User talk:Mmberney

Welcome!

Hello, Mmberney, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Environment

You may want to join WikiProject Environment. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 7 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carbuncle Awards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carbuncle Awards 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbuncle Awards 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. The Banner talk 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mmberney. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mmberney. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mmberney. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Storm Barra Started

Hello. I am letting editors who worked on 2021–22 European windstorm season#Storm Barra that I started Draft:Storm Barra as it is expected to impact people, (and not a fish storm), it could gain enough notability to have its own article. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone created the article (ignoring the draft), see Storm Barra. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx 4 help

DYK for Preet Chandi

On 24 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Preet Chandi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Preet Chandi, the first known woman of colour to walk solo to the South Pole, contacted friends to be bridesmaids during her expedition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Preet Chandi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Preet Chandi), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GM Ringway (November 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Compusolus was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
More reliable sources would be useful.
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.
Compusolus (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Mmberney! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Compusolus (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, Compusolus. Hopefully the additional citations from verifiable sources will be acceptable now. Mmberney (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GM Ringway (January 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
Not yet notable, sto;; in early planning stage
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.
DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Mark's, present or past tense?

Hi, I'm seeking debate on the above at Talk:St Mark's, Hamilton Terrace#2023 fire: Is the church no longer a church?.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GM Ringway

As a note, the comments seem to boil down to "It isn't notable *yet*, it is likely that one day it will be". That puts it in better shape than 90%+ of the proposed articles which come through AFC. Any idea when the first move from planning to actual signage or construction will be?Naraht (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your message Naraht, it's good to know that the article is considered in an 'ok' state at the moment. From what I can source, the proposed route is already navigable via Plotaroute, but "Greater Manchester Walking", the organisation awarded the funding, will fully establish the route and install on-the-ground signposting over the next two years. Source: GM Walking. So I guess it'll be a case of keeping an eye out for further updates, just not sure at what point the route will no longer be considered at 'planning stage'. Mmberney (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Any chance of newspaper coverage of a "groundbreaking" or something indicating that one of the sections is "open". (The money has to be used for *something*. :) Also, what other similar trails exist in the UK. Part of what me *lean* toward it isn't ready is that the entire GM Walking page is in the future tense. But *please* keep updating it and reach out to me when things change somewhat. While pages are generally dealt with randomly, once you get someone who has actually investigated, going to them isn't wrong. :)Naraht (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Naraht, hope you're well. It's been a few months but I've been periodically adding information and have just expanded the History section with a report about a local council leader having fully completed the route. Would you say that there's suitable evidence now to show that the walking path is publicly open and the article can join mainspace? Many thanks in advance. Mmberney (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and submit, I'll approve it when I get back to my computer. After it gets moved, there are categories that should be added based on those in Capital Ring, though some will be different based on where it is in the UK.Naraht (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Anchorage Gateway is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this, BoyTheKingCanDance! Mmberney (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

161 Maiden Lane

Thank you for your recent edits to this page; I really appreciate them. I edit-conflicted with you while trying to add information to the page, so I apologize if I forgot to restore some of the changes you made in this edit.

Additionally, I am planning to nominate this article for WP:DYK within the next day or so. Would you be fine with me crediting you as a co-nominator? – Epicgenius (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary - you've massively improved the article from when I first edited it (and that was only a couple of suggested sections and a bit more background info). I like to go back to articles and see how they've 'evolved'. More than happy to be a co-nominator; I must admit I didn't know there was such a thing, as I'm still learning a lot about the wider editing process. Many thanks for reaching out. Mmberney (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, hope you're well. I just circled back to the article and was a tad embarrassed to read that it was a couple of my previous additions that held up the DYK nomination (consider that a lesson learnt to make sure not to paraphrase!). I gave the article another read through and slightly tweaked it here and there - see what you think. Hopefully it'll be a DYK feature soon :) Mmberney (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmberney, thanks for the heads-up. It's all good - I fixed the close-paraphrasing issue last week, and your most recent changes look good. Everything should be good on that front. As for the DYK, there is currently a backlog of approved DYKs, so it may take a week or two before this article appears on the main page. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 161 Maiden Lane

