User talk:Robminchin

Canada's most renowned publication for attorneys and legal practitioners:

"The JD is internationally regarded as indicating a second-entry professional degree program, unlike the LLB, which in most common law countries indicates a first-entry degree program with no post-secondary entrance requirements." ^[1]

Every single law school in Canada with a JD program describes the JD as being second entry and REQUIRES prior undergraduate education. ^{[2] [3] [4]}

Monahan added that the JD will be “a clearer reflection of the nature of the Osgoode degree,” particularly for international audiences who may not be familiar with the LLB and who may incorrectly think that an LLB is a first-entry degree.” ^[5]

“The Americans and Canadians, long ago we developed a very different model of legal education, one that’s a second-entry program,” he said. “The LL.B. programs in England and Australia are basically 18-year-olds just out of high school. Instead of studying English, philosophy or history, they’re just studying law, and it’s not a very sophisticated legal education. “The product that we offer is an entirely different product.” The second-entry professional program, like the one at Queen’s, is increasingly recognized internationally as a superior form of legal education. ^[6]

Take the MD. No one actually thinks the MD in Canada is a “bachelor’s degree.” It has baccalaureate standing in medical and academic settings because it is the “first” medical degree, although it is a "second-entry" program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IcarusLivesX (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

All you have to do is add the citations to the article, rather than trying to rely on a source that doesn't say it is second entry. This discussion would also be better held on the article's talk page. Robminchin (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Saying that the JD is a bachelor's degree without qualifying it with the phrase "second entry" is deliberately misleading because it suggests that one can partake in JD studies immediately after high school without a bachelor's degree/undergraduate education. It is very much like saying to someone unfamiliar with Canada's education system, "the MD is a bachelor's degree," without further qualification. The only problem with this is that the bachelor's degree, in the traditional sense (as it is referred to in regular discourse), denotes a program undertaken immediately after high school. However, both the JD and MD are second-entry professional degrees that require prior undergraduate education.

I could refer to many, many more sources, but the above are just a few that one can access with a 5-second Google search: — Preceding unsigned comment added by IcarusLivesX (talk • contribs) 15:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If the only source cited doesn't say it is second entry, then you can't say it's second entry. Wikipedia is about verifiability Robminchin (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

How are you doing? You undid a couple of editions I made. Just with the aim to clarify the situation, UNESCO offers the International Handbook of Universities for a free download (The link I provided)

• International Handbook of Universities 2017 IHU

There are 3 different options to buy the product in Amazon, and the free link that I published with the same content than 2 of the version available.

• UNESCO British Virgin Islands offer it on Amazon for $99
• Palgrave Macmillan For $769.03
• Amazon Kindle for 0.99
• International Handbook of Universities 2017 Free Download

Let me know if that is incorrect, since it is not my intention to cause any confussion, and I think students may have access to this material as soon as it is avaliable for free download legally. Taesulkim (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That something is freely available does not mean it is not linkspam, and the item in question is not being published by the UN agency UNESCO, but by another organisation using the same initials. Robminchin (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, and consider your actitute very unpolite to undid a revision, instead of discussing the issue in the talk page. Furthermore The International handbook its also available in WEBARCHIVE:ORG https://archive.org/details/INTERNATIONALHANDBOOK It does also supposed to be SPAM???

Taesulkim (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of the Arctic members, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Mary's University and Ministry of Environmental Protection. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -barrelroll.dev (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted this edit to the London School of Economics, for the reason "Undo good faith edit that formatted numbers contrary to MOS:NUMERAL." I made that edit in accordance with an exception to MOS:NUMERAL—"155 nationalities" is at the beginning of the sentence (a point that might have been obscure because it is preceded by a reference). See WP:NUMNOTES' last bullet point:

* Avoid beginning a sentence with figures

Edit: My apologies, but I just edited a section above to keep its references within itself, rather than below this, the current last section on the page.— DocWatson42 (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, DocWatson42, I had completely missed that it was the start of a sentence. Thanks. Robminchin (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your remark on the "consensus" on SP article, the problem is that the other user are obviously biased in favor of SP, desperately wanting to put clear advertisement in the article from the beginning. But if you are ok with something yourself, ok then. --Launebee (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, what's your opinion on this? Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am constantly personally attacked in the SP edit summaries. Don't you think that IcarusLivesX is doing academic boosterism? I used the talk page but the user does not use it but personally attacks me, can't I do anything against this false attacks? --Launebee (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that the discussion is becoming a quagmire. Doctor is a title for scientists. A practitioner (medicine) is not a scientist so the title is not applicable. Only for practitioners ad the university which also "practice" science the title should be allowed. There is a tendency to merge practicing and science but disasters are the future.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably this refers to the Doctor (title) article; I'm not sure which "discussion" you are talking about. I would note that: 1) Wikipedia says what the usage is or should be based on reliable sources, it does not (or should not, at least) give the personal opinions of the editors. 2) Doctor has never been a scientific title – as the article make clear it was first used for teachers of law and theology at the medieval universities, and many PhDs are awarded today in non-scientific fields. Robminchin (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robminchin,

Thank you for your reply. You are right "Wikipedia tries to depict (describe) things as they are". OK. But my objection is critic on reality. You are right that the title came down from theology. But at the beginning only the clergy was thought to be apt to schooling in "earthly" philosophy -> science. So I "think" that the title originated from that source. I thought theology originally only had a title "Master"? PhD is indeed a very "empty" honouration, sorry the word does not exist?

