User talk:DBD/Archive 30

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2005 – July 2006) Archive 2 (August 2006) Archive 3 (September – October 2006) Archive 4 (November 2006 – Jan 2007) Archive 5 (February – April 2007) Archive 6 (May 2007) Archive 7 (June – July 2007) Archive 8 (August – December 2007) Archive 9 (January – March 2008) Archive 10 (April – June 2008) Archive 11 (July – September 2008) Archive 12 (October – November 2008) Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009) Archive 14 (June 2009 – May 2010) Archive 15 (June 2010 – January 2011) Archive 16 (February – July 2011) Archive 17 (August – November 2011) Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – January 2012) Archive 19 (February – March 2012) Archive 20 (April – July 2012) Archive 21 (August – October 2012) Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – March 2013) Archive 23 (April – July 2013) Archive 24 (August – November 2013) Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – April 2014) Archive 26 (May – October 2014) Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015) Archive 28 (June – October 2015) Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – April 2016) Archive 30 (May – November 2016) Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – July 2017) Archive 32 (August – October 2017) Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – July 2018) Archive 34 (August 2018 – May 2019) Archive 35 (June – November 2019) Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – June 2020) Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021) Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – June 2022)

May–November 2016

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

George Kitchin

added a link pointing to Bishop of Gibraltar

Rodney Eden

added a link pointing to Sunderland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Uwer:DBD/1770s in Wales, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space. (See section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBD! Your use of AWB to remove honorific titles from clergy articles has meant that those titles have also been removed from infoboxes and references, in addition to removing those in the main text. This has made references incorrect. Also, titles are fine being included in infoboxes: MOS:HONORIFIC concerns article titles and the first mention (IE right at the start of an article), as you'll see if you look at the table of contents for that page. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the Attenborough mix-up (back in '14). I shall be more thorough and meticulous in my editing next time. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Bowlby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Worcester. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was explained in the note that you deleted in this edit to Top Gear (2002 TV series), per WP:TVCAST, cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the programme and cast remain on the list even after departing the proramme. In series 1 of the programme, the cast ordering was Jeremy Clarkson, Jason Dawe and Richard Hammond. Dawe left at the end of series one and was replaced by James May and The Stig was added. In series 23 episode 1, Chris Evans, Matt LeBlanc and Sabine Schmitz were added, in that order. Eddie Jordan was added in episode 2. Chris Harris and Rory Reid were added in that order. This means that, per WP:TVCAST, the cast listing should be Jeremy Clarkson, Jason Dawe, Richard Hammond, James May, The Stig, Chris Evans, Matt LeBlanc, Sabine Schmitz, Eddie Jordan, Chris Harris, Rory Reid, which is what it was until your edits. Also, we do not add things like "with:". --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, most of that is fair enough; except that, clearly, when all seven new presenters are credited together, the five 'with's are credited in alphabetical order... DBD 15:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The five "withs" are credited differently in different episodes. In series 2, The Stig wasn't credited as "with". He was credited with Clarkson, Hammond and May. In series 23 episode 1, Schmitz was credited while the other "withs" weren't credited at all. In any case, "with" is irrelevant. Once people are credited on the list we don't change the order, otherwise we'd be changing it all the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no possible way you're budging on this, is there? DBD 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me, it's MOS:TV, which has wide consensus after much discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok then. DBD 19:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you moved John Armstrong (bishop of Grahamstown) to John Armstrong (Bishop of Grahamstown), this move is contrary to WP:BISHOP. Wayne Jayes (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bishop of Bristol

added a link pointing to Diocese of Worcester

Henry Harper (bishop)

added a link pointing to Bishop of Christchurch

Henry Mackenzie (bishop)

