Since you do music engraving, I thought I'd mention that you can set the audio to different voices; some sound much better with some pieces. See the end of the markup of Tochter Zion, freue dich for examples. Apologies if you already know this. HLHJ (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had tried the score in Cwm Rhondda with "church organ" (here). I changed it back to the default piano because the harmony was clearer, and the harmony is discussed in the article. But the organ sounds more like a Welsh chapel. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few dozen sounds listed in the Lilypond docs, including five organs. Some of the other sounds seem less appropriate for hymns, though (like helicopter and applause sounds). HLHJ (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tochter Zion
I think a French hymn would rather belong on a Handel's work page where it comes from, no? ... and where a redirect from the French title should go. In the German, it seemss rather "other things do exist". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for this edit was to introduce a link to Thine Be the Glory, which is a very well-known hymn with which many readers will be familiar, at least in Britain. Its article says that it might be based on Tochter Zion, but the sourcing is very flimsy. Readers might recognise the tune but not remember where they have heard it before; many (or most) readers are more likely to know Thine be the Glory than Judas Maccabaeus. À toi la gloire currently redirects to Thine be the Glory; I think this is best as it is the same hymn in another language. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free media, persistent uploader
Do you think the persistent upload problem on Frank Loesser is a Wikimedia Commons issue, or one for the uploader's Talk page here, or both? Also, any sense whether the most recent image would qualify as fair use if uploaded to en.wikipedia? It may be a moot point, as the uploader doesn't communicate. Barte (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barte: I think this is mainly a Commons issue, as that is where the questionable images are hosted. I have added notes both user talk pages without getting a reply.
Thanks for your thoughts and the links. Assuming the current image doesn't survive, maybe I'll try uploading to en.Wikipedia this one along with a fair use rationale. The photo was taken by the AP in 1956 and includes his then wife Lynn. She's mentioned several times in the article. Barte (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. He's a scripture scholar, preacher well known in Nigeria. Sources: 1, 2
2. That 'picture' appears to be a screenshot of a broadcast used without permission it's taken from YouTube
Thank you for your note.
Your first source only say that Freeze says that he is a scripture scholar and preacher, not that anyone else does. This is not enough for us. The second source is the website of an online church that claims that he is their convener. This could be fraudulent, and we need an independent source. However, I have found independent sources that confirm his connection with this online church.[1][2] I am not an expert on identifying reliable Nigerian websites, but if these websites are acceptably reliable then you could add a paragraph based on them. Otherwise I might do so when I have time.
Thank you for identifying the picture as a copyright violation. When you find these please nominate the files for deletion; I have done this and the file has already been deleted by an administrator. The Wikipedia article should be automatically cleaned up shortly.
I haven't been using Wikipedia [HTML] editing for a long time. The Things I redid are from personal knowledge which I don't have web addresses for. Can you convert UTC to BST please as I am Welsh. Thank You For Addressing the problem. ShwmaePawb1 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ShwmaePawb1: you should not add things to Wikipedia that are based only on your personal knowledge, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. However, often if you search online you can find a reliable source to support what you believe to be true. For articles on places in South Wales you may find a relevant article in Wales Online[3], which appears to mainly consist of articles from the Western Mail, or something on a local government website such as https://www.npt.gov.uk/.
UTC is essentially the same as GMT, in winter UTC is the same as the local time in Wales and in the summer it is one hour different. I am writing this at just after nine in the morning (in England, as I am a Welsh exile). Verbcatcher (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
when I said personal knowledge, I don't have a clue what websites some things are on and it is quite hard to find out with *COVID-19* ShwmaePawb1 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on Neel Madhav article a bit, including removing peacock words and weasel words. Sourced much of the material (in some cases, first-party), and moved the citations around to make sure they supported the text accurately.
I'm now moving to propose removal of the BLP sources tag. I need your consent on that since you've been involved lately with the article.