145.129.136.48 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

145.129.136.48 (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Both "Doctor" and "Master" are from Latin words used to mean teacher, and were for a period used interchangeably. Doctor was first used in the mid 13th century to refer to those licenced to teach law at Bologna and those licenced to teach theology at Paris.

In Britain, the usage arose that "Master" was used for the lower faculties (eventually just arts) while "Doctor" was used for the higher (theology, law, medicine and music). It wasn't until the 19th century, with the introduction of new faculties, that the modern concept of a bachelor-master-doctor progression arose.

A doctor was therefore a learned scholar in their field, but the was no link to research particularly, which wasn't considered a core part of the mission of a university until the Humboldtian model of higher education arose in Germany in the early 19th century (although some university fellows and professors, such as Newton and Hooke, obviously did carry out research, there was no general expectation of this).

The modern PhD arose alongside the Humboldtian model. ("Philosophy" was the general faculty in Germany, like Arts in Britain.) The PhD spread from Germany to the US in the later 19th century then to Britain in the early 20th century. Before this, Britain had introduced what are now known as higher research doctorates in the late 19th century, which gradually replaced the older doctorates given purely for scholarship.

It was also in the 19th century that US universities adopted the MD as the initial medical degree, giving physicians the title of doctor. In the UK there was a long debate through the 19th century about the use of the title by physicians who weren't MDs (which I wrote up in the Doctor (title) article), the end result of which was an acceptance that physicians could use "doctor" as a courtesy title even if they didn't hold a doctorate.

The linking of the doctorate with research is, then, an idea dating from the 19th century, the same as the courtesy use of the title by British physicians and the adoption of the MD as the universal qualification for American physicians. In terms of use of the title, it is not therefore possible to truly establish precedence for either scientists or medical practitioners – the academic title predates both by around six centuries – although it is certainly the case that the US is out of step with the rest of the modern world in its use of professional doctorates for non-research degrees. Robminchin (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Robminchin,

I am very grateful and obliged for your extensive answer. It are facts. What I had in mind was that in the Netherlands a "student" is only allowed to have the title Doctor after passing successful the "comprehensive examination". I see this is not general. My objection to passing that title to a physician is that the course for physicians on the university has not the main intention to make the student a scientist?? Only the physician who beside his main occupation also practice science should be allowed (after above) to have the title Doctor??

Regards. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The practice varies between countries - it is normal in English-speaking countries for medical practitioners to have the title "Doctor". In theory, Germany restricts the title to those who do a research thesis, but the Dr. Med. degree has become somewhat devalued. It should be remembered that Dr is also used outside of the sciences, for people who gain PhDs in the arts and humanities, for example - it has never been a purely scientific title. In some countries, such as France and the US, it is the scientists who are having the fight for the right to use the title of Doctor, which most people associate with medical practitioners. It might have been better to have had different titles for PhDs and physicians, but it is probably too late for that now. Robminchin (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I think what you say is true. My chief concern is the proceeding marriage (merger?) of medicine with science. The have totally different roots and should politely keep distance. But perhaps you're right that it is too late and we (I?) can only check (?) in sorrow (to whatever it may lead).

145.129.136.48 (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Only one last remark: Doctor is an conception originating in a religious context. It is "hazardous" to export it. 145.129.136.48 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This is in reference to your reversion of my removal of what I took to be probable vandalism—a reference to "dr. phil." as an abbreviation of the degree title—in the abovementioned article. You state (correctly as of 02:26 UTC, 13 July 2017) that this is attested to in the body of the article. However, there does not appear to be any citation supporting this assertion in the body of the article. Please clarify. Trumpet marietta 45750 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Trumpet marietta 45750:, I assume it was considered well enough known by the editor who put it in the body not to need an explicit citation. I've now added one. Robminchin (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robminchin,

Thank you for your message.

My link was about the position of Professor Freeman Dyson, IAS in Princeton, on the PhD.

See for example :

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/04/01/freeman_dyson_on_the_phd_degree

What do you think about this ?

Best regards,

Academy of Philosophy

Academy of Philosophy (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Academy of Philosophy,

There is content here that could be summarised in the "Value and criticism" section of the article. It doesn't warrant a "See also" link to Dyson – that section is for related pages, not pages about people who have commented on the PhD. Including a link to the article on Dyson as part of a summary of his views in the "Value and criticism" section would be much more appropriate.

Cheers,

Robminchin (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robminchin,

Thank you for your advice.

Best regards,

Academy of Philosophy

Academy of Philosophy (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

First, my apologies for revising your edit without a comment. I am still figuring out how to use Wikipedia and thought I had left a comment. I obviously made a mistake.

