User talk:Steinsky

Note: This page is on Wikipedia, if you have been redirected from another project please mention that in your message.

… is what, exactly? 89.240.137.94 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Harbour has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sturminster Newton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorset Council.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bridport (ward), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sherborne Rural (ward), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Holwell and North Wootton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UKcountythumb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Ralston Kennedy Paterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any further explanation as to why you’ve removed the flags and arms? I can’t find any suggestion on a quick glance through of the attached guidance that they shouldn’t be included and it seems like an enormous oversight. I for one would like to see them quickly in the info box for reference and I’m sure I won’t be alone in that sentiment Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the How to write about counties guidance, under "English ceremonial counties" – "Do not include flags in the infobox, as they cannot be placed in context there." The guideline is the result of extensive historical discussion on the UK geography WikiProject, for example some of the more recent discussions include:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_31#Ceremonial_county_infoboxes
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_38#English_county_flags
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_39#Workshopping_Possible_RfC
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_41#Sub-national_geographic_flag_guideline

If you need further clarification, or want to relitigate the issue, I'd suggest raising it on the WikiProject talk pages - I am merely maintaining the current consensus position. Joe D (t) 12:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Old Vic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Charminster (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed the references to traditional counties at the article in the heading. On the rationale that these are an "obsolete geography". I have no problem with them being removed if they're felt unnecessarry, but its incorrect to refer to them as "obsolete"; the historic counties still exist, and are by far the most referred to geographic reference in academic circles. JoeyofScotia (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parkstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you reverted by change to the disambiguation page. There's a whole article about stem Christie to which I linked. On that page it explains the derivation of that word from Christiania. Jeisenberg (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• my change Jeisenberg (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I reverted it in the edit summary: following the policy explained at WP:PARTIAL, the disambiguation page lists items which people call "Christie" -- specifically Christie, and Christie alone, not a name that happens to have Christie somewhere in it. As WP:PARTIAL explains, disambiguation pages are navigation aids -- the purpose of the "Christie" disambiguation page is to help people who are looking for "Christie" to find the specific "Christie" that they are looking for, it is not an index of everything that happens to have that word somewhere in its name. Joe D (t) 20:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated 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) 12:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the update to Limpley Stoke to fetch the population from Wikidata. Does this mean the documentation of Template:Population WD should be updated? Under 'Usage' it says "Use of this template in infoboxes is not permitted". -- Wire723 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, good spot – I had in my head that issue had been addressed in that template some time ago, but either I'm thinking of a different one or the fix that I'm vaguely remembering didn't reach a conclusion. I'll swap it out later (or it could just be subst now, it has served its main purpose of fetching in the (definitely sourced – I did the Wikidata import!) 2021 data). Thanks, Joe D (t) 12:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been email alerted by a bot confirming you removed File:Not Much Matches Mansfield Beer.JPG and File:But he's never had a pint of Mansfield.JPG, in this 6 May change.

The images have been extant for 10+ years; the prose was added, uncited, in this July 2009 change closely followed by another July 2009 change.

I searched, sourced and uploaded the non-free images; the fact that they both exist acts as citations for the text. Luckily, I still monitor my email.

Obviously, I disagree with your edit summary, and your rationale is unclear - they are relevant (wp:imagerelevance), and were correctly sited (although this article has undergone many changes, including to layout) and are compliant with a FUR.

It would greatly assist if you could explain why you are so vehement? This sort of thing has happened in the past where editors invoke a 7-day bot, instead of raising discussions.

Lastly...I am obliged in another way, as I have immediately identified a persistent (new) sock/block evader which irks me, so I shall have to stick around a bit longer - looking forward to more trawling through histories/diffs 8¬(. TiA.-- Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't control the bot (I didn't know there was one).

I am not an expert on the WP:FAIRUSE rationales, and I am not vehement about it – you're welcome to challenge it if you think I've made the wrong judgement – but the main issue I can see with the adverts being on the article about Mansfield town is this criterion:

• "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The article topic in question is the town of Mansfield, not Mansfield Brewery or Mansfield Bitter – they are a very small part of the article, and so I think it would be very hard to claim that they "significantly increase readers' understanding" of the town of Mansfield, or that it would be "detrimental to understanding the town of Mansfield" if the article did not include some beer adverts that ran briefly 40 years ago.