@Sirjohnperrot:, I'm not sure how you got to your Google search link. In Google Images you need to click on 'Tools' then on 'Usage rights', and then 'Labelled for reuse with modification'. This got me here. Even then you should not rely on Google to identify free images, but perform some basic checks including a Google Image Search for the image that you are thinking of uploading. For example, if the image was used in a newspaper article that is dated earlier than its upload to Flickr, then a free licence on Flickr is probably invalid. You also erred by indicating yourself as the author when you uploaded the images to Commons, the author is the photographer of the original image. Also, you assigned a license to the images without any clear rationale: if you are not the copyright owner then you must not assign a licence an image, you should only copy the licence that is shown in the source of the image. Please read c:Commons:Licensing. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation that's very helpful The information supplied by me was clearly an error, I thought I was taking responsobility for any copyright issues and was not trying to pass them off as my own work - sorry about that. I've only uploaded a handful of images and made the same mistake with all of them. I've contacted the copyright holder for the 2 Dylan Thomas images deleted from his article asking for permission to use them in Wikipedia. The parish map on the Laugharne talk page was uploaded by me on to Wikitree and before that was my photo of an endpaper in a public domain book. If I get the necessary permissions for the Thomas images (which I've just found out are all online in the National Portrait Gallery) I'll put them back for the reasons given on the Talk Page.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirjohnperrot: it is not sufficient for the copyright holder to give "permission to use them in Wikipedia", he or she must release them under a free licence that allows anyone to use them, even commercially, see c:Commons:Licensing. With these images it will be necessary for the copyright holder to email the ORTS system to establish his or her identity, and that he or she is the copyright holder, and the license that he or she is applying to the images. I hope that you can achieve this as these are valuable images, but if these are in the NPG I fear that you are unlikely to succeed. Regarding the parish maps, please edit the Commons file pages to identify the book where the underlying maps came from (including the date of first publication). WorldCat is useful for tracing old books. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher:That seems a heavy burden to place on the copyright holder tbh but we'll see what the reaction is to my request, I suspect they have had similar ones. It's a puzzle to me why both the ones you deleted could not be used on the same basis as the current image if described in the same way - as below
(I was wrong about the NPG btw their image is very slightly different ones from the one I uploaded.)
Licensing
This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the imageor the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.
Please remember that the non-free content criteriarequire that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).
Fair use//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Verbcatcher
true
If this tag does not accurately describe this image, please replace it with an appropriate one.
@Sirjohnperrot: the current picture of Dylan in the article is a non-free image, and is hosted on English Wikipedia as opposed to Wikimedia Commons. There are severe restrictions on the use of non-free images on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. (This is why your addition of the image to this page was automatically removed by a bot.) The non-free image policy demands minimal usage, which restricts us to using only one non-free image in Dylan Thomas. For the reasons why images are required to allow commercial reuse see c:Commons:Licensing/Justifications. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits in the Notable Residents section are all either factually inaccurate or simply opinions contrary to the consensus already achieved in the closed Talkpage Discussion on the subject. Where, for example, have you acquired the strange notion that Sir John Perrot ( please see this article by Andrew Green) and his two sons were not Laugharne residents? All three are plainly recorded as such in their respective articles as was made clear in the debate - which should not have been re-opened on the basis of your unverifiable assertions. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared that the discussion at Talk:Laugharne#Notable Laugharne Resident : Sir John Perrot had dried up without reaching full consensus. I could see that there was some dispute about the Perrots so I posted a proposal on the talk page before making my edit. There was a response from Snowded that I interpreted as support for my proposal. After a few days there were no more responses so I removed the three names.
I then made several other edits to the Notable people section including adding their dates and sorting them alphabetically. Do you have a problem with these changes? If not why did you revert them?
What were my 'unverifiable assertions'? My edit summaries were:
remove James Perrot, neither this article nor his article mention any connection, see Talk#Reopening the discussion
remove John Perrot and Thomas Perrot, neither this article nor their articles indicate that they were more than absentee landlords. Expand their articles if you have sources. See Talk#Reopening the discussion
These assertions were correct.
I was not asserting that Sir John Perrot and his sons were not Laugharne residents, merely that this was not mentioned in their Wikipedia articles nor in the Laugharne article. This is easily verifiable.
