This is an archive of past discussions with User:JASpencer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, JASpencer, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on Catholic temperance movement, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, The Temperance movement in Ireland. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
A tag has been placed on Temperance fountains, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Camyoung54talk20:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have left you a message on the talk page of that article, and it is important that you read it.
I presume that you are a relatively new editor. I have been around for years, and I am very rarely as rude to a newish editor as I have just been to you, on that talk page.
The message is think about the meaning of the sentences that you write.
Present facts as fact. If there is a clear statement in a good source that tells you something is the case then don't present it as mere hearsay.
Present theory as theory. If something is a theory, then state who the theory is put forward by.
Present suspicion as suspicion. If something is claimed or suspected by only a specific group of people, then state who the people are.
Present myth as myth. If something is widely stated and perhaps believed, but not universally accepted as true (or provable), then that must handled by saying which group believe it. e.g. "The Catholic Church accepts Transubstantiation"
What you have done is present a fact that has at least three references, which can probably be supported by parish meeting notes, architect's plans, contracts, payments, local news papers etc etc etc etc..... as if it was nothing more than an urban legend believed by a group of local Catholic people. This is very thoughtless use of your sources.
Here is how its done. Note how each sentence is structured. This is about "How to write Wikipedia". The subject is of no consequence.
"Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa."
The sentence states this as a fact. The factual nature of the sentence is supported by the 16th century writer Vasari. No reliable art historian has ever doubted this as a fact, so it is stated as such.
"The subject of the painting "Mona Lisa" is generally accepted to be Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo."
The sentence uses "generally accepted". This is supported by references with interpretation of symbolism, and by the findings of documentary evidence
"Sigmund Freud theorised that the painting is influenced by Leonardo's memories of his mother."
In this sentence the theory is identified as belonging to a particular academic
"Much speculation abounds on the internet, including the theory that the subject represents Leonard himself in women's clothing."
The sentence makes it clear that this is "speculation". The author of the claim would be referenced.
This list moves from what is known beyond doubt, to what is widely accepted, to an important but unprovable theory by a significant author, to a highly improbable but widely-circulated theory. In each case, the way that the sentence is written takes into account whether the information is reliable.
Stating "Local Catholics claim the building was intended as a cathedral...." gives a verifiable fact no credibility whatsoever.
Amanda, I rarely need to remind an editor that this is a project to build an encyclopedia and not an online game. I would seriously suggest that you look up WP:CIVIL and the assumption that I was a new editor makes your aggressive behaviour and language less and not more acceptable.
That aside, there were two editors who were very unhappy with the sources being anything other than a claim. If there is a better way to word the claim - or whatever it is - then the best way to do this is to edit the article rather than your rather over the top behaviour.
Thank you for the notice that you have mentioned my name came up in discussion on SarekOfVulcan's talk page. I have left you a comment there. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
JASpenser, you'll need to nominate this article again on the article talk page, this time with the proper template. The nomination instructions are at WP:GAN; essentially, you need to substitute the GAN template with the proper subtopic, which in turn generates a filled-in GA nominee template. I've reverted the attempt, since the nomination template had no parameters at all, rendering it useless. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanislaus of Szczepanów, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canon and Divine Office (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.
Just curious as to why you think it inappropriate to ask the members of a specific WikiProject to clarify consensus on an issue relating specifically to that WikiProject? That's the way its usually done. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Because it's a tiny project where all the active contributors are active Freemasons. There's going to be a skew and false concensus. JASpencer (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The point about it being a tiny project is probably valid... your assumption that all active contributors of the project are active Freemasons is not. But even if they were, how would it "skew" the consensus? Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aldeburgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District Council (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grantham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wesleyan Methodist (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.
Hi there. I noticed you reverted my edit. I'd like to know why you disagree with the edit, seeing as it is referenced by a link to a respected academic institution. --Île flottante (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuncacestre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Lindsay (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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cuncacestre may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[[Danegeld]] was paid again and peace was restored. Aldhun was on his way through [[Durham]] to
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gallipoli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Callipolis (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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gran Priorato Rectificado de Hispania until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. MSJapan (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
A discussion has been started toward deleting a creation of mine Category:Reign of Terror perpetrators. I have attempted to defend both its relevance and my own motivations in creating it. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in some circles to always assume bad faith on my part. Might I again ask for your assistance?Kingstowngalway (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander Montgomery (1720–1800), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Act of Union (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.
Hi. I am an editor who tends to seek out red-linked pages which are awaiting articles to be written and then write them. Today I have come across a page that I wanted to add to and I discovered you had created a re-direct. When someone creates a re-direct it turns a red-link blue, and I never realise unless I stumble across it, that an article needs to be written. I notice that you have created a number of re-directs. I am wondering if this practise is not counter-productive. Graemp (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Redirects create a link to an a more informative article than no article. In the case of by-elections they can be of three types, either a link to the constituency with no information about the by-election, a link to the result with nothing else or a link to some considerable text, almost an article in itself - such as the Paddington South by-election, 1930. For a reader or researcher all three results are more useful than a red link.
