User talk:10mmsocket/Archive 2

You may be interested. Most of this draft, which I reviewed at AfC, was unsourced, and a debate about it ensued... feel free to give some thoughts if you wish. (You're not under any obligation to do so, of course, but in case you wanted to...) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd happily grant reviewer, rollback, and new page patroller rights if you'd find any of them useful. Appreciate your help on the motorway articles earlier. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds useful, yes thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

...along with pointers on best practice when granted those rights. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

They're simple enough to figure out. Rollback in particular I think you'll find useful. For NPR, have a look at WP:NPR, and for the other two I'll give you the typically wordy and over-linked template:

Hello 10mmsocket. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me know if you need anything/have any questions. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you reversed an edit without referencing the edit that you made. In future can you please make sure you reference any edits, or edits you undo as on Wikipedia if it isn’t referenced, it didn’t happen. Thank you. Liverpool445 (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It would be helpful to 10mmsocket if you could actually give a diff of the edit or the page, rather than just saying that he did something... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Although, I presume you are referring to Freightliner Group. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the feedback I have now described the edit 140.228.52.73 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The question isn't your edit summary, it's the fact that you didn't provide any source for its removal. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of Humberside's major fire stations in Kingston upon Hull, Bridlington, Grimsby, Scunthorpe and Goole

Hello once again, been a while. If you remember my earlier dispute in Talk:Humberside Fire and Rescue Service - must apologise for the brash tone, the revert felt pretty raw at the time but now I understand - you might remember it being about the massive image gallery the article has. Well, I've deleted it per WP:NOTGALLERY, because lets face it: the Geograph user and other contributors definitely have made an "amazing effort", but for the article, it was simply too big to handle and still had leftover elements of original research.

What I'm interested in your feedback on is a more condensed version of such a gallery featuring only the major Humberside fire stations - see above. Its kind of inspired by galleries User:Xbhpnvs798 has made for Yorkshire and North Eastern bus company articles, and I was wondering whether they can be rolled out to fire service articles, perhaps saving images from falling off the page or being too excessive. To give my opinion, I think it helps to demonstrate the regional scope of the Service, but I appreciate one issue might be who defines what as a 'major' fire station.

Feel free to give me some feedback on it, and maybe I'll roll it out on the Humberside article. Hullian111 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:IG. Not got any further opinion myself either way. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

In my personal opinion I quite like the mini-montages like that. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It'd make a great fit for pages like Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, where the images are drastically falling off the page (at least from my tablet screen size), but with services with broader operating areas like the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the London Fire Brigade, there could be problems. Maybe up to nine images in one gallery, or maybe multiple galleries would do for large services like them.

Well, if you have no other objections, I'll pop the gallery above into Humberside Fire and Rescue Service and see if it sticks. Hullian111 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(Talk page watcher) I also like it, and it's far better than a full gallery. I would suggest however that the caption include a description of the order in which the images are placed: (clockwise from top left) is quite often chosen because it's shorter to write and oddly intuitive for many people. Alternately, you might prefer to configure individual captions for each image and just set the footer to Some of Humberside's major fire stations. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about the "clockwise from top left" indicator as I put the gallery in last night, actually. Thanks, will put that in in the future, was looking for some sort of guide as to indicating how to follow a gallery.

Not sure about individual captions, though, that might clutter up said gallery. Hullian111 (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure! Clockwise from top-left is also the style I've most commonly seen used here for montages in infoboxes, so I'd say it's a fairly settled convention by now. I agree with you on individual captions; they definitely have their uses but as a rule they're my second preference. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Congrats on your new rights, well deserved! On an unrelated note, I've gone well past WP:3RR on this article, you may be interested in having a look... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the emus.co.uk thing, I can't remember where I saw it first (probably you or me saw it, found if naff, reverted and it got added to the list on my page). Not sure who/how/when/where but *meh* . Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It does look largely like an unreliable source. Happy to consider blocking it unless convinced otherwise by consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, 10mm socket

