User talk:Harfarhs

I've explained this in my edit summary, but I'll do so again just in case you miss it. The use of phrases such as "Following her refusal to take up the leadership" do not reflect neutral language, and are unencyclopedic. Also you added lots of unnecessary overlinking to articles. Once we've linked the general election once we don't need to do it again, and Independent (with a capital) is wrong, since it is not a political party. Hope this helps. I suggest if you want to make major changes to the article that you engage in discussion on the talk page first, and attempt to gain some consensus. This woman is a controversial figure, and therefore it is of paramount importance that we discuss any major changes to her article. This is Paul (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary is, again, quite inadequate. I don't think that I introduced a single example of overlinking, whereas you evidently believe that Bedford doesn't merit being wikilinked - despite the likelihood that thousands of English-speaking people have never heard of the place. Had you mentioned even one example, I might have understood what you're attempting to do. Moreover, there is nothing about the phrase "her refusal to take up the leadership" that is incompatible with neutrality, nor is it "unencyclopaedic". If you look at the English WP articles on the UKIP leadership elections last year, it is a plain and simple description of what actually happened, and has been accepted by editors of those articles. In no way is the phrase derogatory or even critical. Lastly, it is quite normal to capitalize "Independent" when discussing politics. I look forward to hearing more about the problem(s) you have with my edits. Harfarhs (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it has suffered from too much nitpicking from people who wish to argue she wasn't the proper leader because she didn't formally accept the office, etc, etc (see this for example). However, the fact remains that she was elected, and was its leader for eighteen days or so. I'm going to suggest restoring your changes, apart from the phrase about her refusal, because I still argue it is unencyclopedic language, and just because that wording is used elsewhere doesn't make for a valid argument to use it here. You have to ask yourself how such a choice of wording would be viewed if this were a Good or Featured Article candidate. There's another reference to her refusing to do something, which I'm also going to remove. I've also found that using terms such as "that year's election", and so on, tend to be discouraged, but we'll leave that for now. As for the other articles you mention, they probably need a copy edit, but I don't have the time or inclination to do it. This is Paul (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyde Park Corner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park. 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) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Per your revert and comment on Join Hands, can you please show me an unambiguous reference that confirms your assertion: "changed it because the Brit Eng term is 'First World War'. so presumably ought to be used in a Brit Eng article?)"

A quick Google search seemed to turn up several prominent British usages of World War I (along with First World War and The Great War) including:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836

https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/research/military-records/british-soldiers-ww1-service-records.htm

If both terms are used in the UK, then should we not use Wiki's preferred usage (i.e., the article title, which is World War I)? We only use a Brit Eng term if it's clearly the predominant one. You may be right, but I'd like to see some confirmation. Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The problem with using websites, especially from large organizations, for this kind of purpose is that they're (naturally) aimed at an international audience. A British newspaper, or a British schoolteacher in the classroom, or any British person in everyday conversation would never, ever use the phrase "World War One". Please trust me on this! I didn't myself realise how many WP articles use "First World War" until another editor pointed it out to me. I think section 3 of WP:MOS indicates that owing to national ties, Brit Eng is to be preferred for the Join Hands article, as does the 'EngvarB' mention at the head of the wikitext. Harfarhs (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) British person here, experience has shown me that "First World War" is now an anachronism that's falling out of use. No young people say "it's twenty-five to seven" (as opposed to "six thirty five"), nobody bobs apples at Halloween, frogs "ribbet" and Father Christmas is being replaced by Santa. I can see Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells firing up his Hermes to the Daily Mail right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for the comedy. Harfarhs (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Alphege London Wall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Priory Church. 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) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Watson (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schizo (film). 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) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

In the case of this article, yuou made multiple small edits throughout, some of which were improvements, but most of which were not. I'm not going to work my way through your changes and pick and choose the ones which improved the article. Instead, please re-do the edits, section-by-section.