I made some changes and said why on the talk page. But Sirjohnperrot should pay attention to your comments on confrontational attitude. I experienced the same but made allowances for the Newbe status, but that period is now over. -----SnowdedTALK05:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead
I am sorry that you are upset with what I wrote at Talk:Laugharne. Meanwhile, I was writing a constructive reply to your note here, which follows:
It is good to have the Andrew Thrush's 2010 biog of Sir James P. I have added it to Laugharne. One of us should add it to James Perrot, and ideally update that article based on it. It is a pity that there is not a link from the older HoP biography to the newer; you could suggest this to them.
I suggest you give them a link to the Dyfed Archaeological Trust page on Pendine and Llanmiloe[4] (along with any other sources you may have). That page references 'Lloyd 1986, 56', which they expand to 'Lloyd, T, 1986 The Lost Houses of Wales, London'[5]. This is ISBN9780905978222.
In the absence of any apology for your traduction I have raised the matter in Oversight as below
"I am inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the situation can be remedied."
My comments about your citation of a web page that you appeared to have created were made in the light of your other unsatisfactory citations that I had recently worked on. These include:
'Perrot Society Journal" appears to be a grandiose name for what appears to be a self-published family newsletter that was posted to an archive.org account that you have acknowledged that you control. The source does not include the word 'Journal'.
This was a user contribution to a website. It was not made by Andy Burnham.
I had asked you give more complete citations; while I am not alleging that these citations were not intended to deceive, it was reasonable to draw your attention to another citation that appeared to be misleading.
shortening the quote in a vain attempt to support your case is disappointing and disingenuous.
you clearly manipulated the quotation in order to support an inaccurate contention.
Also in Talk:Laugharne, Snowded referred to "Your constant accusations of vandalism" and later wrote "You are again resorting to personal attacks rather than engaging in the discussion".
"your transparently irrational grounds for preventing legitimate editing"
"if you had a shred of integrity you would report yourself and undertake to desist from future puerile behaviour"
Also consider your edit summaries:
00:43, 1 July 2020 diff hist -15 Laugharne Undid revision 965322876 by Verbcatcher (talk) As per talk page - inconsistent with other entries + unjustified departure from previous consensus with no justification - clear disruptive edit Tag: Undo
00:32, 1 July 2020 diff hist +7,161 Talk:Laugharne →Perrot: Disruptive edit reversion + reply from HoP to earlier query as reported
18:51, 30 June 2020 diff hist -3,743 User talk:Verbcatcher →Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead: Deleted after breach of confidence
11:29, 25 June 2020 diff hist +1 m Laugharne Restoring section alignment for the third time after reversions by this user - who is either unaware of the consequence of his edits in this respeect or thinks they don't *12:46, 1 June 2020 diff hist +118 Thomas Perrot Undid revision 959942299 by Snowded (talk)persistent vandalism by this user Tag: Undo
12:43, 1 June 2020 diff hist +21 Laugharne Undid revision 960138848 by Snowded (talk)Vandalism there is no good reason for these repeated deletions by this users Tag: Undo
12:41, 1 June 2020 diff hist 0 Laugharne Undid revision 960138883 by Snowded (talk This edit is undone because of vandaism, there is no good reason for it. Tag: Undo
It seems you are not content with your previous offensive remarks but now wish to add further insults.
The P*rr*tt Society Quarterly Journal "Family Notes", which you seek to demean with your sneering description as 'grandiose' has been published continuously since 1984. Throughout that 36 year period it has been registered with the Guild of One-Name Genealogical Societies and includes among its worldwide membership many distinguished academics who contribute regularly in its pages. You would do well to remember Wikipedia is also user-generated (without a printed version.)
your attribution to me of this citation *Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018. is entirely mistaken.
your description of the insinuations I took action about is patently untrue as anyone can read on the Talkpage
my comments about you chopping up quotations in order to mislead were accurate and restrained.
my remarks to Snowded are taken out of context and were from the final stages of testing and unproductive exchanges which reciprocated his tone.
your other examples of the other iniquities mostly relate to my first faltering steps on the platform when I simply didn't understand the reasons given for repeated deletions and warnings.