On 9 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 161 Maiden Lane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the developers of 161 Maiden Lane offered luxury yachts to attract tenants? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/161 Maiden Lane. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 161 Maiden Lane), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, Mmberney, thank you for cleaning up my article on Gabriele Evertz. I do have one question: I thought, the English wikipedia does want me to name not only "New York" but be more specific. Was that wrong? Do i not have to give the federal states of the US as well? Kind regards, and again thank you! Naomi Hennig (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naomi Hennig, that's no problem at all - Gabriele Evertz is an interesting artist I'd not heard of before, so thank you for creating it! To answer your query, as you had provided links for the specific locations within New York state, for example, "Greenport, Suffolk County", you wouldn't need to provide the link to the state of New York as well.
The same goes for cities within countries. As the latter are the names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar, you'd only need to provide links to the former (e.g. Berlin, Germany). Provide a link to the first time a city is mentioned in the article and then don't link repeats of the same locations. I found this page quite helpful when creating and editing articles, as it advises on what to link to or not: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Happy editing :) Mmberney (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, dear Mmberney, thank you very much for the explanation and the wonderful link!!! Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Jackie Siegel

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jackie Siegel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Hall

Hallo, Lancaster Golf Club is bolded as the target of an incoming redirect - see MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. "13th-century" has a hyphen when it's an adjective, but not when it's a noun: so "13th-century building demolished in 14th century". See MOS:CENTURY. Thanks. PamD 08:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PamD, thanks for your message. I'd previously seen so many articles where there was no apparent consistency when it came to hyphen usage, it's helpful to know how they should be used. I'll bear this in mind for my future editing. Many thanks. Mmberney (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to explain and teach. I see you found the one I missed! PamD 13:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD Shouldn't that hyphen in the infobox be deleted as it's a noun? Mmberney (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaargh, yes, of course - I think I hit ",rollback" when aiming for "Thank"! So sorry about that. PamD 05:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GM Ringway (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I think this is still not yet notable as "too soon" - it's only just opened last month. What we have here is significant coverage but it's the same kind of local coverage you'd get about mostly any public project, not all of which are notable. Give it more time?
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.
asilvering (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GM Ringway has been accepted

GM Ringway, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Naraht (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected access block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mmberney (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 208.127.45.90

Decline reason:

That IP address belongs to Global Protect Cloud VPN. Please disable your VPN and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla - I'm unable to disable the VPN as it's needed so I can work from home for my job. Are you saying VPN access will prevent the ability to edit Wikipedia from now on (which is strange, as I had no issues until today), or that I need to temporarily disable the VPN so that the block will clear, and I can continue with the VPN switched on and still have access? I don't understand why this has only just happened, you see. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmberney (talk • contribs)

As a general rule, you need to edit with the VPN switched off. So, the VPN will prevent your ability to edit Wikipedia. As to why it hasn't happened before, most likely Wikipedia simply hadn't noticed the IP address you were using was a VPN. VPNs tend to use hundreds or thousands of IP addresses. --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla - Thanks for taking the time to explain why this has happened. I would have thought that having a registered user account associated with all the edits that have been / will be made would have been sufficient, but clearly not. --Mmberney

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Mmberney. Thank you for your work on Square Gardens. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Mmberney. Thank you for your work on Bankside at Colliers Yard. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester buildings

A note of appreciation for your updating/improving some of this Manchester listed building articles I created quite a long time ago. I was rather slapdash then, and on a drive to complete the Grade II* listed list. Glad that someone is having another look at them. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, KJP1, it seems to have become a bit of a 'labour of love' recently and I've enjoyed finding out more about their histories whilst I've been updating :) Best to you, as well. Mmberney (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Hall

Hallo, after this edit there are red error messages about refs invoked but not defined: could you have another look? Thanks. PamD 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the inadvertent deletion of a ">" was the cause of the error - sorted now, thanks PamD. Mmberney (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Turkish baths

Hi Mmberney, Thank you for helping to remove some of the errors in this first part of the new article on Victorian Turkish baths. I am most grateful for your proofreading, and for your time taken in correcting the "s, hyphens, and extra spaces my keyboard seems to regularly add at the end of my draft lines. I am especially grateful to you for checking the bibliographical references because though I am a retired librarian, I am used to the AACR rules and not Wiki's rules. Some notes on your changes: 1. Thank you for your correction of title of the Baths and Washhouses Act & Newcastle upon Tyne (my carelessness).

2. In general, however, I have removed most of your wikilinks which distract during the reading process, do not usually relate to further knowledge about the subject of the article, and, I believe, should not aim to be a general index to the encyclopaedia nor a national gazeteer.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis

At least one of them has not linked to an article important to the subject, but to a sentence in a much broader article.

3. I've removed my own wikilink on 'Hydropathic establishments' because the bracketed (hydros) explains what I mean. A more appropriate link to hydropathy follows later, and would be barred as a repeated link if the first one was retained.