I reached out to the Registrar's office at Georgetown University Law School, and they have confirmed by email that Juris Doctorem or Juris Doctor are appropriate designations for their degree, one being in Latin and the other its English translation. I can scan the email into a PDF format, but don't know how to then place it somewhere that can be verified. Can you help me with that process? I also have a picture of the portion of my diploma, which provides the name of the degree (actually, the entire diploma is in Latin, except for my name (they stopped translating student names into Latin in the 1960's). Law School Prof (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I can't think of a way of placing an email somewhere that can be verified. The picture of the portion of the degree certificate could be uploaded and inserted as an image into the page. Robminchin (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I have been following the discussions in the UCL Talk page, and I would just like to commend you for not falling for the inappropriate personal attacks you have been receiving. Thank you for continuing to follow through the Wikipedia policies and maintaining its encyclopaedic standards. Please continue the great work! EmyRussell (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Robminchin (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:University_College_London_discussion

Moraun (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doctor (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viva voce (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) 09:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how you got "✓" into this edit and two "§"'s into this one, but however it happened it's causing errors. If you understand how it came about I'd be genuinely curious to hear it, because it's really odd. Either way, if you can avoid it in future, that'd be appreciated. › Mortee _talk 14:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Manchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Triangle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Wales Trinity Saint David, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Articulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edit removed Durham as a university that has "teaching within some colleges", suggesting that Durham has teaching in none of its colleges. The former is more accurate because there is in-college teaching at St John's College (Cranmer Hall). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.201.254.113 (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@118.201.254.113: While there is teaching in Cranmer Hall, this is on ordination courses. There is no teaching on Durham University courses in the colleges, which is what is relevant here. Robminchin (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for revising the Russell Group page. I went ahead and slotted in the British Ivy terminology with solid sourcing. Also, for the sake of specificity, rather than vaguely stating "dispute," I added the core of the source's issue. Mainly, the production of widely perceived superior outcomes from six programs outside of RG, over the bottom quarter of the group itself. Please feel free to punch it up even more. When the specific critique occupies roughly the same amount of ink, it's often a bit more convenient. Thanks again! Wikipedite (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page of the article. 8 have opened a discussion there. Robminchin (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		To show appreciation for noteworthy contributions to Imperial College London § History Shadowssettle(talk) 18:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to place it where you want, or delete it if you don't know where to put it Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently noticed that you have reverted my edit in the section "Canada" despite proper citation. May I get to know the reason? ABCDE22 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to reply to this messege as I have added new info with ref which clear both of our concern. Plz check and let me know if you think any new improvement are required. ABCDE22 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robminchin,

I noticed that you've reverted edits on the page Bachelor's Degree by another user. That user has continued to repeat the same behaviour, and so I have raised the issue on its talk page, and was wondering if you wanted to chip in. Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If you were so concerned that the article was written in UK English, it is a pity your concern ended before the 2nd paragraph, "Examples of honours degree include the honors bachelor's degree in the United States"... as such, making the edit consistent. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The "honors bachelor's degree" there is referring specifically to the name of the US degree, so is spelt correctly. The names of honours degree in various countries have now been italicised as per MOS:WAW to make this clearer. And yes, I believe we should follow Wikipedia's manual of style with regards to national varieties of English. Feel free to propose a change to the MOS if you don't like it. Robminchin (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As to my liking it or not, I don't think that is the issue. I would imagine readers would be keen to avoid a repeat of the article, Data center, in which three citations have been provided simply for this distinction, demonstrating just how ridiculous the issue appears to have become. Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass. 82.14.227.91 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The situation at data center sounds foolish; there is no need for such citations. The Wikipedia Manual of Style actually has very clear guidelines and this should have been worked out on their talk page. The honours degree page is clearly labelled as being in British English (correctly, as the article is primarily about degrees in Britain and the Commonwealth), so all content on that page should follow British spelling. Robminchin (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people, we don't add names to residents/alumni lists unless they are notable; typically, the subject will already have an article in Wikipedia written about them, or in some cases, an article does not exists but the subject clearly meets WP:BIO notability (i.e., CEO or founder of notable company, Olympic athlete, dean of a university, etc). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robminchin, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Infobox UK university rankings template: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= is that meant to be in the template? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bachelor's degree, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BE and BBS (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) 07:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, hope everything's well all things considered. There is currently a neutrality dispute on Imperial College Business School (talk), and I was hoping to form a consensus. As you've been on WP:UNI/WP:HED for a while now (at least I've run into you quite a bit) I thought you might have something to add on the matter. I am adding this to your talk page since my previous attempts to just message WT:HED for previous discussions haven't had much attention. Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what happened there with all the styling issues. I edit conflicted with you (your changes started after I opened the editor) and I guess I messed something up trying to fix it. Many apologies. I would've fixed it straight away but got pulled away straight after the edit; I must remember to check the preview more carefully. Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shadowsettle: no problem – it was a fairly simple task of replacing the html entities with the real characters. Robminchin (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A discussion which may be relevant to you is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting articles you have contributed to (such as Imperial College Business School and Imperial College London), and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects those pages. Your views and input would be most welcome! Shadowssettle_(talk) 15:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armorial of British universities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bedford College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Burridge (priest), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Byrne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Drevolt (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and greetings,

