User talk:Verbcatcher

I have deleted the correspondence I shared with you in good faith, your conduct is deplorable. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are upset with what I wrote at Talk:Laugharne. Meanwhile, I was writing a constructive reply to your note here, which follows:

It is good to have the Andrew Thrush's 2010 biog of Sir James P. I have added it to Laugharne. One of us should add it to James Perrot, and ideally update that article based on it. It is a pity that there is not a link from the older HoP biography to the newer; you could suggest this to them.

I suggest you give them a link to the Dyfed Archaeological Trust page on Pendine and Llanmiloe (along with any other sources you may have). That page references 'Lloyd 1986, 56', which they expand to 'Lloyd, T, 1986 The Lost Houses of Wales, London'. This is ISBN 9780905978222.

Verbcatcher (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any apology for your traduction I have raised the matter in Oversight as below

• "I am inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the situation can be remedied."

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: I am sorry that you have felt it necessary to escalate this. I have tried to be helpful and supportive of you efforts, including spending considerable time analysing the notability of W. T. David (Talk:Laugharne#Professor W.T.David), and tracing your lost relatives (c:User talk:Verbcatcher#Portreeve of Laugharne Image Deletion Request), both of which were in response to your requests.

My comments about your citation of a web page that you appeared to have created were made in the light of your other unsatisfactory citations that I had recently worked on. These include:

• Laugharne Corporation Perrot Society Journal Dec 1991 by A.Rees
  • 'Perrot Society Journal" appears to be a grandiose name for what appears to be a self-published family newsletter that was posted to an archive.org account that you have acknowledged that you control. The source does not include the word 'Journal'.
• Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018.
  • This was a user contribution to a website. It was not made by Andy Burnham.

I had asked you give more complete citations; while I am not alleging that these citations were not intended to deceive, it was reasonable to draw your attention to another citation that appeared to be misleading.

You might care to consider The Mote and the Beam. Among your comments in Talk:Laugharne are:

• shortening the quote in a vain attempt to support your case is disappointing and disingenuous.
• you clearly manipulated the quotation in order to support an inaccurate contention.

Also in Talk:Laugharne, Snowded referred to "Your constant accusations of vandalism" and later wrote "You are again resorting to personal attacks rather than engaging in the discussion".

On your user talk page your remarks to Snowded included:

• "mendacious absurdities"
• "More graceless and dishonest nonsense"
• "your transparently irrational grounds for preventing legitimate editing"
• "if you had a shred of integrity you would report yourself and undertake to desist from future puerile behaviour"

Also consider your edit summaries:

• 00:43, 1 July 2020 diff hist -15‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 965322876 by Verbcatcher (talk) As per talk page - inconsistent with other entries + unjustified departure from previous consensus with no justification - clear disruptive edit Tag: Undo
• 00:32, 1 July 2020 diff hist +7,161‎ Talk:Laugharne ‎ →‎Perrot: Disruptive edit reversion + reply from HoP to earlier query as reported
• 18:51, 30 June 2020 diff hist -3,743‎ User talk:Verbcatcher ‎ →‎Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead: Deleted after breach of confidence
• 11:29, 25 June 2020 diff hist +1‎ m Laugharne ‎ Restoring section alignment for the third time after reversions by this user - who is either unaware of the consequence of his edits in this respeect or thinks they don't *12:46, 1 June 2020 diff hist +118‎ Thomas Perrot ‎ Undid revision 959942299 by Snowded (talk)persistent vandalism by this user Tag: Undo
• 12:43, 1 June 2020 diff hist +21‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138848 by Snowded (talk)Vandalism there is no good reason for these repeated deletions by this users Tag: Undo
• 12:41, 1 June 2020 diff hist 0‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138883 by Snowded (talk This edit is undone because of vandaism, there is no good reason for it. Tag: Undo

Verbcatcher (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are not content with your previous offensive remarks but now wish to add further insults.