Further, please do not edit while logged-out, as you did on this article just now. It can be construed as attempting to avoid scrutiny of your edits, which is a violation of the WP:Sockpuppetry policy. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor was not me. I never edit whilst logged-out. Your cavalier approach to accusing fellow editors and your failure to cite even a single example of "most of which were not" lead me to take your comments with a complete absence of seriousness. Oh, and please review WP:OWN. Thanks, Harfarhs (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As the late Sheriff J.W. Pepper said, I guess your edit warring on Ashford, Kent was not your debut at this sort of thing, and I see both BMK and The Rambling Man have said as much previously. So, as Alan Sugar is fond of saying, why shouldn't we sanction you for systematic edit-warring across the encyclopedia over stuff that probably isn't so important in the grand scheme of things? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, passive-aggressive threats! Bring it on. I've done nothing wrong, and you still haven't supplied any evidence of the "many mistakes" you cited here, nor any evidence of the "emerging consensus" you alleged here. "Systematic edit-warring" indeed. Harfarhs (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the Wikipedia typo team and trying to eliminate the consecutive uses of the word "the." (Many are simple typos, often in redirects. When they're in references with errors, I'm marking them with the 'sic' template.)

Can you reconsider your reversion of my deletion of the duplicate "the" on this page that you did a short time ago? It's a misconception that it's grammatically correct to have two consecutive appearances of the word "the" when it's part of a title that would otherwise be preceded by the definite article. Informal grammar rules are much more forgiving for spoken than written English, but say the sentence that you changed out loud, and you'll see what I mean - it sounds silly.

I agree that when there is another word or phrase, usually an adjective, it's fine to place "the" before the adjective. So an alternative, if you prefer, is to recast the sentence as you did in your edit summary, such as, "In 1977, McNichol appeared in the TV special the The Carpenters at Christmas..."

Regards,

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over, Ira. I can assure you that it's not "a misconception that it's grammatically correct to have two consecutive appearances of the word 'the' ... " in the circumstances under discussion. To say something "sounds silly" is no evidence at all when discussing the use of formal English, as must be used in the English Wikipedia (whether an article be written in formal American English, formal British English, etc.). I'm sympathetic to your overall project - I am, myself, an editor mostly focused on article revision rather than article creation - but please be aware that there are some (if not many) cases where two 'the's may perfectly well be placed adjacent to each other in formal English.

Moreover, you've made an error here in your citation of the alternative version of the sentence that I gave in the edit summary! Still, I'm perfectly willing to edit the article to the correct alternative version. Have a good day. Harfarhs (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Harfarhs

I am pretty rubbish at updating tables myself, something I always avoid. I've done my best with the East Midlands constituency, hope it's okay :) doktorb _words^deeds 07:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that Doktorbuk, it's a substantial improvement! Harfarhs (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Logic Lane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Logicians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello sir, My name is Roy currently writing an article about Goshen land. I am looking for more opinion if you could help me about it. Thankyou sir Xile84 (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Can you comment at this RfC? It concerns an article's reception section, a trimmed revision over the current one, etc. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graham Dilley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Test match (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Please keep your edit summaries civil, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing un-WP:CIVIL about my edit summary. Please re-read the relevant page before saying anything so silly in future. Harfarhs (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If I might give one piece of advice - don't say "improved phrasing / punctuation", just say "changed phrasing / punctuation". "Improved" carries the implication that whoever wrote the old prose was an uneducated dingbat; whether it is or not, just improve the encyclopedia without rubbing people's noses in it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that contribution—but given that all edits are changes, and that edit summaries are supposed to give some information about the edit, I will carry on exactly as I have in the past. Good day. Harfarhs (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, if you find yourself staring at an unblock request, don't say you weren't warned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Some of us are here to build—and improve—an encyclopaedia. Just concentrate on that rather than on encouraging someone else's passive-aggressive threat. Harfarhs (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's why I ignored this message and concentrated on getting a 132nd article passed through GA. Have a nice life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember making that revert and must have hit the button by accident. Sorry Ribbet32 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's OK, I've hit the wrong button myself sometimes - in my case usually the 'return' key halfway through typing an edit summary :) best wishes Harfarhs (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I think perhaps it would be helpful to offer a few pointers. I don't know if you are a native speaker of BrE or even if English is your first language, but your changes contained solecisms, such as changing "first, secondly" (traditional BrE form) to "firstly, secondly", and the plain "unknown" to "unbeknownst" which Fowler labels as "uneducated or facetious" usage. Why you think "1972–1982" is an "abbreviation" is a mystery. As to your assertion that the Manual of Style forbids piping of the prenominal "Sir" I wonder where you got that idea. It is standard usage: see here, here or here. A couple of your ideas are unobjectionable, though not improvements, but the net effect of your alterations would be to make the prose of the article worse. On the more general point of drive-by edits of GAs, I don't know if you are familiar with Wikipedia's quality assessment arrangements, but articles awarded "Good Article" status have been through an independent review (in this case by an editor who has the distinction of nine Featured Articles – Wikipedia's highest class – to his credit), and though of course they can be improved, discretion is advisable in making changes to them. I hope these points are helpful. Good wishes, Tim riley talk 06:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. I would add that you appear to be an experienced editor, and yet your edits at the Philharmonia article clearly violate WP:BRD and constitute WP:EDITWARring. If you make a change to an article (B) that is then reverted by another editor (R) you then must open a discussion (D) on the Talk page if you wish to pursue the changes further. I see that others have already reminded you of this above. If you have any edits that you feel are important to the article, please raise them on the Talk page there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"If you make a change to an article (B) that is then reverted by another editor (R) you then must open a discussion (D) on the Talk page if you wish to pursue the changes further."

