User talk:PBS/Archive 21

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Bulwark" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bulwark. Since you had some involvement with the Bulwark redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kintbury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canal boat ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kintbury check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kintbury?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Mexican Federalist War" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mexican Federalist War. Since you had some involvement with the Mexican Federalist War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Familytree.js
Hi. May I ask you to take a look at this issue with the Familytree.js script. After the old Template:Chart was renamed to Template:Tree chart the script doesn't recognize the new name of the template so it's not working anymore. Could you please edit the script, because I don't know what I should modify. User:Daduxing/familytree.js --Daduxing (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:StringFunc/testcases
Module:StringFunc/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Tzar Alexander (disambaguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tzar Alexander (disambaguation). Since you had some involvement with the Tzar Alexander (disambaguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

sfn/harv modifications
Good to see you back. Yes, the need for a specific ref in the Cite templates is taken into account. The issue that triggered this discussion is that Trappist made a change so that the sfn/harv class templates displayed a red-colored error message inline when the tag didn't seem to match the reference, for every reader of the article. By using static analysis of the wikitext, it resulted in false positives in every case where the general reference didn't contain an explicit year and author. That means (virtually) every use of EB1911, and Cite EB1911 with ref=harv. And so on for hundreds of similarly structured templates, with the year/name buried in the template source. In the initial implementation, suppressing those false positives would have been a fantastically daunting task. [also, there were those among us who pushed back on the default display of even valid error messages, but that's more of an aesthetic judgment]. Trappist has hidden the error and, with help, is working on a mitigation. It's also understood that those of us who actually want the warning can use the Ucucha or Svick js tools, which are usually (always?) correct in their diagnosis. There is much to else to discuss on both sides, as I'm sure you can understand. David Brooks (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Aaaaand... I just found out that someone (I think Trappist) has modified the CS1/CS2 templates to include ref=harv as a default, and assuming the change is permanent Headbomb has removed the explicit setting from EB1911. I just happened to trip over this: User talk:Citation bot/Archive_20. It was also discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1 but I haven't found a formal vote. This now means that Cite EB1911 will generate a red error from Ucucha's HarvErrors.js "You've generated a CITEREF but not used it". On balance, it's probably a good thing though because of the cases where people (e.g. me) do use the Cite-style templates in a footnote, but forget to add the parameter to the template call. Thoughts? In general I'm tired of arguing with Trappist and Headbomb over changes they've made without open discussion. David Brooks (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On my screen, it's not a red error; it's a brown warning. There are instructions for suppressing it at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors and other places. If you are actually seeing red errors in places where they didn't exist before, please link to an article. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, sorry. I admit I have it suppressed right now also (the script provides for that). I guess my whining is more a matter of principle; a sudden change that affect so many articles, if in a minor way. It's probably a good one on balance. David Brooks (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Change is hard. I have the brown warning messages enabled in order to fix the harv/sfn errors that (as you are painfully aware) have recently been unearthed and assigned to a category. Now a bunch of those articles have many more brown warnings, making it a bit trickier to find the real errors, but I can't hide them because the CITEREFs that they show are useful for finding and fixing the errors. Once the error messages are fixed, I will probably hide the warnings as well. I feel your pain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an LRPP template as an external link


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an LRPP template as an external link requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Query on edit
Hello, I am curious by this edit as it added a second external links parameter to Rayment-bt template. Should this be happening?

As an aside the template documentation says it should be set to "1" not "y" or "yes". Keith D (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
...for the correction on the Thomas Plunket article. Shellus Maximus 12:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Georg Anschütz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Stern ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Georg_Ansch%C3%BCtz check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Georg_Ansch%C3%BCtz?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smeat75 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Definition of Terrorism article
Hello, sorry to send message on this way, but I saw your comments in "definition of terrorism" afticle so I guess maybe you know about. There is a litlle "clash" about chronology of the lead and some content. My points are explained in the talk page of that article. About the UN "description" of terrorism, not having one comprehensive definition in the international law, Bruce Hoffman note etc. Maybe I am wrong, but I think I explained pretty well at the talk page of that article. So if you can take a look. Thank you. 93.86.157.99 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

EB1911
Hi, I've just seen this. We used EB1911 a lot in the early days and it has caused no end of problems later because often it was done as a copy paste with an attribution at the bottom of the article, making it tricky thereafter to assign statements to later sources. Given we have britannica.com and that the British Raj era stuff is generally rejected for use in articles about the Indian subcontinent, should we not be replacing these citations rather than linking to Wikisource? - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Templates
PBS. Thank you for the note and edits to the document I've been working on. At first, I thought you might be a bot (or a fundraiser for the station PBS), but that is clearly not the case. Despite your sending me several messages on the subject, I have to admit I didn't really know there was a template way to do citations until yesterday and now with you message describing how to do it. Sadly, I did think that you were using some Wikibot to make the changes, but now realize that you're probably doing it by hand. I have at least twice tried to what you suggest by copying a correct one but with no success.