My apologies for the unreferenced edit regarding the death of Alice Cooper's mother Ella Mae Furnier. As communicated via a post on the Facebook page "Alice Cooper's Solid Rock", Ella passed away on December 27. I have attached a link to said Facebook post.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid09s8hebSwXGWi7hfGnK3r6eVznkMUtgpYFuxSQ8448jxFGZDNdayTceMq7QeHWX3gl&id=100064330256718&mibextid=Nif5oz

Thank you. S41ntzfl0w (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's a better reference - this Can't seem to find much else. 10mmsocket (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was also the only other page that I found, aside from the Facebook post, that addressed her death. Cooper also addresses his mother's passing on the January 9th broadcast of his radio show Nights With Alice Cooper, around fifteen minutes into the fourth hour. However, as I am not sure how to access previous shows, I can't properly cite that. For now, I will not edit the page any further. Thank you for your response. S41ntzfl0w (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi could you change John McFall (British Politician) to John McFall, Baron McFall of Alcluith please as it doesn't look right. 86.191.237.115 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Very happy to oblige. The person who did the move back in December did so without discussing and without a good reason to override the standard naming convention. Now back how it should be. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks also could you do a category for Members of the Lords who have been affected by the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 please. 86.191.237.115 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

What would you call it? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

An Idea

Peers retired

An Idea

House of Lords Reform Act 2014 Subcategory

• Peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014
• Peers resigned under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014
• Peers removed under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Also this should be a category

• (there are over 800 in total but few have no page) I have got some in.

86.191.237.40 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Was there more than what I already scrubbed? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have moved several articles by this contributor into draft space. I think he is a paid editor and should be stopped. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd had my eye on User:Mark Pougatch but, as far as I recall, taken no action re their edits when this happens. Hmm. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

If further proof were needed Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely odd. Very wordy edit summaries should give away similarities. Have you been back to look at his previous incarnations to compare? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They seem a bit wordier than usual but the edits are broadly similar and to some articles they've haunted before, and since. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you are right. What are your thoughts on what to do next? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess we should really submit SPIs on the various socks but, with the time that takes and likelihood they'll resurface, it almost seems less bother to just revert. That said, proper SPIs might result in range blocks, if there's a discernible pattern. The (apparent) geolocation does seem to hop about; not sure if that means they are mobile or they know how to game things. I ought to be doing other things really but if you do choose to do SPIs, I'd chip in. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Another. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