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Nightingale_College#Request_for_comment_on_Nightingale_College as you suggested! Infinitepeace (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		This barnstar is awarded to Robminchin for his ingenious and peaceful ideas on solving the Nightingale College incusion issue. It is a neutral and smart third party ideas that are needed badly here on Wikipedia! 3 cheers!!! Infinitepeace (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL. you deserve a different barnstar :) I forgot about this already.  ;-) Infinitepeace (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of oldest universities in continuous operation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry III and Barbarossa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Then also President of the Royal Astronomical Society should be updated. Hobbema (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these things need to be updated every couple of years. That's not a good reason to go around reverting the updates. Robminchin (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not see that I reverted something. Thought the infobox was not updated with the info given in the text and the above list. Can happen. Hobbema (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University College London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Arthur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In what way is my edit "puffery". I'm not saying it's the best University and I didn't put in my own praise. I'm just saying what the stats show which constantly ranks Cardiff as the best University in Wales. Don't be foolish 😑 AtishT20 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Especially as a former Alumni yourself, I simply don't see what the problem is. AtishT20 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@AtidhT20: "considered the most prestigious and highest ranking university in Wales" is text book puffery. And the assertion that it is the highest ranked in Wales runs up against the fact that it is nine places behind Swansea in the Guardian table. As an alumnus (not a former alumnus), I want to see the best article on Wikipedia for the university, not one that over-puffs it and makes us look like a bunch of blow-hards. Robminchin (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point however I've noticed on pages such as that of the University of Oxford and Cambridge this puffery which you mention is included. Of course this is not me comparing, arguably the two of the best universities in the world to Cardiff however that's why I had made the edit as I believed it was in good faith. Also you don't need to correct my grammar. It was a minor error as I didn't realise I had written the word 'former'. AtishT20 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Cosin's library is not a scheduled monument. Please check the citation on the infobox where it lists the library as a scheduled monumnent. That takes you to the Historic England's page where the id number 1121382 shows the library as a Listed building, not a scheduled monument. I searched Historic England for "Cosin's Library" and "Scheduled monument" and found 0 results. I should have noticed the infobox details and changed it, but I was focusing on removing the category. If you disagree with what I found, please let me know. MauraWen (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@MauraWen: You need to search for "scheduled ancient monument". The first hit on Historic England is the listing page, which states (in the Details section of the Official List Entry tab): "A scheduled ancient monument". It is also a listed building, which is a rather unusual situation, which I suspect caused problems with the HE database (the same occurs for Prebends Bridge, which is also both listed and scheduled). The second hit is in HE's images collection (which notes, incidentally, that it was previously in the database as "Cousin's Library") that repeats the same details.

A more general web search brings up Durham County Council's appraisal of the Durham City Conservation Area which states about Cosin's Library (p 51): "Adjacent to the Exchequer stands Bishop Cosin's Library, it is an important building of 1667-70 and Grade II* Listed (Image 36). The property is 2 storied and of 1 wide bay including a fine central door in a stone architrave containing a coat of arms and 3-light stone mullioned windows and transomed windows. The roof was altered in the 19th century from castellations to conceal the heightened roof pitch. This building is also a Scheduled Monument." (Emphasis added) Robminchin (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that research! On first search on the HE website it appeared to be a listed building only and I thought the citation was incorrect. MauraWen (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

` MauraWen (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University College London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Academic press.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University College London, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attorney General of the United Kingdom and Chief Justice of Hong Kong.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Brutalist structures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colleges of Durham University, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Worthington and Richard Sheppard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop posting on my User Talk page. I've already previously stated the warning in the edit history. This is a second warning. If you continue posting there, I will consider it harassment and ask that you be blocked. ElEditas (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@ElEditas: Please read WP:NOBAN: "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to". As the only posts I have made on your talk page were warnings concerning your behaviour, as required under the policy at WP:DISPUTE, they are exempt from your request not to post. Robminchin (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article University College London you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University College London, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Union of Students, Hungarian Revolution and Anti-apartheid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there - you commented on a draft for this article a while ago, it looks like it’s been heavily rewritten, would you be able to have another look and offer an opinion? Thanks in advance Tannim101 (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The article University College London you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:University College London for comments about the article, and Talk:University College London/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know the edit of mine you reverted at New College, Durham (17th century) was removing hyphens not n-dashes—blindlynx 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I realised that afterwards, which is why I made the second edit. Robminchin (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, i noticed after i posted this—blindlynx 03:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

With respect to one of your edits summaries at the University of Chicago. A "claim" is not "unreferenced" just because the inline reference for it and the next sentence, is after the next sentence. Some information from sources is written in more one consecutive sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The way it was written, with the next sentence specifically stating what information was from the author of the citation given, makes it look unreferenced. It needs re-writing to make it clear where the opinion is coming from. Robminchin (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

On 1 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article University College London, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the rivalries of University College London students have led to pitched battles with other institutions involving rotten apples, castration, and the embalmed head of Jeremy Bentham? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/University College London. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, University College London), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Strathclyde Business School, 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) 02:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Russell Group, 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) 23:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the mods - still think16+ is a tad slangy.