Perhaps you didn't see how User:Tim riley reverted in such a way as not to alert me of the reversion. Hardly the behaviour of an editor who is concerned about the niceties of communication. Or perhaps you're just biased. Harfarhs (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Hello. I think perhaps it would be helpful to offer a few pointers."

Don't patronise me.

"I don't know if you are a native speaker of BrE or even if English is your first language, but your changes contained solecisms, such as changing "first, secondly" (traditional BrE form) to "firstly, secondly", and the plain "unknown" to "unbeknownst" which Fowler labels as "uneducated or facetious" usage."

I'm a native speaker of BrE, not that it's any business of yours. "Unknown" and "unbeknownst" are different words with different usages. There was nothing incorrect about my usage. "Unbeknownst" is more formal, and is used to refer to lack of awareness of a particular fact. See for example here.

"Why you think "1972–1982" is an "abbreviation" is a mystery."

Of course it's an abbreviation — it is being used to substitute for an English phrase, "1972 to 1982".

"As to your assertion that the Manual of Style forbids piping of the prenominal "Sir" I wonder where you got that idea. It is standard usage: see here, here or here."

Piping may very well be used in such a way in those articles (I didn't bother to look) but whoever piped a link in such a way had never seen WP:NOPIPE, or if they had seen it, had not followed what it said.

"A couple of your ideas are unobjectionable, though not improvements, but the net effect of your alterations would be to make the prose of the article worse."

You're completely wrong. I seriously doubt your familiarity with BrE. Moreover, since it took my observation skills to correct a substantial factual error—which you had apparently not seen, despite having recently edited the article—in List of compositions by Frederick Delius, I'm not going to blindly accept your judgement in any such matter.

"On the more general point of drive-by edits of GAs.."

The phrase "drive-by edits" is used in order to denigrate WikiGnomes, and by editors who have not taken WP:OWN to heart. Edits are either valuable or not; the vast majority of my edits are valuable. All my edits on the Philharmonia Orchestra article are valuable. That you fail to recognise this is unfortunate for the project; but in time all the article material will be improved, if not by me then by someone else. In the meantime, having no aim in mind but the improvement of articles, I will continue to edit as I see fit. Good day. Harfarhs (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, Tim riley is English and is responsible for dozens of WP:Featured articles. To be blunt, not patronizing, your edits were extremely, embarrassingly poor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for revealing yourself as a troll. I'm glad the evidence of it will remain on this page for everyone to see for many years to come. Good day. Harfarhs (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes. It's clear that the revert cycle isn't going to work, so why not just lay out your arguments clearly for all to see? - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. I made a start on that a short while before you posted, although given that I received very little in the way of reasonable reply via the edit summaries, I can't say that I live in hope. Harfarhs (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A fat lot of good that did—I'd have got more genuine wish to collaborate out of a brick wall. Harfarhs (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You are being your own worst enemy there and not actually discussing the things you want to change. Instead it’s all going downhill and your comments are goading the others. If you want to turn it round to be positive, pick out three of your strongest points and say “xxx should be changed to yyy because .....” people will then be able to discuss the actual points, rather than just start trading insults, which isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it looks like that to you—I thought I made a quite reasonable opening statement. User:Tim riley's ultra-patronising response to the mention of WP:NOPIPE, especially seen in conjunction with the nonsense they posted above about "standard usage", leaves no room for any attempt to compromise, as far as I can see. Harfarhs (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Party (UK, 1998), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malvern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I thought it might be worthwhile attempting to standardise info boxes on UK politics pages.