These further attempts to justify your inexcusable conduct through smears and self-serving evasion are revealing but not surprising
Snowded: Think I've heard something similar from you before - no doubt a willing volunteer to swing the axe eh? I wondered when you'd show up again on here. Another one happy to resort to baseless personal accusations when losing an argument, it's pretty sad to be honest. I hope Oversight have a look at your track record over the past couple of weeks too. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are no longer a newbe editor and you have been warned about constant failure to comply with policy on personal attacks. After the last batch of this I (and others) went to some lengths to achieve a compromise but your response has been to fall back to your old ways. If you can't abide by community rules then your behaviour will be raised and I suspect a topic ban is the least you can expect if that happens -----SnowdedTALK03:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher: So your malicious imputations of dishonesty about my Francis Jones reference [1] were based solely on your view of a citation to this respected and reliable published source which I was unaware did not meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria when it was made. Nothing at all to do with it replacing your own flawed citations [2][3] and removing the contentious quotes within them which spuriously supported your disruptive edit of the NR entry description? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Jones, Francis (1997). "Westmead, Laugharne". Historic Carmarthenshire Homes & Their Families. Brawdy Books. p. 196. ISBN0952834413. "In the latter part of the sixteenth century, the property was owned by Sir John Perrot, who by a deed dated 29 May 1584 settled certain properties on his 'reputed son' James Perrot 'late of Westmede in the County of Carmarthen'
^Thrush, Andrew (2010). "PERROT, Sir James (c.1572-1637), of Haroldston, Pemb.". In Thrush, Andrew; Ferris, John P. (eds.). The House of Commons, 1604-1629. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-1107002258. Probably born in Munster, James may have spent much of his boyhood at Westmead, near Pendine in Carmarthenshire Accessed via "PERROT, Sir James (c.1572-1637), of Haroldston, Pemb". The History of Parliament. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
^"Pendine and Llanmiloe". Dyfed Archaeological Trust. Retrieved 30 June 2020. At Llanmiloe to the east stood Westmead Mansion in its grounds, and Llanmiloe House (Laugharne Parish tithe map).
@Sirjohnperrot:You should assume that in each talk page posting and edit summary I mean what I say, and that I do not have a hidden agenda. I am unclear why you consider my citations to be flawed or contentious. The quotes are directly from the sources and do not misrepresent what they say.
I did not intend to disparage The P*rr*tt Society, of which I was unaware. Its journal appears to be called 'Family Notes'; citing it as the 'Perrot Society Journal' and not mentioning its publisher was unhelpful and made it very difficult for others to follow it up. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"@Sirjohnperrot: there are several issues with the citation you added today.
The archive.org page that you link to was created today by the archive.org member "Perrott Family of Wales". Are you responsible for this upload? If so it would raise the suspicion that you might have created the page for the purpose of citing it here, and to make the source appear more authoritative. I am not questioning the accuracy of the quote.
[...]
It is unclear whether the title of the archive.org page 'WESTMEAD, Laugharne' is from Jones' book or if this was added by the uploader."
In short what you say is that you suspect I have fabricated a reference - which is a disgraceful allegation for which you have not yet apologised. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirjohnperrot: I said "it would raise the suspicion that". This is not an accusation. You may think this is sophistry, but words are important and you should consider what I said, not what you think I meant. I said that I was not questioning the accuracy of the quote. It was not clear whether the mention of Laugharne on the archive.org was from Jones' book because it was not within the attributed quote. On reflection, the phrase to make the source appear more authoritative might be seen as provocative, but at that point you had not acknowledged that you had created the page. Creating a page on another site for the purpose of citing it in Wikipedia is not appropriate and gave rise to reasonable suspicions, particularly as you had not declared that this is what you had done. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: You are right, it is sophistry to suggest your remarks were not a clear accusation of wrongdoing. Actually even Protagoras would struggle to conceal that connotation. As it happens I created the page for use in my correspondence educating Dr Thrush but there are several other citations in Wikipedia from the 'Perrot Family of Wales.org' pages which have existed for many years. I'm sure you'll now have great fun tracking them down and gleefully describing their contents as self-published - which of course they are, but only in replica form. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brenda Chamberlain (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Petts.