OK--I'd like for you all to take the next step for me, since you guys seem to know who this is: I don't, but I blocked Pougatch, and I blocked User:Consequencesortruth as well. If there's an SPI, please add them and say that CU confirms them; the SPI clerks can then tag them appropriately. Oh, you may add that there was a large amount of logged-out editing as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now submitted one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh good for you, I was going to have a crack this morning. Been having my first foray into countering paid editors. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all so pathetic, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi 10mmscoeckt, thanks so much for your contribution to the Twerton Park page! New to Wikipedia, but just not too sure why the comment about where the fans sing has been removed when the source stated where they stood? I attend nearly every home game, and have been going since 2010, so I know the songs they sing. But thanks a lot . BathCityFC18 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• sorry for spelling your name wrong BathCityFC18 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly you gave two sources that are not reliable - one was a blog, the other the club's own website. The latter is covered by WP:PRIMARY, the second by WP:UGC and WP:SPS. Secondly it's trivial and doesn't maintain the neutral point of view on which Wikipedia should be written WP:NPOV. Finally you really shouldn't be editing the article at all given the conflict of interest WP:COI implied by your username. You have a close connection to the subject of the article, so if you want to make any changes you should ideally suggest them on the article's talk page. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced/OR etc, once again! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The link I added contains really useful information and can help many clear their doubts around this topic. While I understand your concern, would request you to visit the page once and see through. In case you find it not appropriate to the topic, it's okay. Rajeev88mishra (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It is spam. See WP:EL, WP:SPS, WP:UGC. Nothing about it is helpful to Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way; the benefit of the "service" verses "yearservice" parameter choice is best shown in the Class 802 article – it spares having to cram that list of dates into the "to present" format. I take the view that it's an unnecessary split of information to do it for a single-operator fleet, though. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Very useful, thank you 10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m Matt Clapp’s wife, is that a reference enough for you? 2600:1700:C40:47A0:211F:4FEA:694A:B12E (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That is non-verifiable. We need reliable sources that state things, self sourcing is not permitted. Also, one should not edit one's self or material that might be too closely related to your family or company etc. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to give me a clue. Who is Matt Clapp and what article have I edited that has anything to do with him? I genuinely don't know what you are talking about? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Matt Clapp Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, now I see, it was simple reversion of unsourced personal information to a biography of a living person. You need to take a look at WP:BLP, then WP:OR, which covers what is called original research, i.e. personal knowledge. Any personal info, relevant for publication in the article, would have to be reliably sourced WP:RS. Do ask if you have any questions. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Similarily to Bristol Temple Meads railway station where someone removed a bunch of bus routes, I think removing bus routes with their own articles like MetroBus (Bristol) and 73 Bristol Temple Meads - Bradley Stoke North is a step back. These are sourced and verifiable and the links aid navigation of the wiki. What do you think? Garuda3 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense 10mmsocket (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Garuda3 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I note that on 23 January 2023 you removed a reference to a YouTube video of the view from the cab of a train travelling along this line. Although I agree that in general, YouTube is an unreliable source, I think that this one is straightforward and gives a unique insight into the to the topology of the line. I would like to re-instate the reference. TedColes (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If you think it adds value go for it. One thought - might it get more views / better inform readers if it is listed as an external link instead? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I am an affiliate working for Earl Retif. He is a former representative and close friend of Caroline Durieux's. We are trying to add some information to her Wiki page, but it was deleted due to lack of citations or conflict of interest. We wanted to add a brief story about her and Diego Rivera and a list of museums currently in possession of her works. Can you help us to update the page with the information? This is our first time attempting to do large edits on a Wiki page. Any help would be huge, Earl was a great friend of hers and wants to do nothing but increase her visibility and add more information to her Wiki.

Rivera story: In a conversation with her longtime representative and friend, Earl Retif of Stone + Press Gallery, Durieux revealed Rivera's initial hesitation to painting Caroline's portrait. Diego Rivera often painted portraits of rich Americans for exorbitant prices. He did not like doing it and his lack of attention often showed in the finished work. Caroline’s husband, Pierre Durieux, had often tried to get Rivera to paint his wife’s portrait and the great artist always refused. One day at Sunday lunch Rivera asked Caroline to return home and change her outfit. He specified what clothing he wanted her to wear, how she should arrange her hair and even the exact necklace to adorn her neck. When she returned, he commenced painting. Caroline told Earl Rivera charged Pierre $150 for the portrait. The portrait hung in Durieux’s living room until she died. It is now in the collection of the LSU Museum of Art.

List of Museums: Art Institute of Chicago Bibliothèque nationale de France Detroit Institute of the Arts Hilliard Art Museum at U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library of Congress LSU Museum of Art Museum of Modern Art Newcomb Art Museum at Tulane University New Orleans Museum of Art Ogden Museum of Southern Art Philadelphia Museum of Art The Historic New Orleans Collection Whitney Museum of American Art EricRetif (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please disregard the username saying EricRetif (it should be changed soon but a new employee who made the account put Eric instead of Earl) EricRetif (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not change headers of etymology and name to be toponymy. Per WP:CITSTRUCT these are acceptable names for that sections, and they're also more commonly understood English words. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Etymology is no more understandable than toponymy. However, thanks for bringing it to my attention. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I only say that because etymology is a more commonly used word in the language than toponymy. Readers are more likely to understand it just because of it's prominence than toponymy which is a more specialised word. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In which case, "Name" would be better on articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't disagree. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave things as is for now. Won't change any more. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/188.213.138.201 might look oddly familiar to you. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I did this just 5 minutes ago - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdom-inc Thanks for the heads-up. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Least I could do! XAM2175 ^(T) 14:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I like your page a lot. I am an American who spends a lot of unpaid time adding citations to music-song related pages, with an endless stream of unsourced dates that nobody does anything about. Many of them are wrong, and it makes me sick when I see how many people read the page, and the websites that reprint the bad info like it was rock solid fact. Educated guesses are not allowed here. If you don't have the date and are too lazy to research it, don't put anything. You are hurting the minds of younger people trying to learn, and the historical record that will be here long after we are. Sorry if I messed up your talk page with rant. Tillywilly17 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I would love to respond to your message, but I am genuinely at a loss here - what article / change are you talking about? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hia 10mmsocket, Sorry for reverting your edit. I attended games regularly, so I know the capacity of the stands, it’s just the standing capacity is sometimes harder to get an exact number, but I’ve asked someone who works at the club. Imo it’s very important to state the capacity of each stand. That was really the only issue, I don’t care about the image sizes, sorry for the bother. Cheers mate. Joseph1891 (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I attend Joseph1891 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. When you get the numbers, make sure you provide a reference form a reliable source - and don't forget edit summaries. Shout if you need any help. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