I do think it is in a really odd position in the article.

It has a lot of value - not a lot of prior dialog on non-core academic paths.

Many thanks though --

BeingObjective (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@BeingObjective: Yes, the structure is rather a mess. It's possible that it's actually in the right place under 'stages of compulsory education', but a lot of other things (school dinners, school uniforms) have also been stuck into that section that really should be elsewhere. Robminchin (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - the school uniforms section was a stand out.

I like the current language - can it be moved to a more appropriate area?

Perhaps under the core discussion.

Many thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, can you list the errors of my edit? What I was trying to do was seperate the sections a bit better. For example, move a picture of a sixth form college to the correct section and add some of the rankings of the higher education sector in England.

Thank you for reverting my edits if there were errors and I am sorry for such mistakes. 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:A892:322B:ADF2:3D01 (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:A892:322B:ADF2:3D01: New College Durham isn't a sixth form college, it's a college of further and higher education (with foundation degree awarding powers), which is why it was described as such as pictured in the higher education section as an example of a non-university institute delivering higher education.

Post-16 students typically don't study a wide curriculum, they specialise at 16 onto a much narrower curriculum than almost every other country.

The listing of post-16 qualifications was weird, mixing up qualifications and exam boards that award the qualifications.

Discussion of rankings shouldn't be based on a single ranking, particularly one that English universities do particularly well on.

The description of the universities in the top ten of the QS ranking as including "colleges of the University of London, and King's College London" was incorrect. King's has never been in the top ten and is a member institution of the University of London.

As a more general rule, this article should discuss the performance of the English system rather than focusing on listing individual universities, and would have to note the decline in performance in recent years that had been commented on in the press (e.g. Our universities are at risk of terminal decline in The Times)

Robminchin (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Got you, thank you. Sorry for the mistakes. Could I please have another go at adding some of the rankings?

Also, when I said ''wide'', I meant the fact students can study a wide range of options (there are wide range of organisations offering cources). Not per-say how much they study. 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:A892:322B:ADF2:3D01 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, just bear in mind the points above that we need to take a broad sample of rankings (generally generally QS, THE and ARWU) and that the focus should be on the system rather than individual performance. Robminchin (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I will put those into note when I do my edit. Please check my edit once it's done to see if its to high standard. 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:A892:322B:ADF2:3D01 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Could I ask for your help with something, please? I've noticed the references table at the bottom of the page is not like others, it's one sided, other pages have two sections lined up to each other. Is there a way we could have that on this page?

Compare education in Canada to education in England and see the references. 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:A892:322B:ADF2:3D01 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I managed to do it! :) 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:A892:322B:ADF2:3D01 (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Robminchin (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I do think more universities should be noted in the rankings, because the higher education sector doesn't just focus on Oxford and Cambridge. It's nice to note, imho, note some other universities to make sure the diversity is there (showcasing that there are other universities outside of Oxford and Cambridge that rank highly in subjects).

However, I respect your view completely. 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:75A8:B2C7:1427:1DD8 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that getting balance across the global rankings, which is necessary for NPOV, does tend to remove other universities. I've added links to other universities with very high proportions of international students and I'm looking around for other things that can be added. Robminchin (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey again,

The reason why I didn't link Skills for Life to Skills for Life is because the page is really oudated and claims Skills for Life is no longer a thing.

Now, I understand why. Skills for Life is actually a new strategy introduced over the past few years by the government with free courses for jobs and training in skill bootcamps (can be found in sixth form/FE colleges). The information on the page is about the old Skills for Life programme under the last Labour government.

Do you want to help me revamp the page to make it updated? I have some links about the strategy:

• https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/skills-for-life • https://www.gov.uk/guidance/free-courses-for-jobs • https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skills-for-life-campaign-introduction-frequently-asked-questions-and-background/skills-for-life-campaign-introduction-and-frequently-asked-questions