I have made several attempts this morning to do as you suggested, both in Edit and Edit Source mode, with no success. I have had no success accessing the template, for example, for Encyclopedia Britannica 11th edition, that will generate the preferred Wikipedia format. I have looked at the appropriate Wikihelp pages, following them to no avail. Any help will be appreciated. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

My EB1911 link
Re this: And it was I who added a duplicate link to the archive.org source of an already-cited EB1911 article. Perhaps my mind was confused with the 1922 addition. Thanks for quietly fixing that. I've been making more mistakes recently; maybe it's time for a wikibreak. Or maybe there's something going around that's increasing the stress level generally. David Brooks (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Grand Union Canal
As far as I know, the semicolon used as a wikimarkup is just a shorthand notation for ..., which is the html code that the screen-reader will "see". Theoretically speaking of course! is it your personal practical experience that this is not what happens? (or were you thinking of unsighted editors?). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Personally it is not a style I like but Wikipedia is littered with that markup. I've been an editor for a long time and always try to avoid disabling visitors to pages I edit and yet this is the first I've seen of that advice. It really should be fixed by a bot and the facility removed as valid markup. Thanks for letting me know. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Short Description and AWB
I just noticed that some (but not all) of the articles you have recently edited with AWB moved the Short Description down after hatnotes. MOS:ORDER wants it at the top, but the current released version of AWB (6.1.0.1) top-material re-ordering gets it wrong. I myself have not noticed/fixed the move from time to time. The AWB guys fixed the bug last November but haven't made a release since September. I'll ask them to bump it; are you able to build from source? If not, I may be able to make a custom version. David Brooks (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I forget if you trust my downloads, but if you want it I dropped updated binaries (built unmodified from the latest source, without plugins) at https://1drv.ms/u/s!AtuCZY0YF4hGorc16Ut5ir1DcODuhQ. Another prolific AWB editor has been using it for a few hours without problems. I noticed by chance that the Windows Security feature was calling it a threat for a few hours overnight before they fixed a false positive in the definitions, so make sure those have been updated. David Brooks (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

For the most
Love you

Sacora55 (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 

Strategic bombing
You might want to take a look at. These edits look unhelpful to me but (a) I do not have available some of the references that support the original version (b) I may be too close to the subject as I note some particular characteristics of this editor's style which is very reminiscent of User:Snagemit. Hence I thought the best course of action is to point out the edit to the top editor of the article involved. If all looks OK to you, that would be fine and I'll leave alone.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Hanoverian Waterloo Medal has been nominated for listification
Category:Recipients of the Hanoverian Waterloo Medal has been nominated for listification. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

William Beckford of Somerley
Hi PBS, Thanks for your improvement of my DNB and ODNB refs here: I just add them in bibliographical form. One thing though, can you explain why, for ODNB, it is considered desirable to refer to an online edition which many users cannot access, when no link is actually necessary simply to cite an article in ODNB as if one were citing any published work? What's wrong with just the plain bibliographical reference standing alone? Perhaps it is just that some people can access it? Eebahgum (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the old DNB version is not 'the first edition of this text', as the machine makes it say, but is an old and different text by a different author in a work which is not merely 1st edition of the ODNB but a separate but older work in its own right. I was simply flagging up that WB of S was in both. Forgive me for moaning, it is not a complaint but simply a protest at "meaning drift"! best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your most comprehensive reply. I am sorry to have put you to the trouble of it really as I have no argument with your edits! But your time and wisdom about it are much appreciated. Eebahgum (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Put to the sword" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Put to the sword. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 07:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Broken template move – Cite Colledge
This looks like it was a complex move, so I thought I would drop a note here instead of making it worse myself. There are 190 pages transcluding Cite Colledge, a page that you moved without leaving a redirect. Would you mind taking a look to see if you know of the right way to fix this problem? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Acadfr
Template:Acadfr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Trying to find a source at Oliver Cromwell's head...
A source was added to Oliver Cromwell's head by PeterSymonds here (in 2009) and adjusted by you here (in 2014). The article or book is referred to in Severed: A History of Heads Lost and Heads Found(2014) by Frances Larson in the book's Sources section titled "Prologue:Oliver Cromwell's Head" as:
 * Henry Howarth, 'The Embalmed Head of Oliver Cromwell', Archaeological Journal, 1911, pp 237-253.