So is it alright if I add the capacity for each stand? Unfortunately don’t rly have a source as the club website is pretty basic at the moment. Obviously being a community-owned club we have a very dedicated group of volunteers, but theres only a few so I’ve been working with some of them in aim to buff it up a bit. Anyway adding the capacity makes it more informative for viewer. Joseph1891 (talk)

Adding the capacity as you did in bold at the start of each section wasn't really in keeping with how things are done on Wikipedia. Why not consider a table showing each stand together with its seated and standing capacity? Wikipedia loves tables! Again, with sources. --10mmsocket (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s a good idea, thanks. I guess I was thinking of the Fratton Park article and how they structure the stands section. Joseph1891 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

{{Prod2}} exists. Not canvassing for support but thought you might like to know the option exists. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that, thank you for the heads up. As you can see from the history I gave the article a good going over, but stopped short of PROD. I did consider it and on balance I think you are right. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy to get wider input at AfD if you think it's worth it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Let the PROD run its course and take to AfD if removed. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Apologies for the incorrect uploading of a new picture for the Irish golfer Shane Lowry. I am from Shane’s team and we’re wanting to update his very old image.

The photo was taken at the recent PGA Tour official headshot session, by Getty Images, and they have given Shane permission to use this image how he sees fit. Shane also has a long-time licensing agreement with Getty to use any of the images they take which he is included in.

what steps do I need to take to get this new headshot as his new permanent wiki picture?

thanks! ICANTSPECK (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the rules on Commons. Essentially you'll have to provide that permission by email to the site's administrators. You might want to check the permission given though - by uploading to Commons an image is given unlimited rights for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial use and also have the right to modify it. It becomes a public domain / licence free image (albeit one that will need attribution whenever used or modified) Is that what Getty are actually saying? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is what you need - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ#I_am_not_the_author,_but_I_have_permission 10mmsocket (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You deliberately chose to undo my anti-vandalism edit and then claim that lack of references in the article 'has been tagged for such a long time and nobody has sought to provide references' when you can scroll through the edit history and see that I was in the process of adding sources? If you really want to be useful, you could help me. Edwint512 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What I undid was not vandalism. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There were referenced sources in that article which got deleted under the excuse that there was no references. I've seen you going around vandalising other heritage railway's articles. Additionally when listing rolling stock of heritage railways it is impossible to gain a comprehensive source of all rolling stock as many items are extremely obscure in nature, does this mean they do not belong on Wikipedia? Edwint512 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The core point of WP:VNT is that if it's not sourced, it shouldn't be there. If you want to add in sources which can verify the information I/we removed (given that it had no sources at all), then please do so. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I really like how you didn't even try to find sources for any of the locomotives you deleted, many of them would have taken literally 10 seconds on Google to have found a reference, but instead you took it on yourself to delete the entire roster of rolling stock, which most likey took you longer? I'm just dissapointed that you've done this, and created hours more work for me when it would have taken a fraction of that otherwise.