Luckily there is an article about Mansfield Brewery (which also covers Mansfield Bitter) where it would be much easier to make those claims. I have therefore moved the images and associated information about advertising to that article. Joe D (t) 09:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; I've only just had the chance to get back to you/this. I take your points, and appreciate your thoroughness. All of the images, some 20-ish IIRC, were moved by a disruptive editor during 2023 into a contrived Gallery, contrary to mos layout and image relevance/prose context. At a later AN/I, an admin opined these two non-free images were specifically out of place and temporarily hid them. I assume all images were later restored, but as I stated there's been many changes and I haven't checked. Rgds, Steve.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Gorge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As almost all of your edit was valuable, I won't revert. But you gave a new population figure but without a new citation - worse still, you left the Nomis2011 citation. Would you rectify, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the edit summary says, the population citations are in the table in the demographics section (per MOS:CITELEAD). The only Nomis citation I can see in the article is against a different claim, about built-up area, which I have not edited. Joe D (t) 21:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my mistake, I skipped to the end of the end of the line. My apologies.

But according to CITELEAD, either nothing in the lead should be cited or everything (significant) should be. The population figure is one of the most significant items of information about the parish and, if anything is cited in the lead, this is the one that most certainly should be. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have no strong feelings about having the population citation in the lead there, so do whatever you think best. But I don't think CITELEAD does say that lead citations are "everything or nothing" – it says "...subjects may require many citations; others, few or none" – which I would interpret as being a fairly clear instruction to take a case-by-case approach and use as many as the article needs. Indeed, it suggests the citations are specifically needed for things "likely to be challenged", and that more are needed for "complex, current, or controversial subjects" – I would think a readily verifiable population datum from a national statistics agency the least complex and controversial of topics. Joe D (t) 22:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated 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) 15:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long time ago you created Category:Hill forts. The article title is Hillfort though. Do you know if there is a reason that the spelling is slightly different? (Please ping me when replying.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle it looks like Hill fort was moved to Hillfort in 2016. It appears there are various discussions about which is the more common term on Talk:Hillfort. Joe D (t) 08:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like it is not a very big deal. Unless you object, I'll have the categories moved to hillforts just for consistency reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you like, I have no opinion on which is the preferable form. Joe D (t) 09:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe D - I now see you have reverted in full another of my edits, this time to Ashbourne, Derbyshire. Having acknowledged your observations, could you give me time to make the necessary amendments before such reverting in full. Seemingly you're far more concerned with procedure than the content. Ofc if you think these articles are fine, then let me know and they can remain as they are (full of inaccuracies). I do get your point that my contributions have sometimes contravened editing guidelines but I thought Wiki works in a spirit of co-operation so could we work together to improve them svp? Best Primm1234 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated 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) 18:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe D: hi there! I was just about to thank you so much for your attention to the Lord Frederick Beauclerk article, which ofc I made edits prior to re-reading the MOS guidelines - much appreciated.

And, whilst I now intend to take a breather & allow my comprehension of MOS to sink in before getting into any more hot water! I did publish those edits about Joyce Dennys so I could see whether my tendency to overlink etc is being remedied. And, I had in mind to ask you (because you're most helpful) to give that article a once over to see if it's on the right track... But I see you've already reverted it in full. Thing is, I double & triple-checked all the references and info before publishing, so I know the article is on the money - at least content-wise. Perhaps some of the references are now in the wrong place? I need to insert a reference to Burke's Landed Gentry (1965) DENNYS which is a publicly-available mine of information and supports a great deal of the additional info... Anyway, you've reverted it now, so dunno what to do? Certainly dun wanna get into any conflict, so maybe just let things be for time being..?

Also, just as a point of info on the other article, the caption for the Coat of Arms should specifically state they are the arms of the Revd Lord Frederick Beauclerk (and not simply Beauclerk), because the ecclesiastical ornaments denote his being an Anglican priest and therefore are specific to him alone. The only other Beauclerk clergyman was a bishop, so his arms wud display the ornaments of a prelate...