Would be keen to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,

Mel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Member1494 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the paragraph I wrote. Could you also check out the quote itself? The original is actually in portuguese, so it is ok to fix it as well.

[...]According to his biography written by his son Flávio, Bolsonaro "was candidate for councillor because it happened to be the only option he had in the moment to avoid persecution by some superiors. His entry into politics happened by chance, for his desire was to continue in his military career".

Thanks. --Bageense^(disc.) 11:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pick Withers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dumnagual and Dyfnwal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duffy (singer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Mail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not alter white space and capitalization in citations as you did in the majority of the last dozen edits (such as this one at Chicano) without a valid reason. This may be a violation of WP:CITEVAR. I would have reverted, but you bundled them with other fixes such as italics and punctuation fixes, and I didn’t want to undo those as well. Just so you know, going forward. Thanks for your edits to improve the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over. Your appreciation is valued. However, I would like to respond thus:

a) I contend that it's nothing to do with WP:CITEVAR, which does not refer to the matters you raise above. In the matter of "consensus" mentioned there, if you wished to extend the CITEVAR policy to such matters, you might well consider that in a vast number of articles there is (as yet) no consensus on the capitalization and spacing of cites. In passing, though, I have noticed several articles where my spacing idea has been adopted by others - which I have done nothing to promote; I have quite enough to do without such vanity.

b) What my actions are to do with is making cites easily readable - "an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit" (WP:CITEVAR). The unjustifiable presence of capital letters and the unjustifiable absence of spaces, or use of many spaces, all reduce the readability of cites. This is, if you will forgive the phrase, not rocket science. Initial capital letters are used in order to distinguish a word from its uncapitalized form, and therefore a reader always slows up, even momentarily, when encountering one (in order to work out what the capitalization is being used to convey). This applies even in the case of initial capitals in e.g. "Cite web".

c) Given that my edits are designed to improve every aspect of an article where I find improvement possible, indifferent to what the aspect might be, it's scarely surprising if different type of change come to be "bundled" with others. However, perhaps that point was already obvious, in which case I apologise.

Again, thanks for your message. Harfarhs (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Point by point:

a) You’re right, it wasn’t CITEVAR but MOS:VAR, which says: "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that 'When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.' "

b) "Unjustifiable" to you, maybe; though obviously not to the editor whose edit you altered, and to others. What you consider obvious and not rocket science, has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, it’s merely your own personal preference.

Please respect MOS:VAR and refrain from making such changes in the future. If you believe they improve the article, please discuss on the Talk page of the article first as MOS:VAR recommends, and attempt to gain consensus for it. If you believe that capitalized versions are better, or that versions with embedded spaces are better not only in a specific article but everywhere for the reasons you list above, please take that up on the Talk page of the guideline or policy and try to get consensus there. Failing that, edits of this type are pure personal preference, and that type of edit is against the guideline. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, I contend that the material you are using to support your argument does not refer to the matters under discussion here. I say that having just read the pages you wikilinked to in your reply above. Still, thanks for coming over. Harfarhs (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ed Gein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crowbar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your edits for concision (thanks for those), please express page numbers like 23 to 24 as 23–24 and not 23–4. While this latter was convention many decades back, historians (not amateurs, but academics) now generally write out the entire page number for clarity. Thanks --Obenritter (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm pleased that you appreciate my edits! I'm certain that I didn't make any alterations to the manner in which page numbers are cited - but I completely agree with what you say, the format you have changed them to is the right one. (I believe there is even something in the MOS saying so!) Best wishes, Harfarhs (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm almost done copyediting this very long article in preparation for an FA nomination. I was editing the Sport section when you edit-conflicted with me by editing the entire article. Although I was able to resolve the conflict, please edit by section; I'm stepping back from the article until it stabilizes (pinging Jaguar, who requested the copyedit). Barring further edit conflicts, I hope to finish the copyedit in the next day or so. All the best, Miniapolis 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for coming over. I was not notified of any edit conflict, but I'm sorry for inadvertently causing difficulty. I'll look at the article again in a few days! Best wishes, Harfarhs (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I got the edit-conflict notice when I tried to save my edits after you started editing the whole article. It's very long (62 kB, 10,000 words), so it helps to edit by section; that way, another editor can edit another section at the same time. H:EC explains it better than I can . Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 01:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Bruce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Premier League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Mail.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