Plenty more you can find online. 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:75A8:B2C7:1427:1DD8 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that page. I think Skills for Life probably should be linked, because it's what is being talked about, but I've added a tag to the Skills for Life article to warn people that it's badly out of date and no longer accurate. If you've got the time and information to update it, that would be great. Robminchin (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll update the page for sure when I'm free :) 2A00:23C7:69C9:5101:75A8:B2C7:1427:1DD8 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HESA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On 14 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NETPark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some of the optics for the James Webb Space Telescope were made at the NETPark science park in northern England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NETPark. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, NETPark), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I still confess the language used to explain this is still not exactly concise - I did take another run at this - and I know this is clearer than it was originally - I think you have contributed to many articles on British education - as a Brit living in the US - it is something academic folks ask me to explain over and over - I think moving away from the legal language to more direct explanatory language might help - it is a small detail but it is actually important and many US readers have read this and are still confused. Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You reverted me here. I was implementing my closure of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13#Category:Education fraud in the United Kingdom. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw that afterwards. Given the small number of pages involved, that really should have been advertised at the pages affected to allow editors of those pages to participate. As it is, the discussion went ahead without knowledge of the topic and based on factually incorrect assumptions. Robminchin (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not standard to notify the editors of pages in a category when that category is nominated for discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As a result of the lack of notification, the discussion proceeded under factually incorrect assumptions and with very limited participation. While not required, I note that WP:CFD#HOWTO does actually say that "it may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts" and also recommends notifying relevant wikiprojects. Higher Education Degree Datacheck is an organisation specifically created to combat education fraud, not (as was incorrectly stated) an accreditation body. This was, therefore, never a single-page category and the rational for deletion is therefore also incorrect. Robminchin (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You're reverting edits which include fixes to punctuation. Could you discuss each one? Summerdays1 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, in some places you removed a full stop and ran two sentences together, e.g. "from 1878These certificates", "in DurhamThe college's" and "Langford, Grads)Ramsey House". You also got plurals wrong and removed parenthetical commas in a way that made no sense. You re-wrote things, e.g. changing "that campus" to "the campus" that made the statement factually incorrect. Robminchin (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You should also follow WP:BRD and not re-instate your grammatically incorrect versions without addressing the issues that caused them to be reverted. Robminchin (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Typos do happen. The campus is a good substitute for that. Most of the edits are right. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You edited out something about Christian ethos previously, not in these articles. This link could be interesting to you. It supports some of what has been posted. nytimes.com/2013/10/04/education/the-christian-dorm-at-the-public-university.html Summerdays1 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You're making errors. I have said typos occur. Most of my edits are fine. I suppose you could realize that there is usually more than one way to express or explain things.Summerdays1 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If you claim to be copy-editing, you shouldn't be making repeated edits that remove full stops and run sentences together and introducing other typographical and grammatical errors. If you are introducing multiple errors with your copy-edits, you should expect the edit to be reverted. There are multiple ways of putting things, but there are also incorrect ways of putting things: for example, "the campus" refers to the campus of a university generally while "that campus" refers to the specific campus under discussion, these are not interchangeable in the context of that article. Similarly, in your recent edit to the University of London, you changed a plural, "these were issued", to a singular, "a certificate was issued", that is simply not correct – many certificates were issued, not just one. Robminchin (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, please read the WP:MOS: "from1869–1878" is bad style, even if it were correctly spaced.

I don't know what you're referring to when you say I "edited out something about Christian ethos". I've looked over the edit history, and this doesn't appear to refer to any edits I made, nor does the article you cite appear relevant to any of the institutions we've interacted on. Robminchin (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It was about something you have edited before. Are you able to look at a group of edits. I am kind of discouraged at the lack of ability and even conscience, so to speak on this site. It's not overstating it to say it's tragic.Summerdays1 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to look at a group of consecutive edits from the history page, but I'm afraid 'something you have edited before' doesn't really narrow it down enough for me to be able to know what you're talking about. However, it's likely that whatever was removed wasn't supported by the citations given – if citations are found that support it, it can always be re-instated. Robminchin (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi your edit is unconstictive improvement, If you want edit then, please constructive write Havardperson (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you're a contributor to the Talk page on Template:Infobox university. I had an idea - to add a tuition field to the infobox. I think people would want to see that at a glance when they look at colleges on Wikipedia. What do you think, any thoughts on this? Hannahthom7 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of cricket grounds in England and Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Interdisciplinary School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

how does the blp have a problem with date of birth and nationality when designers are linked to their date of birth and the country they design for. David Cameron has his date of Birth Theresa May has her date of Birth other designers have their date of birth. Why is it today it's been removed. The designer is a United Nations expert. You have removed everything linked to uk parliament saying uk parliament is poorly sourced when it's a government server

Harlette De Falaise (born 17 July 1975) is an Australian-born British fashion designer, specialising in lingerie.

Harlette Born 17 July 1975 (age 48)

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Nationality British Citizenship British Occupation(s) Designer, fashion, lingerie Years active 2005–present Website http://www.harlette.com LuxuryUK72 (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced, contrary to WP:BLP. Robminchin (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rob, Durham University why would you remove King's College London same University Russell Group. ITU, 7B is space 5b is Suborbital. Why would you say that British Government papers are poorly sourced. You should know 7b covers Astronomy and your removal of UK space telecommunications information from designers page is needed an more answers this page was static till today till you removed UK space Government information why ? LuxuryUK72 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't British government papers, they are evidence submitted to parliament. Nothing in them was written or approved by the British government, they are simply published on the parliament webpage as a record of evidence submitted. Beyond this, they are WP:PRIMARY sources that do not verify the information that was claimed to be verified. Further, the named author is not Harlette but Naomi McGill. Robminchin (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dormitory

added a link pointing to James Stirling

List of chancellors and vice-chancellors of British universities

added a link pointing to James Duff

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Robminchin. The vehemence with which you have been opposing the golden triangle here on Wikipedia gave me cause to take a closer look at you. I have found that you are also active on Quora. There, I found an answer of yours where you A) publicly acknowledged and spread the golden triangle as a concept; and B) cited a select group of specific universities as members of the golden triangle (see following link: Is the following article by the editor of the Oxford University student newspaper representative of Oxford students and their opinions? Here is the link: https://thetab.com/uk/oxford/2015/05/15/dont-kid-youre-not-oxbridge-youre-wasting-time-22199. - Quora).