4. I've left your first 'hammams' link (Terminology para2) although I understood that such links are not used when the subject appears in the main 'See also:' references at the end.

5. If I use a phrase which seems convoluted, eg, the London Borough of Camberwell’s Old Kent Road baths I do so advisedly; Camberwell's Old Kent Road baths does not mean the same. The wording could have been improved, and I hope I have now done so, but I understood that it was normal to discuss such changes before making them.

6. Newcastle Infirmary—different (successor) hospital and dates.

7. Forgive my saying so, but a link to Proselytism in the context of this article is, in my opinion, totally irrelevant.

8. I doubt the Co-operative Society would be delighted with your removal of their upper case C!

I am a wiki novice with no other ambition than to leave behind the nucleus of an accurate article on a single subject, in as clear a manner as I can. I have to admit, however, that at the age of 89 I have little patience for long convoluted arguments. In any event, at the moment, anyone searching Wikipedia for 'Turkish baths' is redirected to the article on 'Hammam' (a completely diffferent subject with almost no connection to it) so unless this redirect is changed to the Turkish bath (Disambiguation) page very few people will ever reach it, and I will probably not waste any more time on it. Hammam and Victorian Turkish bath are not synonyms; a search for Turkish bath should redirect straight to the disambiguation page to give searchers a simple choice of as to which of the two articles, or possibly both of the articles, they wish to read. It has been suggested that this completely logical action should only be performed after a lengthy consensus-seeking discussion. We should all live so long!

Thank you again, Mmberney, for your help. Ishpoloni (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishpoloni, thank you for taking the time to message as comprehensively as you have done - it was a very interesting article to read through, which is why proofreading is such an interest of mine (on Wikipedia as well as off of it) as I get the opportunity to learn more about topics I'd not heard much or anything about previously. Please be assured that all of the edits were made in good faith, and given the length of, and level of detail within, the article (thanks to your obvious knowledge and research on the subject) I took the position of "a fresh pair of eyes" on this occasion. So for instance, words used such as "proselytiser" which I (and I'm sure many readers) wouldn't know what it meant without searching elsewhere online, was the reason for the wikilink. Granted, the links to the various towns and cities mentioned in the article may not be all warranted, but when articles are created we also need to consider the audience - can we expect someone to read dozens of paragraphs of 'plain' text with no links to elsewhere within the encyclopedia and not want to quickly link to something they may not have heard of previously before coming back to carry on reading?
To respond on two of your comments:
4. Given the length of the article, not linking to a new term (for most readers) and only providing a 'See also' link right at the end is not likely to help comprehension.
8. It's been my understanding that capitalisation of the organisation occurs in the first instance or when it is being directly mentioned by name, but when it's referred to in a sentence as something such as "the co-operative", it remains in lower case.
It's taken me quite some time to get to this position, but I try and keep Wikipedia:BOLD in mind when editing articles and when I'm not feeling that it's particularly 'controversial' to do so. That being said, I won't be reverting any changes you've made as we've both informed each other of our reasonings.
As an aside, I did hope that the Victorian-style Turkish baths nearest to where I live (Victoria Baths in Manchester, opened 1906) may get a mention somewhere in the article :) All the best. Mmberney (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Mmberney, Many thanks for your kind words and for your understanding of my approach. This is what makes for mutual respect and trust. I never doubted that your edits were not made in good faith and it is so easy to get too close to what we're involved in that "a fresh pair of eyes" is always welcome.
I clearly misunderstood your reason for the 'proselytiser' link; the answer is simply to reword the sentences using a different word, which I have now done.
I'm perfectly happy with the Hammam link; it is needed. I simply thought it wasn't allowed. And I take your more general point about the need for links in order to break up the text a bit. But I've so far preferred to use images every couple of paras to try to do that, and have to date added about 80 which were not previously on Commons, in order to re-engage the wandering mind.
I will, within the next few days, go through the article again to see if I can add some more relevant links. I was fine with the important 'Finnish sauna' and was going to add one to 'Steam rooms' (ie, Steam bath) till I looked at it. "For other uses, see Water bath " ??? Then when I got to the 2nd para of the History section I became increasingly frustrated by all the irrelevant links, until reaching the last two which might have been helpful. 'Public bath' led to 'Bathing' and 'Public bathing'. As a newbie, I ask, how does one find out if there is a group able to take the whole area of human bathing and structure it with effective 'See:' and 'See also:' references and put 'Disambiguation' into the same dustbin as proselytising!
The amazingly successful Wikipedia, brought together with its articles maintained by this fantastic group of dedicated individuals, has taken advantage of the computer-offered opportunities of linking, adding images, audios, and videos so as to outclass, in some ways, the traditional encyclopaedia. But something seriously needs to be done, in my view, with its non-apparent structure, and its chaotic referencing and diverting systems. Please excuse the rant which aims to be a positive one.
I was completely wrong about the Rochdale baths, and have reverted to your lower-case 'c'. The baths were not, of course, owned by a Co-op but run co-operatively according to the Rochdale Principles.
As for your Manchester 'aside', it was far more than that because it signalled that the end section of 'The VTb today' had a missing sub-section—one noting those closed baths which now have well-organised groups working towards re-opening them. In addition to the Victoria Baths, there are groups in Carlisle and Glasgow working towards the same ends, and the Newcastle upon Tyne women's group was actually successful, so it can be done. I'll add this to the remaining pieces to be written.
As an ex-Liverpudlian, I've always had a soft spot for the Manchester baths since the time they won the first BBC Restoration award. Soon afterwards I helped the late, and very much missed, Gill Wright, to produce a leaflet for the baths about their Turkish baths. All the best. Ishpoloni (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections to Victorian Turkish baths