You won't even help to put them back. Who are you actually helping by doing this? Edwint512 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You got it one - obscure facts that cannot be verified do not believe on Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi 10mmsocket, the reason I put the Youth Mayors names is because it's listed on Bristol.gov.uk. Could you clarify why you said "not how we do things on Wikipedia. Remove individual names - not important". It's important because they are the most public facing roles for young people in the city and often link with the mayor at public events. Nightingale104 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless people are notable, e.g. notable enough to have an article in their own right, then they wouldn't generally be mentioned. Although they're mentioned on the council website there is an issue with them being children. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply and I would agree with you re. notability, however many references to names in Council articles feature names due to the nature of their office, but do not hold wikipedia pages in their own right (see Lord Mayor, Chief Exec). Both Youth Mayors are eighteen, and anyway, the names of them (even when children) appear on the council site, so it wouldn't be an issue. MYPs dont need to be there though Nightingale104 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My only additional comment is that once you add a name to a role, it becomes something that will at some point go out of date and therefore need future editing. Your choice though, I won't revert it - as long as it's properly referenced of course. Thanks for engaging! 10mmsocket (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes thanks to you too for being constructive. I'll restore the Youth Mayors but not the MYPs and will add another citation once the BCC website is updated. It also won't need to be changed after the current term as the Mayor will be abolished mid-2024. Many thanks! :) Nightingale104 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just picking up on the discussion on Ritchie333's talk page - I feel that IanVisits falls under the 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' clause in WP:SPS considering his publications in The Guardian, Londonist, and links to his site from several others that you would count as reliable. As such, I don't feel that going through tens of articles blindly removing references (and not replacing them with other, more suitable ones in a lot of cases) was of benefit to the articles concerned, so I'll be going through them and reinstating those where a better source can't be found over the next few days using the principle of WP:BRD. Mike1901 (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Quick note that I do agree better sources are available in some cases, but I dispute that no source at all is better than a reputable person's blog, even if not as strong as, say, mainstream media articles. Mike1901 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging, and doubly so for engaging politely which the other person failed to do. The links certainly show that Mansfield is notable, but as the Londonist shows he's notable as a blogger, not notable in particular subject area. I feel there's a distinction here, but I'm willing to concede your point that where no other reference is available, a link to his site is acceptable. I'd still prefer them all to be removed, and where there is another reference I will remove the links when I see them. I will not remove links where they are the only one and have no objection whatsoever to you reinstating the links that I have previously removed. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, and just to explain my thinking a bit more here - yes he's notable as a blogger, but his blogging is on an area that I would regard him a specialist in. As such, whilst not as strong a reference as, say, RAIL magazine or the BBC, I do disagree that I'd 'prefer them all to be removed' if no better source exists - there are a subset of topics where his site is the best information available, and I'd rather have that reference in place than lose the information concerned from the encyclopedia. He's well respected by other notable people in his subject area (which I'd broadly categorise as UK railways). Mike1901 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Food for thought, thanks 10mmsocket (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I like the site but I tend to agree we shouldn't treat it as a reliable source. It should be okay for opinions and possibly for uncontroversial stuff but if there are no references for a fact besides IV, the fact probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The site doesn't have an editorial policy or clear inclusion criteria and doesn't cite sources for its facts, nor does it give any information about the owner's expertise. It's essentially a hobby site. A good and popular one, but not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V) nor a work of scholarship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Take your point and fully agree that it's borderline, but for me his blog just creeps the right side of being a RS. I disagree about it not giving any info about the owner's expertise - and he's been published in multiple reputable sources (that would be fine to cite) - so I don't see how expanded content that he just happens to publish on his own site rather than in a railway magazine or UK newspaper is less trustworthy, when no better source exists? Mike1901 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If no better source exists, the material isn't suitable for Wikipedia. The difference is that those publications have editorial policies. They're supposed to fact-check the material they publish and they have clear processes for retractions and corrections and they subscribe to regulatory bodies like IPSO. That's why we rely more on (reputable) news publications than self-published sites, regardless of the author. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@10mmsocket, @Mike1901: I disagree that we can consider the otherwise excellent IanVisits as a reliable source. Until a reliable source can be found which references IV in a robust way as an authoritative and scrutinised source of information, then IV should continue to be treated as WP:SPS without the exemption listed at WP:RSSELF. It doesn't matter that no other sources can be found: {{citation required}} is the route to go, not adding a non-WP:RS because no other can be found. Bazza (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying remove the self-published source but leave a CN in place? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems logical to me, though I'd encourage where possible a quick search to see if a better one exists first, before going down the cn tag route. Mike1901 (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what I just did (diff). Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You can always use {{Better source needed}} if you can't find anything but it should be sourceable (assuming the statement isn't likely to be controversial). I would imagine most of the news IV publishes is stuff he's read somewhere else anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That goes right against my deletionist agenda, but is likely to be far less antagonistic when no other source is obvious!! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope my edit (diff) to replace an ianvisits blog entry is acceptable. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup no problem at all where sources are replaced with better ones! Though the heritage funding text might have got caught in the crossfire within your edit there? Mike1901 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply and your patience/consideriation in dealing with this. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries! Wikipedia's a learning experience for us all, and discussions like this where a consensus tries to get established make it work as a collaborative project. (You'll notice I stopped reverting as soon as the discussion opened up to more than just the two of us!) Incidentally, I'm swayed by the arguments of Bazza 7 and HJ Mitchell here for the unsuitability where IV references are backing up facts, rather than opinion - so I'll proceed through the rest on that basis. I'd say the majority where he's referenced in relation to a fact we'll be able to re-source anyway as his site is used as a reference for some quite high-profile projects. Mike1901 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed, me too, especially @HJ Mitchell's point about comment above "they have clear processes for retractions and corrections and they subscribe to regulatory bodies like IPSO", and @Bazza 7's about the lack of any exemptions. Thanks all. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Mattdaviesfsic take a look at the (very useful) thread above. I know you too have concerns about ianvisits.co.uk --10mmsocket (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Too late to add anything useful to the otherwise civil discussion (unlike another earlier...!), but plan of action below seems good. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Also agree - plan below is a good one! Mike1901 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary and further action for me