added a link pointing to Merchant Taylors' School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Linton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Birmingham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you interpret MOS:HONORIFIC as meaning or implying that honorifics should never be included before anyone's names in articles? It seems quite clear to me that this aspect of the MOS is only referring to the use of honorifics before the name of the subject of biographical articles in the opening sentence. I cannot find anything in the MOS which suggests that this also proscribes having honorifics before the names of other people mentioned elsewhere in the article. Anglicanus (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence, "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name"? DBD 16:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the context it appears in the MOS it is adequately clear that this is only referring to the subject of biographical articles and only to the opening sentence. You are also now mass removing honorifics from info boxes. Anglicanus (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Gaia Octavia Agrippa has also addressed this issue with you on this page in May 2016 but you apparently didn't respond. Anglicanus (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Bother. I see what you mean. How frustrating. DBD 16:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The part you'll looking for is under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Subsequent use where it states "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mx", "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms", or by a pronoun." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would be perfectly content to accept that that would support my edits; what saith the jury? DBD 17:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't support your edits at all. It does not support your removal of honorifics from elsewhere in articles for people who are not the subject of biographical articles. MOS:HONORIFIC only refers to the opening sentence of articles and not to the whole article. Additionally, honorifics and titles are not (normally) ever used elsewhere in biographical articles for the subject (except in the info box). Nothing in the MOS appears to proscribe the use of honorifics for other other people mentioned in the body of articles. In fact other parts of the MOS make it apparent that honorifics and titles are usually acceptable in the body of articles. You have misread and misunderstood the MOS on this matter and most of your changes have been incoorect ones. Anglicanus (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, MOS:HONORIFIC is about the opening paragraph. "Subsequent use", is about the body of the article. Neither of these things apply to infoboxes, therefore it fine to include honorifics in infoboxes in the appropriate parameter. Outside of clergy, have a look at politicians' articles: eg, David Cameron is a member of the Privy council therefore he qualifies for the honorific The Right Honourable, this is only used in the infobox, not the opening sentence or in the body of the article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so honorifics limited to infobox (if there is one) and a specific section (if there is one), not permitted elsewhere? I can agree not to remove honorifics from ibx DBD 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, except in quotes, references etc; eg "‘TREMLETT, Rev. Canon Andrew’, Who's Who 2012". Could you please also not remove the the "|church=" parameter from infoboxes. What's the reasoning behind that? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 13:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not right. "Subsequent use" only applies to the subject of a biographical article. It does not apply to any other people mentioned in the body of an article. Anglicanus (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just that the people I'm dealing with don't usually have one church is all. DBD 16:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The church parameter doesn't mean the building/local community church, but the larger church the person belongs to. Or, in the words of the template "Church the leader is a member of". It's the largest division that moves from Church to Archdiocese/Province/Metropolis to Diocese etc. For example, Justin Welby's infobox goes Church = Church of England, Province = Province of Canterbury, Diocese = Diocese of Canterbury. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Doesn't that get kinda lengthy? DBD 18:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could do! Archdiocese/Province/Metropolis could be skipped to shorten things down if the infobox is overwhelming the article. But the church parameter is pretty important/vital. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. DBD 19:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth copying this over to the talk page (IE Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies) so that others would be aware of this discussion? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your constantly disruptive habit of mass removing honorifics on the basis of your wrong understanding of MOS:HONORIFIC. It does not apply to people in non-biographical articles nor to people who are not the subject of biographical articles. Anglicanus (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anglicanus, could you provide some evidence for your interpretation? Obviously we're not reading it the same way you are. For example, at the top of MOS:BIO it states "This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles", and under MOS:HONORIFIC it states "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name". Further down (under Honorific titles) it says "honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus" however this refers specifically to the titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady, rather than the likes of Reverend. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanus, your revert looks, let us say, at least a little overzealous. My edit corrected a few wikilinks and reformatted the succession box to the current-preferred format besides the honorifics-removals to which you object. While we're at that, what damage does removing the word Bishop from every reference to Luers do? Anyone reading the article already know he was a bishop, so what possible reason is there not to simply follow the encyclopaedic convention of referring to persons by surname only? DBD 14:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've amended the names of many articles from Foo (cleryman) to Foo (priest) citing WP:NCWC. I don't find any support in NCWC for the changes. On what basis have they been made? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I revert all of the cleryman->priest renames you did, I thought I'd give you one last opportunity to explain the policy-based reasons which support your change. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this before. Also I apologise for having misquoted WP:NCWC. Somewhere I have become mistaken as to what the rationale for these moves was. The rationale is not one which is codified or a guideline: it is simply for consistency among similar articles — the very large majority of articles about persons who are or were ordained priests (and require this dab but no more) were at (priest); and (cleric/gy/gyman) was a little imprecise. For instance, you can now tell from looking at the title (priest) that the subject was for instance an Anglican or Catholic priest, or (a minority of cases I've moved) (minister) for a Presybterian (say) or Congregationalist. I have carefully used the words which are used for these people by their own church. Now, you may contest that there is no specific guideline which prescribes (priest) over (cleric/gy/gyman); but I counter that there is neither any guideline which proscribes (priest) (nor prescribes {cleric/gy/gyman}). If you would like to establish such a guideline, we should discuss this widely as a community at WP:NCWC. DBD 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:DBD, you cannot keep on moving Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy without any discussion.

Every time I've moved it, I've gone to the talk page and argued for my position. You have simply reverted me, twice now without engaging in the discussion, and just asserting in your edit summary that your preferred title is "the correct title". Well, that is exactly what we're at issue about.

You cannot simply ignore the discussion and insist on having your way. What you're doing is WP:edit warring, which is BANNED, as an editor of over 11 years would well and truly know by now.

Please either self-revert your latest move, or go the talk page now and at least explain why you've made your latest move.

Failing that, further action will be taken. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this edit? Why would you actively change "Lord John Russell" (correct) to "John Russell" (incorrect)? john k (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about some overzealousness with honorifics? He's called "Lord John Russell" in like every other list article, and, in general, younger sons of dukes and marquesses are always referred to with the "Lord" in first references in wikipedia, and, indeed, in article titles. (See Lord George Hamilton, Lord Randolph Churchill, Lord Robert Montagu, Lord John Cavendish, Lord William Bentinck, Lord Frederick Cavendish, Lord Henry Lennox, etc.) Given that this is pretty universal Wikipedia practice, and that it's a good way to disambiguate people with reasonably common names, if MOS suggests otherwise it is MOS, which was certainly not considering this particular type of honorific when it banned their use, that must bow before actual usage (and this is not just actual usage on Wikipedia. Nobody says or writes "The Right Honourable William Gladstone," except in the most formal circumstances, but people do habitually call him "Lord John Russell" when talking about him before 1861. john k (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Willie Pwaisiho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please help to improve this page Monte Carlo (vodka) if you dont like it what we have right now,thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcv369 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Welsh (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hayes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Fox (bishop), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Rector. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DBD. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

 Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• On the Mark Davies (Bishop of Shrewsbury) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DBD.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hello DBD,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Been a busy year for me, saw you'd edited one of my few recent entries- yours t has spent very little time on WP in 2016 How are you? BasherBashereyre (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bash. Massively busy and very difficult term for me. Seeing curacy bishop on Tues :) God bless DBD 13:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]