Hi, Thank you again, Mmberney, for your help. I wonder if it would save time for both of us if you let me know which errors you intend to correct beforehand. I've already said how grateful I am for the correct key between inclusive date (which my keyboard doesn't seem to have), and I'm delighted that someone has the time to correct them for me.

However, when I use emphases or ampersands there is usually a reason, and I try always to write exactly what I intend to convey. There are always errors, of course, and I am grateful to have them pointed out. But with advance notice I can explain, or even use alterantive phrases which are less obectionable. Best wishes, as always, Ishpoloni (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, it should be 'alternative' and 'objectionable'! Why doesn't wikipedia have a spell-check? Or perhaps it does and I haven't found it. Ishpoloni (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishpoloni, good to hear from you; it'd been quite a while since I'd last seen the article so came back to have a look at it now and it's so comprehensive! I would say, having created a few articles myself now, with the utmost respect, that it can at times seem difficult to realise that they are not "our" articles just because we created them. Contacting the original author to detail what amendments you intend to make isn't what happens on Wikipedia (at least, I'm not aware of this ever taking place); the vast majority of changes are made with the intention to improve the article's readability, accuracy or structure, of course. When we spend so much time developing a particular subject matter, we can perhaps feel a tad defensive about any changes made to it. Just something to bear in mind (I've been in a similar situation myself).
The use of the ampersand in articles (when not part of a company's name, for example) is typically informal, and so tends to stick out like a sore thumb in certain circumstances, that's why some were changed in this instance. Similarly when you added bold text to gallery images - if you look at other articles with galleries you'll see that the images don't have titles in bold, regardless of the information beneath them.
I'm not sure what you meant by your last sentence regarding 'alternative' and 'objectionable' - those were not words I edited; perhaps that was an earlier change from someone else? All the best. Mmberney (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mmberney, thank you for your good-natured gentle reply. I was not feeling defensive, but have on occasion consulted with those I know to have been involved with a page before making a change, and then refrained from doing so, and I have also been asked for my views in similar circumstances—though rarely, I admit.
I would not knowingly use an ampersand in the text, but in a caption I try also to consider the appearance of the page. So if one pic has a two-line caption which can be simply shortened to match a single line caption aligned with it, I see no harm, and rules, if they exist, should not get in the way unnecessarily. Similarly, I found it essential to separate the location (so that it can easily be searched for on Wikipedia or elsewhere) from the description and I see no other way of doing so in a caption. I don't know if this is another rule, but clarity should be the over-riding factor to be consdered in anything written for someone else.
Again, I do not consider the article to be mine, and once I've completed the sections outlined in the article's talk page, I shall retire from fussing over it, and others can continue to update and correct it. At the moment I'm resting until the redirect problem is sorted. There's no point in adding to the page if everyone is directed away from it to Hammam. However, this is under discussion, and we are currently waiting for consensus—though I'm too new to know how and when this is reached. I have been well advised to be patient, and that is what I'm being.
The 'alternative' and 'objectionable' was a joke at my own expense since in my self-righteous indicatiion that 'I try always to write exactly what I intend to convey', I actually made two spelling mistakes. All the best. Ishpoloni (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guillaume Gouix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Behind the Walls. 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) 18:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]