Before I take this to ANI, I want to give you the opportunity to explain the following:

1. Why do you oppose the idea of the golden triangle here on Wikipedia, attempting to suppress its inclusion in the articles of member institutions, while at the same time publicly acknowledging and spreading the concept of the golden triangle on other platforms?

2. Why do you attempt to make it unclear and confusing to readers of the golden triangle Wikipedia article which specific few member institutions constitute the golden triangle by insisting on the long, vague, confusing and contradictory second paragraph in the lede of the golden triangle article while at the same time you cite clearly and concisely the specific few member institutions of the golden triangle on another platform?

Please kindly answer the above questions within 3 days. Should there be no answer or an answer which I feel is unsatisfactory to me by then, then I would take the liberty to take the above to ANI for a wider discussion. Thank you. (PS: I have saved a screenshot of your answer on Quora, should you decide to delete it). 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:40E5:3FF4:3971:E279 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

1: I do not oppose the idea of the golden triangle on Wikipedia; it is, for example, included in the lead of the UCL article, which I brought to GA status. I opposed including it in the first sentence of the University of Oxford article as this would be WP:UNDUE, but (as I stated in that discussion) I would be fine with mentioning it in a suitable place in the lead along with the university's affiliations to actual associations, as is done in the UCL article.

2: Quora is a forum where expression of personal opinions is welcome, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where reliable sources are what counts. Thus, if I post on Quora I can give my personal opinion and come down on one side of an argument, because I am stating my opinion, while on Wikipedia disagreement between reliable sources has to be reflected in articles. If, while editing on Wikipedia, I were to discount reliable sources based on my personal opinions, which appears to be what you are advocating for, that would be a breach of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is also a collaborative effort, and I am not the only editor who has contributed to the golden triangle article. Robminchin (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe the disagreements are eventually a matter of miscommunication and misunderstanding.

1. Could you warm up to a compromise to add the golden triangle in the infobox under "affiliations" and in the lede of the 6 golden triangle universities but not in the first sentence?

2. I never advocated for discounting reliable sources in the golden triangle article. I made multiple suggestions to you such as adding a short list of the 6 commonly accepted member universities above the second controversial paragraph (and its sources) or to split the paragraph into two or simply state the 6 commonly accepted member institutions in the lede and shift the second paragraph into a separate "controversy" section within the article. You opposed each and every single one of these suggestions and none of those suggestions would have removed the controversial paragraph and its sources from the article. For this point: upon reconsideration, could you warm up with one of the aforementioned suggestions I made? 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:D8A0:CA44:3133:E45F (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

1. The golden triangle doesn't belong in 'affiliations' as it isn't an affiliation, it's a completely unofficial media short-hand. The affiliations entry in the infobox is for organisations that the institution is affiliated to.

2. I wasn't aware that you were the same editor that had participated on the talk page there as your IP changes repeatedly. However, the lack of definition is an important part of the golden triangle - people who have come across the phrase and are coming to Wikipedia to look it up need to be told that the definition varies so they don't go away thinking that it refers to a specific set of six universities when the place they came across it was referring to only four, or to every institution in the geographical area. Giving one definition in the lead and relegating the uncertainty in the definition until further down the article where it is less likely to be read would be to give undue weight to that single definition. If anything, the article needs to be revised to include the increased use of the purely geographical description used by the government as a result of the levelling up agenda (e.g., Golden triangle research ‘no more golden than rest of UK’, Times Higher Education, 18 January 2024, where distance from London is used as a proxy for membership, although it does also refer to a 'core' of Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UCL at one point in the original report from HEPI). Robminchin (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that huge 'things needed banners' are irritating and pointless, plus they make articles look ugly. If an editor sees something like an assertion that needs a citation, then they should do something useful to fix the problem. Instead they stick a stupid banner on the article and just leave. Effectively they are creating problems for other editors to fix. I think this is despicable. Urselius (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not unreasonable and drive-by WP:TAGGING is controversial, but the banners do exist and are part of how Wikipedia has chosen to operate. They also serve to warn users that information in an article or section may not be fully sourced. It is clear in Help:Maintenance template removal that "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first", so unless something has been incorrectly added (i.e., the section is actually fully cited) the banner should stay, whether it was drive-by tagging or not, until the issue is addressed. Robminchin (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please behave normally and gently. Stop breaking the rules. Don’t add any more inaccurate, promotional content. --StopPromotionY (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You are trying to push your own opinion at London Interdisciplinary School rather than following reliable independent sources per WP:NPOV. The issue has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page, where there is a clear majority against your edits. Robminchin (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Durham University Logo 2019.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it was replaced in the Durham University article by an SVG version, which is an improvement so this ping version should be deleted. Robminchin (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of college towns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HESA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Robminchin. I noticed that your recent edit to Template:Durham Rowing Clubs added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the "The" as part of the official name of an institution, how about Ohio State University and Pennsylvania State University? Cfls (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Those appear to be incorrect per the MOS. Robminchin (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Historically, this function would be identified as a % mark. I can see clearly that the % mark is used below in other sections of this article. Shouldn't we then use the % mark in the English section. Percent is something known in American English, by the way. Can we make a swap here so I can't boost my own ratings? Don't make me beg, please. Robminchin 209.214.137.154 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Generally, the % symbol has only been used in tables and infoboxes on Wikipedia, although it is (as of 2023) now permitted in body text. Changing to the symbol would seem reasonable. Robminchin (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I see. That could be significant in making changes across the board. But you're saying 'percent' would not be allowed? Is Wikipedia based on UK or US English - I'm new? Does it matter where you are locally or is it that most contributors decide UK English is more correct? Who makes the language classification for each article? I would prefer to use 'percent', to be honest, rather than the % mark. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages can be based on any style of English, but the rule is not to change between them unless there is a good reason to do so. Articles about a topic specific to a country will generally use that countries' variety of English, so an article about the US Government will use US English but one about the Australian Government would use Australian English (which is very similar to UK English) (see MOS:TIES). For articles that aren't specific to a country the basic rule is that if there is an established version of English then that is used and is only changed for good reasons and following a discussion (see MOS:RETAIN). There are more details on WP:ENGVAR. Robminchin (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Ohio University has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. The University of Oklahoma owns the rights to the abbreviation "OU." Please see this link for more information.