Anyway, many thanks again for helping - much appreciated & till soon. Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. now that I was focussing on not overlinking in the Joyce Dennis article, I seem to have not paid enough attention to the references (altho I did add quite a few, hopefully, useful ones)... My apologies for this... Obvs I'm now under watch so gotta be extra careful, but prob is that the Dennys article is back to being littered with numerous mistakes... Just in case you were wondering what her family connections have got to do with anything! these explain a lot about her worldliness, how she got on so well during the War & who her husband was (btw he wasn't a Doctor of Medicine but he was a medical doctor, ie physician) and why they went to Oz etc etc...

Anyway I do understand why you felt inclined to revert the article (but ofc we're now back to square one)... I do much appreciate your help & let's liaise further in the not-too-distant.. All best wishes Primm1234 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joe D: just revised these articles, which I sincerely hope & pray are satisfactory. If not, please let me know so I can attend to it/them promptly. Many thanks in advance for your consideration and most helpful guidance. Best Primm1234 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can not see that any attempt has been made to address the issues with your changes to the Joyce Dennis article. You have made the same major changes to statements without providing new citations, such that the article now misrepresents its sources. It is not enough to just have any citation next to a claim in a Wikipedia article, the claim in the Wikipedia article has to actually reflect what is said in that source – in this case, you have replaced claims that reflect what is said in the source with claims that are absent in or directly contradict what is said in the cited source. You have added the same MOS:EASTEREGG links – linking to articles whose relevance to Joyce Dennys, or to the display text that you have linked, is nowhere made clear. You continue to use the word "updates" as your WP:EDITSUMMARY when making major updates. I have tried to be patient and provide guidance on these issues, and I can see that several others have done the same, but it is the exact same issues that seem to be coming up again and again. Joe D (t) 13:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsky: my sincerely apologies... Let's look at where I'm going wrong if okay?

{{Infobox person

| name = Joyce Dennys

| birth_name = Isobel Dorothy Joyce Dennys

| other_names = Mrs Joyce Evans

| birth_date = (1893-08-14)14 August 1893

| birth_place = Shimla, Punjab, British India

| death_date = 22 February 1991(1991-02-22) (aged 97)

| death_place = Hampstead, London, England

| nationality = British

| citizenship =

| education = Princess Helena College, Ealing

| alma_mater = Exeter Art School

| occupation = Cartoonist - illustrator - painter

| years_active = 1916–1986

| spouse = Dr Tom Evans ​(m. 1919⁠–⁠1965)

| children = 2

| relatives = Sir Hector Travers Dennys (uncle); Rodney Dennys (cousin)

| awards =

}}

Infobox - most people (other than art aficianados & friends) addressed her as Mrs Evans or Mrs Joyce Evans;
She was born at Shimla in northern India under the British Raj (not India, as presently stated, but British India);
She lived at West House, Sandy Road, Hampstead NW3 - not in Camden Town;
Her nationality was British (not English) & the concept of citizenship is n/a in her case;
Her alma mater is a moot point - I left it as Princess Helena College but clarified it as being the Ealing establishment (ie. where she went);
Her husband was Dr Tom Evans (or more formally Major Thomas Evans DSO);
And I included her relatives for reasons previously stated...

In cases like this, it's probably best I steer clear because the version as now reverted back is, just in my view at least, quite under-par..! Were I starting from scratch it'd be a lot easier (& less problematic)...

Anyway, much obliged if you could advise where I'm going wrong in the Infobox section so we can make progress - many thanks in advance. Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the preamble it states: She worked for the Voluntary Aid Detachment - normally as part of the War effort one wud say "served with" rather than "work for" (it wasn't normal civilian employment)... It goes on to say "Budleigh Salterton Auxiliary Hospital in the local Budleigh Salterton hospital" which I corrected...

I relocated the sentence about going to Australia because that has to do with her marrying an Australian Army veteran - she didn't get invited down under of her own volition (altho she certainly made the best of it whilst there)...

I added a ref. about the blue plaque, so not quite sure what the problem is there...