So here's my plan based going forward based on the excellent discussion above. The consensus seems to be that Mansfield is a knowledgeable person who has written for publications such as The Guardian, and whose work has been referenced elsewhere, e.g. The Londonist. His blogs are well written and his knowledge of topics such as London's railways mean his self-published blog could, if someone were to push, maybe even qualify for an exemption as a reliable source at WP:RSSELF. However, no such exemption exists and so it remains that Ianvisits.co.uk falls within the definition WP:SPS because, although the author is knowledgeable, it lacks "clear processes for retractions and corrections" and it does not "subscribe to regulatory bodies like IPSO". From this point on I will do the following whenever I encounter a link to ianvisits.co.uk

1. If the link is in the "External links" section I will lean towards leaving it in place due to the high standard of the content
2. If another suitable reference already exists immediately next to it then I will remove the ianvisits.co.uk reference
3. If a suitable replacement reference can be found then I will add it and remove the ianvisits.co.uk reference
4. If no suitable replacement reference exists then I will not delete it, but I will tag it with {{Better source needed}}

How does that sound? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with this course of action. As a separate matter though, and purely for my own understanding – where do the criteria clear processes for retractions and corrections and subscribe to regulatory bodies like IPSO appear in policy or guidelines? I read the text "[self]-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" in WP:RSSELF as neither needing a formal exemption process, as it might appear you suggest ("...no such exemption exists..."), nor as being subject to those two extra tests. Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That was my synthesis of policies and guidelines but largely correlates with Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. I was trying to explain why we consider the Grauniad a reliable source but that doesn't extend automatically to a contributor writing on their own website. Also, note that the consideration would be different if we were talking about an academic who is an expert in their field. It all depends on context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds admirable, and thank you for taking the trouble to formalise things.