• The P*rr*tt Society Quarterly Journal "Family Notes", which you seek to demean with your sneering description as 'grandiose' has been published continuously since 1984. Throughout that 36 year period it has been registered with the Guild of One-Name Genealogical Societies and includes among its worldwide membership many distinguished academics who contribute regularly in its pages. You would do well to remember Wikipedia is also user-generated (without a printed version.)
• your attribution to me of this citation *Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018. is entirely mistaken.
• your description of the insinuations I took action about is patently untrue as anyone can read on the Talkpage
• my comments about you chopping up quotations in order to mislead were accurate and restrained.
• my remarks to Snowded are taken out of context and were from the final stages of testing and unproductive exchanges which reciprocated his tone.
• your other examples of the other iniquities mostly relate to my first faltering steps on the platform when I simply didn't understand the reasons given for repeated deletions and warnings.

These further attempts to justify your inexcusable conduct through smears and self-serving evasion are revealing but not surprising

Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I was mistaken in attributing the Andy Burnham citation to you, sorry. My other comments stand. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot you are heading for a block if you carry on like this -----Snowded ^TALK 17:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Snowded: Think I've heard something similar from you before - no doubt a willing volunteer to swing the axe eh? I wondered when you'd show up again on here. Another one happy to resort to baseless personal accusations when losing an argument, it's pretty sad to be honest. I hope Oversight have a look at your track record over the past couple of weeks too. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You are no longer a newbe editor and you have been warned about constant failure to comply with policy on personal attacks. After the last batch of this I (and others) went to some lengths to achieve a compromise but your response has been to fall back to your old ways. If you can't abide by community rules then your behaviour will be raised and I suspect a topic ban is the least you can expect if that happens -----Snowded ^TALK 03:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Verbcatcher: So your malicious imputations of dishonesty about my Francis Jones reference ^[1] were based solely on your view of a citation to this respected and reliable published source which I was unaware did not meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria when it was made. Nothing at all to do with it replacing your own flawed citations ^[2][3] and removing the contentious quotes within them which spuriously supported your disruptive edit of the NR entry description? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot:You should assume that in each talk page posting and edit summary I mean what I say, and that I do not have a hidden agenda. I am unclear why you consider my citations to be flawed or contentious. The quotes are directly from the sources and do not misrepresent what they say.

I did not intend to disparage The P*rr*tt Society, of which I was unaware. Its journal appears to be called 'Family Notes'; citing it as the 'Perrot Society Journal' and not mentioning its publisher was unhelpful and made it very difficult for others to follow it up. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher:Let me remind you of what you wrote:

"@Sirjohnperrot: there are several issues with the citation you added today.

The archive.org page that you link to was created today by the archive.org member "Perrott Family of Wales". Are you responsible for this upload? If so it would raise the suspicion that you might have created the page for the purpose of citing it here, and to make the source appear more authoritative. I am not questioning the accuracy of the quote.

[...]

It is unclear whether the title of the archive.org page 'WESTMEAD, Laugharne' is from Jones' book or if this was added by the uploader."

In short what you say is that you suspect I have fabricated a reference - which is a disgraceful allegation for which you have not yet apologised. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: I said "it would raise the suspicion that". This is not an accusation. You may think this is sophistry, but words are important and you should consider what I said, not what you think I meant. I said that I was not questioning the accuracy of the quote. It was not clear whether the mention of Laugharne on the archive.org was from Jones' book because it was not within the attributed quote. On reflection, the phrase to make the source appear more authoritative might be seen as provocative, but at that point you had not acknowledged that you had created the page. Creating a page on another site for the purpose of citing it in Wikipedia is not appropriate and gave rise to reasonable suspicions, particularly as you had not declared that this is what you had done. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: You are right, it is sophistry to suggest your remarks were not a clear accusation of wrongdoing. Actually even Protagoras would struggle to conceal that connotation. As it happens I created the page for use in my correspondence educating Dr Thrush but there are several other citations in Wikipedia from the 'Perrot Family of Wales.org' pages which have existed for many years. I'm sure you'll now have great fun tracking them down and gleefully describing their contents as self-published - which of course they are, but only in replica form. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick facts One year! ...