And "It premieres at the ADC Corpus Playroom in Cambridge in July 2024" obvs shud be in the past tense... (& I've added a ref. too).

Please advise (as I really do not want to be in the dog house for making best endeavours to improve this article)... Many thanks. Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Her father was a colonel (not a captain)... he was with his regiment at Shimla in Aug 1893.

"who was stationed in the country" (superfluous) and his wife, the Scottish-born housewife - she is not the Scottish-born wife & in those days Army wives were hardly housewives in the 1950s sense.. she was an Army wife with servants in attendance...

Far more interesting - I think - is that her father distinguished himself in medical circles becoming Surgeon-General having also received the degree of Doctor of Medicine... (Obvs she later married a doctor..)

It goes on to say "Budleigh Salterton Auxiliary Hospital in the local Budleigh Salterton hospital" which I corrected...

There is & never was such an institution as the London School of Art (as cited by an Australian journal) - I corrected this... And "worked for the Joint War Committee" is a misnoma too (which I corrected)...

Please tell me where I'm going wrong here - much obliged. Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

& so it goes on - a big error is MC Tindall (shud be M.G. Tindall)

Personal life

It states her husband was a doctor of medicine - which he wasn't. However Evans was a decorated WWI veteran (as mentioned at 1918 Birthday Honours)

Books

The titles of her works have been put in lower case whereas they had, when published, capital letters at the beginning of each word - no biggie (but just depends on whether one wants to be accurate or not)...

Do let me know if my thought processes are totally up a gum tree... Cheers Primm1234 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, several of these changes are not substantiated by, or directly contradict the cited sources – her father's rank, for example (which you also separated from its citation by adding intervening text). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects what the sources say. If you have other sources of comparable quality that state otherwise, you can add that to the article with a suitable citation – explaining that sources differ. If you have a source that demonstrates conclusively that the current cited source is incorrect, then make the correction and add that – but bear in mind WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, and the fact that Wikipedia must reflect what the sources say, without our own original research or synthesising sources to produce novel conclusions. Joe D (t) 16:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe D: but this is not my own research! Not in the slightest... clearly this is perhaps where any misunderstanding between us originates.

Frankly, as said, the article in its present form is very poor - I have no doubt such issues would not arise if I were starting from scratch. Bottom line is, though, I don't want to get the blame for trying to improve the article.

So... best is probably to give it a wide berth if it's going to land me in the soup (unless you can tell me otherwise)...

Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. my dear Joe D: do you have access to Burke's Landed Gentry (18th edn), 1965, Vol. I, p. 203: DENNYS of Heaslands. Online it's a subscription source but, by good fortune, my own library includes almost all editions of BPB & BLG... Moreover all good public libraries have these publications in their Reference Sections.

Pretty much all of what we're quibbling over is cited in Burke's - it really is a mine of historical info.

I presume you will be satisfied if I cite BLG next to all the issues raised? Lemme know as better to ask in advance than getting into a ding-dong. RSVP. Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a reliable source would certainly help, but it would not make your edits in the form you made them appropriate:

1. The sources must support the specific claims being made - as WP:SYNTH explains, the Wikipedia article must not synthesise unrelated claims from different sources to draw conclusions that are not explicitly made in them. For example, in your edit, you cited this BMJ article as evidence that her mother was Lucy, daughter of John Tulloch. The source makes no such claims, it just demonstrates that somebody named John Tulloch once existed, saying nothing at all about a Lucy or any connection to Joyce Dennys.
2. The content which you edited is already supported by appropriate citations and you changed it so that it directly contradicts those sources. If you have access to reliable sources which contradict the content in the article, then it would be appropriate to add those to the article and explain where different sources disagree about a fact – see Wikipedia:Verifiability ("if reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say"). Only replace the content if the criteria at WP:DUE apply – e.g. if the current cited source is out-of-date and a new source explains that the facts or the available evidence have changed, or if a plurality of reliable sources agree that the current cited source is wrong.

