify the existence of alleged stations are needed than single mentions in unsourced web sites and/or enthusiasts forums. I don't mean enough sources to create a separate article, especially about very insignificant halts, but enough to be able to verify that they did exist. For example contemporary newspapers, books about the line or the locale, operating company documents or sourced commentary thereon. Nthep (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. It still causes me not a little concern to hear that several years have elapsed since whosoever first caused both these entries onto the RDT, especially as Wikipedia seems to have a large number of knowledgeable members (I include your good self in this category) who can immediately correct any unsourced matter and put an immediate end to such fallacious entries.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't watch everything. It's both one of Wikipedia's best and worst points that anyone can edit without taking notice of the core policies of sourcing and verifiability. Nthep (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 39, May – June 2020 
 * Library Card Platform
 * New partnerships
 * ProQuest
 * Springer Nature
 * BioOne
 * CEEOL
 * IWA Publishing
 * ICE Publishing
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
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) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Martel Maxwell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martel Maxwell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Martel Maxwell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sionk (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Greenwood Laboratory School copyvio cleanup
Thanks for working on that! It's a bit problematic to delete the whole page and then only revive the last revision or two...loses attribution of the content that survives and can interfere with future attempts to understand who the copyvio editors are. Looking at the deleted history, I see much of the current content is already there, but only Darren-M appears as a contributor. Even if the only sane way to handle this was to revdel back 180ish revisions, at least that would help keep attribution intact (an admin can do a normal [diff] in history if revdel but not if actually deleted) and help track all the SPAs and blocked/possible-COI editors who usually plague school articles. DMacks (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was toying with listing all the previous contributors on the talk page to attribute that way but in the end I've restored everything then revdel'd all but the most recent edit of Darren-Ms. If someone works out which previous edits weren't or didn't perpetuate copyvios they can be restored too. Nthep (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:F5 deletion request
Hi Nthep, Thank you for deleting orphaned revisions of File:Nursing Service Cross (Australia) medal.png - could I request if you could do the same for File:Australian Antarctic Medal.png as the orphaned non-free revisions flag has been displayed for the requisite 7 days and the revisions are no longer in use anywhere. Regards,  Kangaresearch   14:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt action on this request.  Kangaresearch   14:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, it would show in the category for attention later in any event but doesn't hurt to deal with it immediately. Nthep (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2020 June 25
Hi Nthep, as a respected editor I wondered if you had a few moments to contribute to a second RfC on the retention of an image of the Reverse of the Australian Antarctic Medal. It's been re-nominated for deletion by one editor at Files for discussion/2020 June 25, following consensus on its retention previously. As the original RfC was only comprised of 4 views, I think it might help the other editor involved if there was a wider input. It's all fairly short, so takes no more than a minute or two of reading, and you are welcome to express any opinion you think is appropriate. Thanks in advance if you can spare the time.  Kangaresearch  04:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)