https://soonersports.com/documents/2018/5/8/5473175.pdf Jams81 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. "OU" is not copyrightable. Robminchin (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to the article at the top right corner to see the copyrighted material and abbreviations.

Thank you.

https://soonersports.com/documents/2018/5/8/5473175.pdf Jams81 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases" — US Copyright Office. See . Robminchin (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.cohnlg.com/how-to-trademark-acronyms-and-abbreviations/#:~:text=Both%20acronyms%20and%20abbreviations%20can,source%20of%20goods%20or%20services.

Abbreviations CAN be trademarked. Jams81 (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not about copyright. You placed a warning about copyright violation. Robminchin (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

“OU” would still be in violation as it is held by Oklahoma. If there was a misunderstanding on my end with terminology and codes, I accept it. But this is still an issue with what is trademarked by one place, and what another is trying to do to rebrand. Jams81 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with copyright, which is what you placed the warning for. There is no violation in using trademarks on Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not selling products with those trademarks on. Robminchin (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That reference used on Newcastle and Northumbria. Fantastic! Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

And I really dislike the "trading as" on Northumbria. That just feels so wrong. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Thanks! Other possibilities could be 'operating as' or 'branded as' - there's certainly no need for 'operating under the trading name of', which is rather long-winded. It would be good to keep the piped link to trade name, as that tells people what this means. Also, I think 'Northumbria University Newcastle' was a previous trading name; per the OfS register it's not currently used as a trading name so it might be best not to have it there (the recognised bodies 2013 order is over a decade old, and based on older orders, so could easily have picker up a name used earlier). Robminchin (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of legal entity types by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Robminchin. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 22 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 all the best for the year ahead :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 04:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Francis Amasa Walker".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Gramix13 (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies Rob, I have never reverted content before. I wanted to the include the following explanation but managed to publish before I could add to the edit summary:

With the greatest respect, Imperial is internationally renowned for its cutting-edge research, see ICL profile in www.nature.com It is a highly esteemed research-led institution. Other, independent confirmation can be found in the body of the article in sections “Reputation and Ranking”, “Research” - specifically the 2021 Research Assessment Framework. ICL is unique by focussing it research only on STEM subjects with the aim of translation/entrepreneurship, like MIT. ICL has been called the MIT of Europe.

The “birds-eye” summary I added early in the article reflects the “worms-eye” content in the body of the article. The word research appears dozens of times in the body of the article. See sections “21^st century”, “White City”, “Interdisciplinary Centres”, “Affiliations and partnerships”, “Academic Centre” etc.

Thanks for caring about article content,

Best wishes

Liam LiamGM (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Howdy. I believe I may know what's causing the images to be too large. It's the Zoom mechanism, that's the problem. At 175% the images fit fine in an article, where's at 200% (which I use, per eyesight) the images are too large in an article. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You should be able to change your image preferences in your user profile (). As someone else who uses a large magnification due to eyesight problems, I have my thumbnail size set to 180px rather than the default 250px, meaning that with my 150% magnification it ends up back at 270px. You might want to set this to 150px or even 120px to get images of a 'normal' size. Robminchin (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Related:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Image sizes & zoom - 23:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#c-GoodDay-20260128232600-RfC on the placement of 2026 Winter Olympics and similar templates - 23:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#200% Zoom & sidebar appearances - 00:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

There seem to be others. GoodDay, please observe WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of chancellors and vice-chancellors of British universities, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 01:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The sentence is basically just quoting City Journal. It's not promotional. תִּקְוָה (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's discuss it on the OSU page... actually. תִּקְוָה (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That is the right thing to do. Robminchin (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

alright תִּקְוָה (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Just created a thread. תִּקְוָה (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)