My suggestion would be to take this to the article's own talk page, and list each item you think is wrong with the current article, and what sources you have to show as much, so that somebody there can consider how best to incorporate that into the article. Joe D (t) 17:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the infobox can not be separated from the problems with the rest of the edits, because the Infobox should only contain information that is stated with sources in the body. In this case, "she was born in Shimla" – the source you cited for this does not say she was born in Shimla, it says she was born in Murree – you edited the text to say Shimla, thus misrepresenting the source being cited for that section of the text. Same for Hampstead vs Camden, you changed the text to something that contradicts the source being cited.

Most of the other issues with the infobox are straightforward manual of style problems of the kind that have been explained to you several times, such as MOS:DOC and MOS:EASTEREGG. Joe D (t) 15:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe D: ah, I see... the source concerning Shimla/Murree is not my citation but a hangover from a previous version - however, I accept I should be held accountable for this given that I've been attempting to overhaul the article by way of corrections. As far as Camden is concerned, I did reference that correctly, qv. www.camdenology.org.

Ref. MOS I've been making extra special efforts to get this right - but the previous version is so poor please forgive me if I've not got it quite right... My sincere apologies...

Now what to do? Please advise best way forward (if I do the corrections bit by bit, it won't match up whilst it's a work-in-progress). Your assistance is very much appreciated. Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dry point has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Found mentions, but no in-depth content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steinsky, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you leave in Malvern Hills? You are the worst user on Wikipedia I have come across. Thank God for Wiktionary. Donnanz (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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) 16:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Redcar when you modified the page, you introduced conversion errors. The {{convert}} template can be complex and I encourage you to read it's documentation but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you always use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsky: hello again!

I see you've taken issue with my edits to the High Legh article, although your recognition that there are some morsels worth having... Maybe you don't like the style or maybe it's something else... but the recently improved (now reverted) article was definitely more accurate. We had this sort of discussion about Joyce Dennys & I see that article is still not quite as informative as it could have been... What to do in such instances where the info is good but not quite to your satisfaction?

In the immortal phrase: "let's see what we can salvage here"!!!

Best Primm1234 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. ofc should you contest the veracity of any of the info I provided, please let me know so I can explain in full detail... All I was trying to do was make the article accurate and read well... But now we're back to square one (to use the football analogy - appropriate, perhaps, given High Legh's dubbed Gold Trafford!). Primm1234 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primm1234, as you say, we had this sort of discussion before, more than once. Several editors have had this sort of discussion with you before. Several editors have held your hand and talked you through line by line and link by link how you are violating the manual of style and guidance on overlinking and piped linking. We can't keep doing that again and again, you have to make some effort here. If you would like the answer to your current question, go back and read those discussions. The answers are the same as they were then. It is clear that you have still not taken any of them on board.

In the meantime, my suggestion would be that if you see something in Wikipedia that you think is incorrect, leave a note on the article's talk page and let somebody else fix it. Joe D (t) 16:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsky: Thanks for your offer to correct the article... let’s whizz thru what could immediately help improve it:

It is Six miles… (capital S)!

History

simply by stating Sir Edward Leigh & to spell out Richard Cornwall-Legh, 6th Baron Grey of Codnor would surely help clarify…

Leigh-Traffords is wrong – they were the Trafford Leighs

The third lordship of the manor is also wrong – third moiety…

In a mainly agricultural area, its proximity to Manchester and the area now known as "Gold Trafford" has made it nowadays a desirable residential area. (just thought area, area, area repeated three times would be better the way I worded it – but that’s just a matter of style, I s’pose)

Saxons theins – thegns is how Wiki spells it…

Repton “dropped” the old toll road – sounds like estate agent-speak!

In the 1990s another estate was built – meaning another housing estate (given there is so much other reference to estates)…

Sport

Arley Hall is actually owned by Lord Ashbrook’s wife… née Egerton-Warburton (so until Michael dies - which he certainly hasn't yet! it's Viscountess Ashbrook's seat)...