I've been trying to fix up the Harvard cite issues at the Oliver Cromwell's head article but I've run into a severe problem with this source...it doesn't seem to exist (or at least I cannot find it). The Archaeological Data Service website which holds the archives for The Royal Archaeological Institute/The Archaeological Journal (the RAI is the organization which publishes the Journal) has no results for H. Howarth or Henry Howarth or any article under the title of The Embalmed Head of Oliver Cromwell. So,  here  is the issue: Unfortunately the PeterSymonds account seems to have gone dormant so I can't ask him where he got the info but it bothers me that I cannot find where it came from. Frances Larson does refer to this Howarth content and to it being published by an "Archaeological Journal" located in London but why can't I find it?!? I need some help here - maybe you can find the actual source material or confirm my theory that the sources have somehow possibly gotten mangled in the telling and re-telling of history and sources... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an article with the title An Account of the Embalmed Head of Oliver Cromwell at Shortlands House, Kent, written by Sir James Edward Alexander and published by The Glasgow Archaeological Society in 1870, found here in Google Books and here at Jstor.
 * Nevermind lol - I posted at one of the Village pumps and got an answer, see here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"RAF" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RAF. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. LenaAvrelia (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Dowlas
Hi @PBS As per your template, I have made few changes on the subject page. Kindly have a look if we can remove the template now. Thanks RV (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IBD1915
Template:IBD1915 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Houston family tree
Need your help with an edit you made April 21, 2015. The children of Sam Houston Jr., MD. I believe I listed the names, and you later added the sourcing to each. As it turns out, Henry Howard Houston (b. 1871), does not appear to have been one of the children of Sam Jr. I want to eliminate him from the tree, but when I try that, red error messages show at the bottom of the template. Can you please remove his name? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, for what it's worth, the SR staff "Samuel Houston Family Tree", Star of the Republic Museum, Blinn College, retrieved 21 April 2015 Generations: First and Second - seems to no longer be at the SR Museum web site. Whatever info was there has been absorbed into the Texas State Historical Association somewhere. The same information is, however, accessible through The Portal to Texas History, the appendix in the Madge Thornall Roberts book Star of Destiny book.  Here's the link to that appendix. Appendix. — Maile  (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I got the issue figured out and took care of it. — Maile (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citation-attribution
Template:Citation-attribution has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Battle of Ligny has been nominated for merging
Category:Battle of Ligny 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Olive branch
Hi PBS - you and I have probably got off on the wrong foot somewhat. I was narked by your revert, and by the stuff about drainpipes that seemed to be painting me as some kind of blinkered nationalist; no doubt I came across poorly with my demand that you self-revert. I apologise if I seemed aggressive - I've just spent quite a bit of time on this, and we were in the closing stages of an FAC review, so having this disagreement over the title was frustrating.

On your user page, you have a quote about a scholar confidently declaring that our articles on a particular topic are the best summary of the subject available, because he wrote them. I am not, myself, such a person, but my sentiments chime with yours: when one of the leading scholars in a subject area chooses to help us with our content, as they have done here, we should be grateful. I want to ensure that our article's name is in-line with modern (English, as well as Scottish) scholarship - which, from my own reading of the sources, and from what scholars have told me, it currently isn't.

I don't demand that it be 'English invasion of...', that just seemed convenient given the number of other, similarly named articles. 'Anglo-Scottish war (dates)' would be fine, or something else descriptive if you'd like to propose it. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  22:59, 14 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)

Proposed new start to Civilian
I note you have previously commented on the talk page for the Civilian article. There is currently a straw poll open and I would appreciate feedback. Hemmers (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Civilian discussion(s)
Howdy. Why would you undo my changes at Talk:Civilian & re-create multiple discussions about the 'same' topic. Doing so, only causes confusion. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Third Geneva Convention (1929)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Third Geneva Convention (1929). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lennart97 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Waterloo in popular culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Waterloo in popular culture 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/Waterloo in popular culture 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CEM
Template:CEM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CEM poster
Template:CEM poster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Efron template
Hi! I saw that you improved this template a while ago. It produces the error "Missing or empty |title=" now, could you take a look?

Example: Alaexis¿question? 13:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed on the template page; the template is not causing errors in article space unless the title is omitted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin
Dear PBS, Grandmaster Editor, 1st Class. Thank you for having created in July 2009 the article Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin. You built it up from the entry written by Richard Bagwell in the Dictionary of National Biography, volume XLI, 1895, mostly by copying text over verbatim, acknowledging that origin by attribution, which of course is all fine and good practice. You also added citations that give that source but also the source from where Bagwell got it, e.g. "Bagwell, p.320. Cites: Carte Ormonde i 264". It must have been considerable work to find Bagwell's exact source.