I must admit to feeling slightly guilty at appearing to cast doubt on IanVisits: it's a superb site for entertainment and englightenment, but I understand the reasoning behind Wikipedia's requirement that sources used should have been robustly and independantly confirmed as reliable others. It would be interesting to know what criteria the Guardian, Londonist, and others, used to satisfy themselves that the content of IanVisits is reliable enough for their purposes. Bazza (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, I started a discussion on WP:RSN about IanVisits, so it might be worth moving thoughts there so they can be cross-referenced as a consensus point later. I'm glad 10mmsocket is engaging constructively and apologise for getting frustrated that they didn't appear to be doing so on my talk page. And, to be clear, it was the way they were arguing the point, not the point itself - IanVisits is not one of my go-to sources for London railway articles; indeed I have name checked a couple over at RSN that are. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie (and my bad! My initial post here should probably have gone over there, either instead or an amended version in parallel) - rather than lift directly I've linked over to this talk page from the RSN discussion. Mike1901 (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your feedback.

I am very new to Wilipedia and the reason I wanted to edit that result is because I actually have a video recording of the game. I may be able to find press articles of that time also.

The entries mentioned on that wikipage (Romania national under-21 football team results - regarding the goalscorers) are definitely wrong. Retrosport.ro (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Press article - definitely, that is a good reference. Personal knowledge, i.e. "I watched the game" is not an acceptable reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello 10mmsocket. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Andy Christell, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^giuliano 19:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @10mmsocket, just wondering what your opinion is on the use of the site WNXX as a source? I can't tell where the information on the site comes from, whether it's user-contributed or whether the information actually comes from industry sources and can therefore be considered reliable. Thanks for your input! Danners430 (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look at the site because it is behind a paywall. On the front page the section on "What is WNXX" doesn't give anything away about who contributes or how info its news and reference sections are populated. I would err on the site of caution but can't give a definitive opinion without looking behind the paywall. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, Can we discuss the deletion of the main Dft Race network please? Why exactly was this? Thank you. EQworksUK (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing goes on Wikipedia without a reference from a reliable source - see WP:REF. Nothing is true or taken as being the truth unless it is supported by a reference. Take a look at the link and shout if you need further help. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You were pretty quick off the draw :) - the PSG programme was being uploaded-now there. Please check link here on that page: https://www.eqworks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/PSG-25-Anniversary-Conference-Programme-Feb23.pdf EQworksUK (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So that's a conference schedule, which is one useful reference point to add when you put the info back into the article. Anything online about its history and/or purpose? 10mmsocket (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the useful guidance.

The PSG Race network is cited as a powerful support network helping people excel - win awards.

https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/10/whats-it-like-to-win-a-civil-service-award/ EQworksUK (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

PSG chair nominated in Diversity & Inclusion Awards as direct result of leading PSG network. https://www.diversityandinclusionawards.com/award-nominee/kulvinder-bassi-dft EQworksUK (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

PSG noted on Dft list of networks:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/about/equality-and-diversity EQworksUK (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

All good references. Looks like you have what you need now to put a section about it in the article. I'll keep an eye out and provide support if needed. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. How do I/ (can you please :) reinstate the original and then add in new references from there? EQworksUK (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Done - I simply went into the history and undid my contribution. Don't forget to add the references ASAP and be sure to use the {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates as appropriate. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear 10 mm socket,

Thanks for your message.

Let's have a talk about your response to my first Wikipedia page.

I don't understand why you consider this to be a copyright infringement. The majority of the page is not a direct copy, the majority of the Wikipedia page is not a copy of the About page on the MANHART Performance website.

There is one section which connects to the history of the brand which was rewritten accordingly to make sure it is different in words from the historical time-line of the brand.

I am not sure how you want me to rewrite that section even more to make sure it is factually correct and inclsude the right information about the history of the brand.

If you want me to complete use different words to say the exact same thing I will try to do my best, but it will still touch on the same history of the brand which is what is mentioned in the time line of the About page on MANHART Performance.

It is not like I can rewrite history or a different time line of events in connection to the brand. This is how it went.

Please guide me on what you want to see and I get it done, but all in all I don't believe this is copyright infringement when the one person who wrote both texts on both platforms is inserting it. And I have made that clear in my account, I believe.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

Marc Rutten

MarcRuttenMRBVNL (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear 10mm socket,

I have altered the history section of the Wikipedia page and I hope it is more too your liking.