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. Best Primm1234 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:show where you got it. If the citation given does not actually contain the information or even a suggestion of where it might be, then it fails verification. We should not need to rely on a template in your sandbox and wikidata with unknown provenance to provide it. It is better to declare that NOMIS still hasn't made available this the most basic of the 2021 census data. It might even embarrass them into doing something about it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt NOMIS will be embarrassed into building a web interface for the data by Wikipedia. Their stakeholders are government and business who don't need such a thing. We need to get on and use the data which is available, even if it's through a slightly clunky interface, otherwise you'll find people just turn to CityPopulation.de, which really does have some curious data in it (like coming up with their own built-up areas which do not match ONS's built-up areas).

The Wikidata is not unknown provenance: I imported it from NOMIS, and documented it in full here. You're right though that my citations for the 2021 data could provide more detail. Alas, I ran that import before I found the full set of parameters for the reference field in Wikidata, so didn't make them as detailed as the 2001 and 2011 imports which I ran later, and now it's not easy to bulk update the reference (the Wikidata bulk edit tools would add a duplicate reference instead). In some cases I've added it manually when bringing it into an article - I'll add it to my todo list to go back and check for any articles that are missing it. Joe D (t) 11:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for resolving the {{fv}} at Buckingham.

NOMIS don't have to build a new web interface, they've already got one and have had for years. This is for Bletchley BU[s]A (note change of code):

• https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E35000902 (2011) just works because they populated it and in fairly short order if I remember correctly. I think that it may even have been in existence for C2001.
• https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021/report?compare=E63003960 (2021) just doesn't, because they still haven't populated it fully. If I put {{code|Bletchley]] in the search box, it will give me the three MKCC electoral wards and low-level enumeration districts. But not the two CPs or the BUA. The data analysis has been done: if they can present it in a spreadsheet, it should be trivial by now to load it into the web interface.

Citypopulation.de seems pretty good to me: for starters, its figure for Milton Keynes is correct [equals the ONS ABUA figure for 2987] because, unlike the ONS, they haven't confused themselves by drawing an arbitrary line around 60% of MK and using the name "Milton Keynes" for that fragment. Yes, I understand and approve of the "space between blocks of bricks and mortar" criterion but they haven't been consistent. (Delineate an area south of the A421 and west of the A5 and call it Bletchley, fair enough. So why not do the same for south of the A421 and east of the A5? (and how did the tiny fragment, Wavendon, suddenly appear?) And why not north of the A421 and west of the A5? North of the A422 and between the A5 and the M1? The wedge east of the River Ouzel, north of the A421, west of the M1? Declare that the M1 is too wide at 52°04′51″N 0°44′39″W / 52.080735°N 0.744116°W / 52.080735; -0.744116 to be contiguous but the A5 and WCML at 52°01′50″N 0°46′15″W / 52.030488°N 0.770957°W / 52.030488; -0.770957 is not wide enough? )

Rhetorical questions that you can't answer of course but it explains why I have no faith in their competence. I just see petty parish pump politics at play, not detached and dispassionate analysis.

A lot of people get their facts from Wikipedia: although we say "don't trust us, look at the sources we cite", they know that we have those sources and we've done the work to find them. So, at least IMO, we should not collude with NOMIS's continued failure to do their job (which is to make the stats accessible to the ordinary punter) by digging down ourselves into spreadsheets: we should declare openly and loudly that we can't provide even parish level stats because they are still not accessible via a mobile phone. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just repaired the fv at Olney, Buckinghamshire. It now reads

• "Parish Profiles". 2021 United Kingdom census. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 5 August 2024. then Query data then, at Geogrophy, click this needs to be selected then Parishes 2022 then, under Tools List areas within, chose Milton Keynes and then tick Olney, Finally, on the upper left of the screen, choose Download data and then view the data in your web browser

Compare that with 2011 (after I fixed its URL)

• "Key Statistics". Office for National Statistics. Table KS101EW (Usual resident population) and Table KS105EW (Household composition). Retrieved 23 June 2025.
  • and that could have been even simpler if you had used {{NOMIS2011}} thus: UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Olney (parish) (E04001268)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shalfleet, 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) 14:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Commieblock has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4 § Commie blocks until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Totnes, 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) 11:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. [1] I should have looked more closely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I think I've now updated all of the ceremonial county articles to work with with the new high sheriffs template. The exceptions are Bristol, which uses a different infobox, and Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and Cornwall, which aren't yet on the template (I assume because of their distinct arrangements). Changing the name of Durham to County Durham seemed to fix the problem there. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@A.D.Hope Brilliant – thanks! I'll look at getting the others included this evening. Joe D (t) 16:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! I can see you've done the others, so hopefully that's the sheriffs sorted for the foreseeable.