I would like to add to your work by incorporating information from more recent sources such as A New History of Ireland (Moody et al., 1976), the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), the Dictionary of Irish Biography (2009), and what else might be found. I think it is also considered better to paraphrase than to incorporate verbatim passages, even it attributed (I do not know where the guidelines say such a thing or perhaps they don't and I am wrong). Concerning your citations, I wonder what is right to do. It seems a bit unusual to say "Smith (1999) citing Miller (1888)". If a fact can be found in more than one source, which one should be cited, the oldest, the lates, the most renowned, the most accessible? Or should more than one be cited (all, the oldest and the latest?). I want to improve, not undo your work, with many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Inchiquin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shannon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murrough O'Brien, 1st Earl of Thomond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Brereton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Citation-attribution
I don't know about the history of the template and what consensus there is regarding the closure of the TfD and whether it should be a redirect or a wrapper template, but since you removed the redirect, please also update the template documentation and restore the documentation in the template source, so that other editors coming upon it (e.g. after seeing your AWB edits) have an idea what it's supposed to do and how it should be used. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User talk:PBS-AWB and Edward Raban (printer)
Please see message at User_talk:PBS-AWB

Your change on Edward Raban (printer) was a poor decision. You removed a template which added "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain" to two references, and added to both a template saying "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from this source". Each of the references was used about 5 times in the body of the article. "One or more of the preceding sentences" is plain inaccurate for most of the uses of the reference. "This article incorporates text " is accurate for all uses of the reference. Further, your message preceded the reference, which is grossly suboptimal: users want to read the ref, not a (mainly inaccurate) RD incorporation notice. The notice should follow the reference, not precede it. I don't know what you thought you were doing, but your edits did degrade the article in two respects, did not do anything at all useful. Reverted. Please do not do that again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh ffs. I see you've done this to about 300 articles. For the above reasons, this is really bad. Please stop damaging wikipedia for a few extra edit counts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In other news, if you really do not want people to leave messages on that page, maybe redirect it to this page. Your notice there is too little, too late & you're putting other users to trouble for no good reason. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I share Tagishsimon's concerns. Your changes caused particularly egregious errors in articles where the citation is placed at the end of a sentence introducing the quoted material, which made the text wholly nonsensical. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits to DOY articles
I have reverted two edits by your PBS-AWB bot to the DOY articles August 18 and April 8. The convention established at WP:DOYSTYLE is that the characters &amp;ndash; are to be used rather than any other types of dash. Can you please modify your bot to take this into account? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Non-sovereign nation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Non-sovereign nation 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/Non-sovereign nation 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 until the discussion has finished. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord Paisley
Dear PBS}}. Please have a look at the use of the Wikisource EB11 citations in the article [[Claud Hamilton, 1st Lord Paisley. It is an example for the case that two different EB articles are cited in the same Wikipedia article and the corresponding EB11 volumes were published in different years. So I first thought I could use 1910 and 1911, but errors are thrown that seem to indicate that 1910 is considered an error. I then tried 1911a and 1911b as User:ArbieP had done before, but an error "CS1 maint: date and year" is thrown. Why? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:47, 19 October 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a trip back to Spring 2005
Hi, so I was looking at the redirects to Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II and found that Middle East Theatre of World War II existed. I had a look at it and noticed that a little earlier this month an IP user attempted to redirect it to the former article because it was "an unsourced duplicate". I completed the redirect today by blanking the content, then noticed that you were present during the creation of both just about 18 years ago. Was creating the redirect the right move, or no? This is not a topic that I normally edit. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000  23:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How about finishing article Anthing?
I put a useful source on the page Carl Heinrich Wilhelm Anthing which you started, but apparently abandoned. It is a reputable biography. It is in Dutch but you can easily translate that into English using Google Chrome. Highlight a section. Then right-click somewhere near that section and a dropdown menu with the option to translate to English will appear. Click that option and hey presto the page is suddenly legible. Hope this is useful. Cheers, Ereunetes (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change article title "Brigade van Bylandt" to "Bylandt's brigade"
I have put a proposal to change the name of Brigade van Bylandt to "Bylandt's brigade" on the talk-page of that article. As you have contributed to that article in a significant way you may be interested. I'll make the move if you have not objected in a week's time. Ereunetes (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley
Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an MLCC template as an external link


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an MLCC template as an external link 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! 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an MLCC with a warning


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an MLCC with a warning 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! 01:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an MLCC template


A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating an MLCC template 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! 01:10, 10 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LarousseXIXe poster
Template:LarousseXIXe poster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)