Thanks for your explanation and the info about the category page. Regrettably I tend not to create articles in such a systematic fashion and so am unlikely to use the category list. When I do create articles in a systematic fashion I rely for instance on List of United Kingdom by-elections (1900–18) which is chronological. I think if a policy of establishing re-directs to turn the whole of wikipedia blue were introduced, we would see a substantial reduction in the number of new articles being created. Graemp (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
There are still an enormous amount of red links about by-elections left if that concerns you. I think that creating redirects adds more value to the reader and so that is what I will continue to do. JASpencer (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War-time electoral pact, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third party (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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You took down the PRODS then tagged the articles as unreferenced even though you created them. There has to be a source for these, written or on the internet. What is it and why not put it in the articles?...William18:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, JASpencer. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Message added 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It's more complicated than it may seem, especially given the fluidity of party labels at the time and the fact that the modern Home Rule party was really only beginning to get going. Whitworth won Kilkenny as a Liberal (and apparently an anti-Home Rule supporter). He then ran for Drogheda and let it be known that he was actually in favour of Home Rule, and won against another Home Rule candidate. Smithwick was described in the Times as a Liberal, but a letter to the editor said he was known as a pro-Home Rule candidate. He won the general election months later as a Home Rule candidate, against another Home Rule candidate. The Times still described him as a Liberal, though.--Rbreen (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, despite a reasonably good knowledge of Victorian British politics I don't know as much as I should about the Irish side once you get beyond Parnell and the Kitty O'Shea. It gets better as I get closer to our times, but I probably know more about Nineteenth-Century Irish politics in New York than in Ireland. JASpencer (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 30 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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.
It is very unencyclopaedic to write that elections are fought, they are held. They are not wars even though some people might think so. I've refined a few that I saw, perhaps you can edit the rest. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Very unencyclopaedic? By-elections are often referred to as being "fought" and there is no realistic danger of confusion in the use of the term. Held is better, and I will in future try to use that term, but I don't see the danger of leaving "fought" in the current by-election descriptions. JASpencer (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it is very unencyclopaedic but that's my opinion. Confusion is not really the issue but the word fought implies something different than held even though some people do use it. It is not a danger to use it, however I'll change any others I happen across but appreciate you using held in future. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say by-elections are fought - to read the history of UK by-elections, it's interesting to see how much violence was commonplace in 19th century contests. But even figuratively, there is certainly a contest, and often a heated one. I would avoid, however, saying that an election was 'fought' on a particular day. I tend to write 'took place on' or 'was held on' because that's when the votes are cast and that's usually quite quiet; in unopposed elections it really doesn't make much sense to say 'fought' at all. Where there is a contested election, though, I would often write of it being 'fought' by the parties in the period between the declaration of the election and the casting of the votes. That's just my opinion, of course. --Rbreen (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Northern Ireland by-elections
Hi, firstly a small point regarding the Clare By-election of 1826 - there's a difference between Daniel O'Donnell and Daniel O'Connell. (I fixed this one) ;)
However, it's an anachronism to move by-elections from the category "By-elections to the United Kingdom Parliament in Irish constituencies" to Category "By-elections to the United Kingdom Parliament in Northern Irish constituencies". There were no 'Northern Irish constituencies' before 1922. They were all Irish constituencies and were so regarded at the time. Anyone searching for information about elections in Ireland in the Victorian era would certainly expect to find Antrim, Donegal and Dublin in the same category. And nobody in 1885, for instance, would have considered Donegal to be anything other than northern Ireland - politically, the six-county concept of "Northern Ireland" didn't exist then. I believe that category was intended for post-1922 constituencies. A case could be made for those counties to be in both categories; but they would certainly have been regarded as in Ireland. --Rbreen (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, but on the other hand there's a discontinuity between Belfast by-elections before and after partition. There's probably a philosophical point there about the nature of time, but this is not the place to explore it.
It would probably be best to create a category of pre-partition by-elections in the six counties that would become Northern Ireland and have this as a sub category for both Ireland and Northern Ireland. Alternatively there could be categories created for all six counties and these could be sub categories of both areas.
As to O'Donnell and O'Connell all I can say is sorry.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of the Saviour, Birmingham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian (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.
Note that creating large numbers of disambiguation links, as indicated by the above notifications raises a WP:COMPETENCE issue; at the moment, you are Wikipedia's single biggest source of disambiguation links needing to be fixed. Please fix the links you have created accordingly. There's a "fix with Dab solver" link next to every instance that will help you to do this quickly and efficiently (you can skip the links to Postmaster General, as I have already taken care of those). Cheers! bd2412T04:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you got any proof for this?
On a side note I think that you are confusing the creation of articles with the completion of articles. If a large number of DAB links were being created in existing articles (as in the single article above) then that would be bad. If however DAB links were being created in newly created articles, this would be preferable to articles with no links. Similarly it's better to have stub articles rather than no articles (which I think is he root of your objection).
Large numbers of disambiguation links being created anywhere is a bad thing, because someone is going to have to go fix those - and since the person creating an article is the one most likely to know which subject on the disambiguation page is being referred to, any later fixer is more likely to mistakenly point the link to the wrong subject. Since these are, as you point out, stubs, it would be very, very easy for you to check the links leading to common human names and make sure that they point to the right subject. Otherwise, the readers of your stubs are going to get confused when they seek more information on those subjects. (Also, re: proof, here's the dab dashboard for the past week; I should have said the biggest source of new disambiguation links needing to be fixed). bd2412T14:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