While I'm here, I take it you'd rather be addressed as Joe rather than Steinsky now? I'll go with whatever you prefer, it's just unfortunate that the mention function defaults to your old name. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Either is fine, really, but I am long overdue finding a new username that is available and filing a request to change it, otherwise I'll be stuck forever with a throwaway one that I picked in a hurry when I was 17! Joe D (t) 18:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bishop's Hull, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parish council was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the SPA that is cn-tagging everything Somerset-related genuine? It's weird behaviour and makes me think they've been around before - maybe a sock account? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@10mmsocket I got the same sense, but I don't recognise it as the hallmark of anyone I've encountered before, and it could be genuine. Might be worth directing them to Template:Citation needed § When not to use this template and the relevant parts of MOS and seeing how it goes? Joe D (t) 21:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll have a look at tomorrow. Signing off for now. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dunster has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have changed the infobox on Abbey (Reading ward) from Template:Infobox UK place to Template:Infobox England and Wales ward with the comment switch infobox to the one for wards, to avoid it implying the article is about a place. I'm not entirely sure I understand the comment; to my mind a ward is a type of place so there is absolutely nothing wrong with implying the article is about a place. Most of the content of the article is about attributes a ward has precisely because it is a place (position on a map, boundaries, population, area, demographic stats, schools, etc).

That notwithstanding, if there is a better template to use for wards then I would be more than happy to support its use. The trouble is, I'm having some difficulty convincing myself that this template is an improvement. For sure it has one major advantage in that it allows the naming of the councillors in the infobox, which I do like. But you pay for that by losing a lot of information. There doesn't seem to be any way to express the coordinates or the area of the ward and no way of getting a map short of manually creating one. And the way it renders county is clumsy to say the least; what is 'Local government in Berkshire' actually saying given that Berkshire is a ceremonial county and not a local government area, and what is the unexplained South-East England text underneath it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but to me the new template seems a bit half-baked, a decent enough prototype for how we might improve ward articles in the future but not really ready for live use yet. Which probably explains why it only has 300-odd usages. Can you convince me otherwise?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wards are not places - certainly not places like the places that use Infobox UK Place. If it were a place, Abbey would follow WP:UKPLACE and be at Abbey, Reading, but it's not, which is why it and other wards don't follow that convention.

Often a ward shares its name with a place, and sometimes it has roughly similar boundaries to the place that it shares its name with (in those cases, it's common to merge the ward into the place article, and discuss it in the 'governance' section or similar).

Wards exist for the purpose of creating roughly balanced electorate sizes in council elections, and for the elected councillors to then represent that electorate. They are frequently redrawn and renamed, and they blink in and out of existence. Before and after a boundary review the name of an old ward might be re-used for a new ward, the two having less than 50% overlap in territory. Wards don't have the stability to be places.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England draw the ward boundaries. Among the criteria they try to take into account are existing community ties and local identities - hence often reusing established names of places - but they are clear that their overriding priority is balanced electorate sizes and that they are not trying to define places, only electoral districts for the convenience of local government.

300 sounds like a lot of articles using this template to me - it's not that normal to create individual articles about wards. A few have been deleted at AfD because the community does not think wards meet the "presumed to be notable" criteria at WP:NPLACE precisely because they're not places. Most (perhaps all?) that do exist (and survive AfD) are for county councils or unitary authorities. Often a county/UA just has a "list of wards" page with a table containing key information about them, rather than creating separate articles.