disregard this extended blather, have reverted... I am so exhausted I misread you, and the matter you addressed was correct. Homeschooling threatens to turn me into zombie, please excuse. Peace out PB57 (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

BBC Sport is the work rather than the website, and thus should be used in the 'work' parameter, rather than 'publisher'. Per the documentation for {{cite news}}, the publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). As BBC Sport is the website and BBC is the organisation, BBC Sport should be considered the 'work'. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That's incorrect here, because there is no 'work' in this example. BBC Sport is not a 'work' (read the article); if it were, the article title would be italicized. This is not a new thing; many articles have citations where the source is a publisher (BBC News) or news agency (Reuters) and there is no 'work' to put in the citation. Harfarhs (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree though it does depend on semantics a little. But this is the most trivial dispute I've had in a while so I'll leave it. I would appreciate it in future if you don't change BBC Sport from 'work' to 'publisher' when it is the existing format though per WP:CITEVAR. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harfarhs, I noticed your recent edit here shifted two Sidebars from the lead to the very bottom of the article. I'm not a fan of sidebars myself in most cases, and if you wish to delete them I would not oppose, but when used they are generally expected to be in the lead. I would say that generally a sidebar could be replaced by a navbox at the bottom, but in this case the article already has Philippine and Spanish Empire navboxes which cover the sidebar topics. CMD (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi CMD, thanks very much for coming over. I honestly didn't realise that they were sidebars and not more navboxes! Of course you are right about the display conventions, and I see that the conventional way would be better; if you give me ten minutes or so I'll put them back where they were! Harfarhs (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Not problem, although perhaps a script tweak needed if these edits are semi-automated. CMD (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, why did you remove "the" before "Serie A/B" at A.C. Monza? As far as I see it, it's the same as "Premier League", in the sense that we would not say "The club plays in Premier League". Lega Serie A itself also uses "the". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Because that is, by far, the usual way in which speakers of English refer to the Italian leagues. See, as a random example I just picked, Sampdoria ("..has been contested in Serie A for most of its history", "For about thirty years the Genoese played constantly in Serie A"). Harfarhs (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's 50/50. A few sources use "the", others don't. I'd rather keep it as it seems that the league itself uses it. Also, we should keep the collective "they" for teams, as is common practise in UK English. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been keeping "they" for teams, because they are groups of people. Clubs, however, are corporate bodies and ought to be referred to in the singular; it is not usually a problem to distinguish the two in Wikipedia articles. As for the definite article with 'Serie', I understated my case - I have never heard, or read, anyone whose first language is English refer to, e.g., "the Serie A", only to "Serie A". It is nothing like 50/50; it is not a matter of controversy except in sources that have been translated from another language. Remember, too, we have MOS:COMMONALITY. Harfarhs (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of when to use "they" and when not? I'm not entirely clear on this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jonathan Dimbleby, 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) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page John Humphrys, 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) 15:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Troubles, 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) 22:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Harfarhs. I was doing a little clean-up on Chuts and so noticed you'd removed the internal link to London, describing it as "pointless". Even though the article describes a community and culture only to be found there. Such links seem to be something you clean up with some zeal - and when they infest an article I've done so too - but please reconsider what is "pointless" in context before doing so. Best wishes, Plutonium27 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over. Have you read and considered MOS:OVERLINK in relation to the article in question? I suggest to you that different attitudes to the guideline exist. For example, Union Square (Manhattan) describes something unique to Manhattan, and (naturally) is a heavily patrolled article, but when in 2021 I removed the New York City links there per OVERLINK, my action attracted no attention. Excepting common terms from the OVERLINK guideline and wikilinking them, citing "context", seems to me difficult to justify, because (here considering Chuts) the more the subject of an article relates only to - for example - a given large city, the more obvious will be the meaning of the linked term. If asked I would say that the value of links lies in explanation to the reader, and that therefore they ought to be restricted as far as possible to items obscure and matters technical. Harfarhs (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have read and considered that MOS. And yes, you were wrong to remove the internal link on London from the Chuts article.Plutonium27 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless, of course, I wasn't wrong to do so. As I say, thanks for coming over. Harfarhs (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the edits to the Morbid Angel page. "They were one of the first bands to incorporate guttural vocals, up-tempo blast beats, multiple tempo changes and a dark atmosphere. Morbid Angel was..." is correct because Morbid Angel is the name of a band not a thing or a certain item. So please stop reverting. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edits are incorrect according to the style used in Wikipedia articles. You yourself are using pronouns, but the incorrect ones for US bands - plural ones. I am using the correct ones - singular ones.