Good eye! The problem was a typo, as heat capacity is a physical property and if interpreted physically, as opposed to consequentially, which is how I read the cited reference and how I believe the authors intended, it would have the effect you pointed out. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant!! I had initially considered that section as an option but then, at the last miniute, decided for the other spot -- plus you have worded it even better than I. Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Commons query
Can I upload this picture (of a former MP) to Wikimedia
@Littlemonday:, this image looks ok for Commons. My reasoning is:
The CC BY 2.0 license is listed as acceptable at c:Commons:Licensing. The license text is linked from the "Some rights reserved" link on the Flickr page.
This does not look like license laundering. The image was uploaded to Flickr by the 'NHS Confederation' Flickr account, however we need to be confident that this is an authentic account controlled by the NHS Confederation. This could be confirmed be a link to the Flickr account on the Confederation's website, but I can't see one. In this case the other images uploaded by the Flickr account make it reasonable to conclude that the account is authentic.
It is reasonable to conclude either that the NHS Confederation owns the copyright or that they have established that the photographer has applied this license. This is reasonable because the Confederation appears to be a reliable organisation and the photograph was taken at one of their events.
The image is within 'scope' because it is an image of someone with a Wikipedia article, so it is 'educational'.
I recommend using the Flickr2Commons tool. As well as being faster, this checks the Flickr license and checks for blacklisted Flickr accounts. If you upload a Flickr image manually then please use the {{flickrreview}} tag to request that the Flickr license is officially recorded, in case the file on Flickr is deleted or its licence is changed. This review is usually done automatically by a bot.
Thank you Verbcatcher application of changed name which would explain some edits and application in past. hope this will resolve. please undo the deletion requests if possible as these are correct and honest ownership and uploading in subject context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devfirewiki (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher yes, was relieving to see that. there is one more to grant. There was one image that got removed which I have contested as it is the only known photo of the artist very first show, I was sent the image by the photographer back in 2010/2011 which was used on a VH1 website. but is now nowhere to be seen. can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.246.188 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
It's very much a commonplace to link the Welsh language at the start of articles where both English and Welsh language names feature - why would you not wish to do so as regards List of waterfalls of Wales? I'd expect that someone landing on this page unfamiliar with Welsh would be interested to follow the link. Geopersona (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was following MOS:OVERLINK which says "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: [...] languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)". The Welsh language does not qualify in the list of criteria in MOS:UNDERLINK. We should not use links in the way that Amazon uses product recommendations. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've removed a lot of overlinks in my time too, though in marginal cases, there'll never quite be consensus as to what constitutes too much/not enough! Geopersona (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought that pontifical was the same as papal, but wikt:pontifical confirms what you say. I suspect 'episcopal' is more widely understood, perhaps from Anglican usage, so I prefer it here. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles on Welsh tin plate works (Treforest tinplate works)
In Glamorgan John Newman names some sites: There is an article for Pontardawe Tinplate Works, and if you are interested in creating more there is potential for articles on Gwalia Tinplate Works, Briton Ferry (Newman p.164 and Coflein 309216), and Beaufort Tinplate Works, Llansamlet. (Newman p.398-9, Cadw 11719 and Coflein 85028) EdwardUK (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EdwardUK: of those you mention I might go for Llansamlet as my grandfather was from there, but a section in the Llansamlet article is probably more appropriate than a specific article. There is scope for an article on the Welsh tinplate industry as a whole, if we can access the sources. The Llanelli article says it was "the global centre for tinplate production", this is probably covered in the 'Pevsner' for Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion (of which I don't have a copy). Verbcatcher (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some useful information available from books online, either in full (e.g. internet archive) or as search/preview sections (google books). It could also be worth posting a comment about it on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales. Some of the members are likely to have suggestions for, and better access to, important sources, and may be interested in helping with the article. EdwardUK (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Verbcatcher. I do hope you are well. I just spotted your edit here. I was wondering why you might have any doubts it was Christ Church Congregational Church in Oswestry? Here's a page about the church. (Might even warrant its own article?) Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: I'm well, I hope you are as well. I'm sure this was the church in which Walford sang, because there is a plaque on its wall that says so (next to File:Walford Davies plaque Oswestry.jpg). My doubt is whether it was called Christ Church when Walford sang there. The noticeboard outside the church says "Christ Church – United Reformed Church & Presbyterian Church of Wales" (I'm about to post a photo that shows this). The Congregational church article indicates that it is not a Presbyterian denomination, so the church has changed denomination since Walford was there. Its quite likely that the change of denomination was accompanied by a change of name. 'Christ Church' sounds more like a URC name than a Congregational Church name, and it may have been simply 'Oswestry Congregational Church'. My earlier wording implied that it had changed its name. This might be clarified in the Musical Times source, but it is paywalled. Do you have jstor access? The church is not named on the old OS maps available at the National Library of Scotland. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should have followed your link, which says it was opened as Christ Church. The photo confirms that it is the church that has the plaque to Walford. I will edit the Walford Davies article accordingly. Some editors would assess the chapel as 'non-notable', unless we can find good sources. It does not appear to be a listed building. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am also very well, thanks. I'd agree that many Congregational churches did not have any dedication name and that when they joined with the Presbyterian church, to become URC, they sometimes changed their name. Glad you looked at the link, which says this (from Cambrian News. 25 October 1872. page 7): "OPENING OF A NEW CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH - The opening of the new church which has been erected for the congregation recently worshipping in the Old Chapel, Oswestry, took place on Friday, October 18th. The new Congregational Church—which is to be called Christ Church—stands upon the site of the old Borough Gaol, between Arthur-street and Chapel-street, facing the Pitcher Bank..." I think that's pretty clear. Yes, seems it's not listed, so it probably just needs expanding a bit in the Oswestry article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is frustrating. Is there a better way of handling this? If I had left these edits would that have been mass-reverted by an admin? Verbcatcher (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Note that most of the WBO urls changed a couple of years ago; I've been updating them when I spot them but it could be a long job. Deb (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book also used to be sold on the Amazon India website (Amazon India ASIN: B08XXXMQP3), if you go to Amazon India website and see the photos of the book then you'll also see the same ISBN on the photo of the back of the hardcover copy. 42.107.84.5 (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I found at here, and I agree that the ISBN you give is on the back cover. I assume that the ISBN is missing from the database used by Wikipedia:Book sources. I can't find this book on the Amazon's US or UK websites, although they list other books by Victor Rangel-Ribeiro. Amazon gives the publication date as 1 January 2019, which seems to conflict with the 'book release video' on FaceBook, which is dated 21 January 2021.[6] Do you know if these dates are accurate? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Verbcatcher. We wouldn't use the template 'please check ISBN' for a book that is merely hard to find. The template was introduced years ago to designate ISBNs with a bad check digit. This is a valid ISBN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I removed Lostprophets because of the horrific crimes that Ian Watkins did to children and the bands’ legacy is forever destroyed because of it. FireDragonValo (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiff
I removed Lostprophets because of the horrific crimes that Ian Watkins did to children and the bands’ legacy is forever destroyed because of it. FireDragonValo (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I respect the fact that you are a long-time, constructive editor, but in your reversion of my edit you ignored the note at the top of the list, which says: "Such list (sic) are for items with articles on Wikipedia". Either a lot of material needs to be deleted from the article, or the note should go. See stand-alone list common selection criteria. where it states, re "all-notable" lists:
This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate lists; prevents individual list articles from becoming targets for spam and promotion;...,
and where it states, re "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group":
These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.
Nearly any list article is a potential "promo magnet" (sadly, in my experience). While the list is short, its entries without articles do not "enhance navigation", nor are they likely to be "interesting to readers" (my opinion).
It's fairly common for undeclared paid contributors to "count their chickens before they hatch" by seeding their article's subject throughout Wikipedia wherever they can find a plausible place to put it. If the list article isn't cleaned up, it needs to have the note "Such list (sic) are for items with articles on Wikipedia" removed, but with what justification? It's obvious that many of its entries were made while ignoring that note, but actual notability does matter. A list which contains non-article entries which most readers would find quite obscure isn't "interesting", nor is it navigable.