You're right though that the template looks like it has some odd layout choices in it. That sounds like something to raise on the template talk page - I did not create the template or have any hand in it at all, so I can't comment on why those decisions were made.

cheers, Joe D (t) 20:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe D. Thanks for your response. I am aware of what wards are and how they are created, but none of that screams 'this is not a place' to me. A ward has a name, a location, boundaries, a population, etc., and that says to me that it is a place. There are different sorts of places, such as towns, villages, neighbourhoods, parishes, etc, and when you say Often a ward shares its name with a place, and sometimes it has roughly similar boundaries to the place that it shares its name with, I would rephrase that as something like Often a ward shares its name with a town, village or neighbourhood, and sometimes both places have roughly similar boundaries.

I do take your point about WP:UKPLACE, and I do think the article might be better named Abbey Ward, Reading (not Abbey, Reading because that is more likely to be a reference to the Abbey itself). However I didn't invent the X (Y ward) naming strategy, and lots of wards are named that way, so I'm not going to rush into a mass rename, but I will create redirs for the ward articles I am working on.

Yes, I do agree that the relative volatility of ward boundaries could be something of an issue, but in real life they don't change that much that often (most Reading wards are largely the same as they were 50 years ago) and rewarding is something that typically happens every decade or two. If that level of volatility is that much of an issue, then we certainly shouldn't be including councillor's names in infoboxes.

Including aricles on wards does have some particular advantages, especially for urban wards. Wards have well defined boundaries, so it is (normally) possible to obtain well sourced demographic information on them from the likes of the ONS, and that lets us tell the story of the nature of the ward in a way that simply isn't possible for the (typically) rather vaguely defined neighbourhoods and suburbs of a large town or city. Without wards, that story can only really be told for the whole town/city, which loses a lot of information on granularity and urban diversity.

I think the situation is rather different in rural areas, if only because the presence of well defined civil parishes provides a better way of telling that story. In general, I would not consider creating ward articles in parished areas, but in the (generally urban) unparished parts of the country, they are really the only thing available. I'm quite surprised to hear that ward articles have been presumed not to be notable, as there is plenty of data and reputable sourcing available. Perhaps the articles hadn't availed themselves of that, or were for more rural areas.

As you suggest, I will take my comments on the template to the appropriate place. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris j wood: FWIW, I agree with Joe D's analysis. Wards are transient, arbitrarily drawn lines for electoral purposes, subject to change maybe five times in an average human lifetime. Compare that to civil parishes that change maybe once in five lifetimes, max. The problem with Reading is that it has not been parished so, although neighbourhoods like Abbey do exist, they have no defined identity. Using an electoral division as a proxy was always going to be a problem.

There is already a discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Add English council ward field? that may be relevant. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF:. As I hope came across from my comments, I too prefer to use civil parishes to wards, where they are available. But the issue is that according to this House of Commons Library briefing paper only ~36% of people in England live in parished areas, with most people living in towns and cities that are not parished; so it is very much not just a Reading issue. I don't thinki we can just ignore 60% of people, or pretend that places like Reading, or even Manchester, are a single homogenous community.

I think the volatility is something we should, and can, live with. If WP was to rule out covering anything with a volatility of less than, say, 20 years, that would take out a huge swathe of our current content. We can say goodbye to anything to do with sports, reduce our cultural content to just Shakespeare and classical music, and pretty well eviscerate our coverage of all economic, political and technology arenas. We manage that level of volatility in those areas, I'm sure we can here.

I've looked at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Add English council ward field?, but I don't think it is relevant. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to be based on the rather rural-centric view that wards are big places with smaller places within them, whilst in the urban world wards are often the smallest well-defined places. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I totally recognise the problem: my point was that it doesn't have any easy solution. A recent discussion at Northampton Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northampton (civil parish) confirms your assessment (maybe it is even worse there: South Northamptonshire UA is mostly Northampton but there is still a Northampton parish with its own town council!).

The City of Milton Keynes is easy because it is fully parishes, which is just as well given that the wards were all reconfigured for this year's election, about ten years since last time and 20 from the time before. This is probably fairly typical for SE England. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Revised to cite correct place for the Northampton CP discussion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Severn Trent when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks, I was checking over somebody else's edits and failed to pay attention to the fact that theirs was not the latest version of the page before hitting edit, I'll go check I didn't overwrite any other subsequent edits. Joe D (t) 21:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It happens! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]