Do some research. Harfarhs (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

No they're not incorrect. The opposite of "it" not only indicates that Morbid Angel is just a band name and not a thing, but easily avoids confusion to some readers on Wikipedia. So, again, please stop changing back those edits. Thank you. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

"It" does not even have an opposite. You are talking nonsense. I shall proceed as before. Good day. Harfarhs (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you'll leave it the way it was before. You have a good day too. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if I wasn't trying to be rude when I was reverting your changes, my view that "the opposite of 'it'" easily avoids Wikipedia readers/viewers from getting confused like I already said. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for some of your fixes on the Beth Winter page, especially regarding the referencing-my apologies for shortcomings.

I noticed you changed 'September 18' to '18 September'. This isn't a huge deal of course, but in British English it's tradition to say the month before the date. E.g., I'd say "September the 18th" rather than "18th of September", as American English does. This is becoming more fluid and interchangeable nowdays thanks to America's cultural hegemony, but the former is still more common. It seems odd of you to make an effort to change that when it's correct and on the page of a British politician.

Why did you do that, may I ask? Is there some article or discussion on Wikipedia that has set out a particular policy for the ordering there? I'm not asking to be hostile, I genuinely don't know and I'm happy to learn if I've missed something.

I also didn't quite understand why you swapped around the order of Mark Serwotka and his title. Is there a convention there that I've missed? Again, no hostility, just asking genuinely. It's gramatically correct and commonly used both ways around, so it seems a bit odd to just thrust your stylistic choice onto the article when it's not otherwise necessary, and I'm pretty sure it's even against Wikipedia's policies to change between dialects of English unilaterally like that, in the case of the dates.

Thanks in advance. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming over. I'm always happy to explain my edits.

With regard to date formats, I regret to say (but must be bold enough to say) that your statement is quite wrong in all respects. The relevant guideline is MOS:DATETIES. All articles that have a strong national tie with the UK (that is, those that are about something decisively British in use or origin, or someone decisively British in citizenship) use DMY dates, per the MOS. And one would never write either "September the 18th" or "18th of September" because those are not styles used in writing. Feel free to look around WP:YEAR for other style guidelines re: dates.

With regard to the Mark Serwotka sentence, the problem was simply that it was punctuated in a non-standard way. See MOS:COMMA. (This, curiously, is very often a problem in articles with a strong national tie to Ireland.) One of my main concerns when editing is (while following MOS:TIES) to make sure, as far as possible, that everyone with a command of English will be able to follow the text, no matter which language is their mother tongue. With the Serwotka sentence I felt the best solution was to rewrite it; it is generally the case that giving the name, followed by an explanation of who the person is, produces clearer language than giving those elements in the opposite order. (Perhaps it is clearer for psychological reasons.) The other choice would have been to remove the comma following "Union", but that would have introduced the problem described in MOS:SEAOFBLUE, so I decided not to use that.

Best wishes Harfarhs (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the links. I will keep it in mind for the future. Having read your explanation and the style guides, I agree with your decisions. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Harfarhs. Your wiki edit anniversary was 2 days ago, marking 19 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 07:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks! I do my best :) Harfarhs (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)