I realize that I'm splitting hairs here, but I hope you can follow my logic and respond to my points, either here or on the article's Talk page. Respectfully yours,--Quisqualis (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Quisqualis: thank you for your note. While I accept that an organisation's size is not proof of its notability, it is likely that lager hospitals will be notable, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability. I did not see the deleted article, but I would probably have favoured stubbing, to leave basic information on location, size and date of establishment. I do not want to encourage advertising or promotional articles, but we should not delete valid content solely on what we assume were the motivations of the editor who introduced it.
A list of hospitals in an area could be complete and would be reasonably short. In many places they would be listed in a medical directory.
Hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in the country/state list of hospitals and in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name.
Most lists of hospitals seem to include hospitals that do not have articles, for example:
Hello, and you ae correct that I was targeting that one entry. The connected contributor seemed to be trying to gain attention for his clients by whatever means, and I don't remember the entry being correctly formatted, either. I don't believe it helps his WP:UPE cause too much by leaving the entry alone, especially as you have pointed out that hospital list articles are prone to having such entries. I agree he should have written a stub, as should all UPEs. Quisqualis (talk) 21:19, 5 September 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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Breakthrough Party logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Breakthrough Party logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@Mjroots: Disambiguation pages are intended to help readers find useful content on a topic. I reverted your entry the linked Vorpostensicherungsboot to Picket boat, because the term was not mentioned there. It would not be helpful to link to 'German trawler V 305 Ostpreussen' or to 'German trawler V 314 Heinrich Lehnert', because they do not discuss the characteristics or role of a vorpostensicherungsboot, so they would be of little use to a reader seeking information on this.
We need is a concise (and sourced) description of vorpostensicherungsboot in a Wikipedia article somewhere, to which the disambiguation entry could link. The best place for this appears to be List of naval ship classes of Germany, or possibly List of Kriegsmarine ships. Vorpostenboote should also be described, and any other small naval craft. Are you in a position to do this?
You might get some information from German Wikipedia. de:Kriegsfischkutter appears to cover this, although I don't understand German. No sources are explicitly cited in the relevant section.
@Franz.wohlkoenig:, please take a closer look at your edit. As I indicated in my edit summary ('the archived webpage relates to teachers salaries in Missouri'), your edit was misconcieved and misleading.
The archived page is unrelated to the original page, and is unrelated to the article.
The title that you added applies to the archived page but is unrelated to the original page.
Red error messages in articles are undesirable, but misleading content is much worse. Clearly something went wrong on this occasion: either you did not take sufficient care or you used a tool did not work correctly.
I will do as you ask and add a title to the citation, although I did not add the citation originally.
Lastly, please sign your talk page contribution with four tildes (~~~~).
Hi Verbcatcher thought I'd drop by to let you know how much I appreciate your assistance with the Cwmgelli Cemetery article. Your edit summaries are informative. I've "upped my game" in this area because reasoning behind edit summaries can help prevent misunderstanding and create a better collaborative environment. Also, your edits re the area conversion template are helpful. I wasn't aware of the settings you utilised as not everything appears to come up when using the template in visual editing mode. Regards. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples: thank you for your kind remarks. I don't use the visual editor, partly because my experience of writing software makes me comfortable with text editing and markup. If I want to make a complex edit I sometimes copy the Wikipedia source text into a stand-alone text editor program (Notepad++) and make the edits there. You can see the full capabilities of the conversion template at Template:Convert. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello Verbcatcher!
The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
Hello! You recently tagged this entry for notability. You were concerned that there was a single source (the publishers website). I have made some improvements today; if you have a moment to remove them you might consider removing the the notability tag? Taibhseoir (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heyyy!!! I wanted to see if you can help take a look at this draft I submitted for review Draft:Trendupp Awards. I'm still looking at ways to make it better. However, I really believe it is ready to be published. Kindly help take a look if you can as this will also improve my editing as well. Thank you very much
Olakunle Rufai (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