Let me know your thoughts on it and I hope it is fine like this.

Kind regards,

Marc Rutten MarcRuttenMRBVNL (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I added the Welsh liveryed 170 image on the East Midlands Railway page because EMR operate with this livery with EMR Regional branding as well as the full purple. So I'm just bringing it in line with the 156 and 158 images.

I don't see why we need two images of the purple two-car 170s ethier. If we can't have the white one, just leave the original one. Pulsarnix (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:BlaineCreek Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Quack quack quack 10mmsocket (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Haha. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll watch for a couple of days and if you don't report him I will. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So that was unusual... He doesn't normally bite when poked with a stick. Could make the next time fun. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw. I'd have blocked for block evasion but I always prefer to block for a substantive issue, ie spamming. The block on the account should autoblock their IP but let me know if you spot them again. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Noted and thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi - New to this and writing on behalf of my young son who was devastated today to find he could not look up some of the class 390 locos at the class 390 page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390 (such as 390007)

He tried to track down when the page changed - i don't know if he got it right - but concluded it may have been during an edit by you on 27th Feb 2023.

we were keen to understand why some were removed, and whether it is perhaps reasonable to maintain a column of former names for all the 390 locos, even if they are currently not named by Avanti, so that they can continue to be researched/referenced and the name changes/additions/removals easily tracked.

(He was actually gifted the Clic Sargent nameplate (from 390047) by virgin when the franchise was handed over.) best regards 217.32.162.0 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts. So if verifiable sources WP:V exist and they are are consider to be reliable WP:RS then they can be used to backup the facts. Otherwise, they are unreferenced and have no place in the article. Wikipedia can attract people who know the truth and who want it to be a complete record of everything ever know. That's not what Wikipedia is. It isn't a directory WP:DIR. Just because we can publish something it doesn't mean that we can. Unfortunately the long list of locos with few references is the perfect example of the strive for completeness at any cost with no regard to the need for references. People add to it because they know the truth, but the truth counts for nothing without verifiable, reliable sources. Hope that helps explain the odd-to-some-people way things are done here. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hiya, why did you feel the tabulated information about the trauma responses was a copyright violation? While the headings are taken from the document from Dr Tim Parke, this isn't verbatim throughout, and is being used to discuss capabilities and demonstrate how they align to Dr Parke's work. I also do not see Dr Parke's work being clearly copyrighted in its own right. Why do you feel the tabulation was not helpful is explaining the roles/capabilities of the different Scottish trauma responses? Tannim101 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making the corrections to the staffs police page, I'm trying to introduce additional informatiom but definitely have an issue with over capitalising things..

though I would argue Chief *c*onstable should be capitalised ;)

thanks again! B0ydeno7 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a style guide for this - MOS:JOBTITLE. So "Chief Constable Fred Flintstone" is correct, because the job title is immediately before the name. Otherwise it's "chief constable" all the way. Hope that helps 10mmsocket (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi 10mmsocket, there is currently a discussion ongoing at the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding the validity of WNXX as a source in UK Rail articles that you may be interested in. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Bournemouth, Torquay, North Somerset etc. are legally non-metropolitan counties as well as non-metropolitan districts; that pretty much the definition of what a unitary authority area is. See each of those articles for further details.  Dr Greg  talk  16:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dr Greg I assume you have a source for that and it's not just your opinion? Because it doesn't match any of those articles or the government website... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell For example, the legislation for the creation of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole refers to "the establishment of a new non-metropolitan county and a new non-metropolitan district, each to be known as Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole". See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/648/pdfs/uksiem_20180648_en.pdf, page 7 section 7.12. And I think you're reading the articles I mentioned differently than I read them (specifically the infoboxes).  Dr Greg  talk  17:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Heya, Gone well past WP:3RR here, I'd be grateful if you could add it to your watchlist in case anything happens. Thx Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lord Lieutenant of Lanarkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mushtaq Ahmad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)