Precious

One year!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you for your contributions) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brenda Chamberlain (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Petts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Good eye! The problem was a typo, as heat capacity is a physical property and if interpreted physically, as opposed to consequentially, which is how I read the cited reference and how I believe the authors intended, it would have the effect you pointed out. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy11: I have rewritten and moved your paragraph in Briquette, but I think it may be too specific for that article. It might be better placed in Dutch oven#Camping. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant!! I had initially considered that section as an option but then, at the last miniute, decided for the other spot -- plus you have worded it even better than I. Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload this picture (of a former MP) to Wikimedia

https://www.flickr.com/photos/56675543@N08/8269328609/in/photolist-dAJtic-UY4y8f-ayTr65-9yT4d5-kZNF4t-21cULqy-29nGMKd-2g5LnDh-yVRVcC-2isV4Ma-2gbSEuE-2gbSEyC-23H51EY-2jBgmhi-2eN8kin-2fbvpZa-83cDMq-21zfhhd-61Wwcx-fGQTZF-23zGHaR-dvbf7b-2gbSs5h-2gbSEDY-83cCYd-RMDDf7-4YyrmM-2iw5Ny4-fhPv43-2gbSEwZ-T1QkiJ-7EPKVD-839ujM-VRDv9Q-2fvr9hH-nzyyWA-61Wwyv-nxvtgY-hW7rFZ-g435h9-GYHNeC-ni4wdN-61Ww6B-MWS1FU-2apLWk2-2g4JZMu-RxPbkn-qs32tJ-cfDwzU-dTLbjM

Under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 code?

Littlemonday (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Littlemonday:, this image looks ok for Commons. My reasoning is:

• The CC BY 2.0 license is listed as acceptable at c:Commons:Licensing. The license text is linked from the "Some rights reserved" link on the Flickr page.
• This does not look like license laundering. The image was uploaded to Flickr by the 'NHS Confederation' Flickr account, however we need to be confident that this is an authentic account controlled by the NHS Confederation. This could be confirmed be a link to the Flickr account on the Confederation's website, but I can't see one. In this case the other images uploaded by the Flickr account make it reasonable to conclude that the account is authentic.
• It is reasonable to conclude either that the NHS Confederation owns the copyright or that they have established that the photographer has applied this license. This is reasonable because the Confederation appears to be a reliable organisation and the photograph was taken at one of their events.
• The image is within 'scope' because it is an image of someone with a Wikipedia article, so it is 'educational'.

I recommend using the Flickr2Commons tool. As well as being faster, this checks the Flickr license and checks for blacklisted Flickr accounts. If you upload a Flickr image manually then please use the {{flickrreview}} tag to request that the Flickr license is officially recorded, in case the file on Flickr is deleted or its licence is changed. This review is usually done automatically by a bot.

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Verbcatcher application of changed name which would explain some edits and application in past. hope this will resolve. please undo the deletion requests if possible as these are correct and honest ownership and uploading in subject context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devfirewiki (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Devfirewiki: it will not be my decision whether to delete the images on Commons. I urge you to email the OTRS system to confirm your ownership and the licenses for the files. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Verbcatcher ok, thank you I have been providing all original copies of images to OTRS. I appreciate your help. many thanks - Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devfirewiki (talk • contribs) 09:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Devfirewiki: I was pleased to see that the OTRS team has accepted the licenses for some of the images. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Verbcatcher yes, was relieving to see that. there is one more to grant. There was one image that got removed which I have contested as it is the only known photo of the artist very first show, I was sent the image by the photographer back in 2010/2011 which was used on a VH1 website. but is now nowhere to be seen. can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.246.188 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The photographer has to assign the license. Are you able to contact them? Verbcatcher (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch on No. 2 New Zealand General Hospital. I was trying to put all the hospital stubs in the right continent and overlooked that this hospital was in England vice New Zealand. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 22:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's very much a commonplace to link the Welsh language at the start of articles where both English and Welsh language names feature - why would you not wish to do so as regards List of waterfalls of Wales? I'd expect that someone landing on this page unfamiliar with Welsh would be interested to follow the link. Geopersona (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I was following MOS:OVERLINK which says "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: [...] languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)". The Welsh language does not qualify in the list of criteria in MOS:UNDERLINK. We should not use links in the way that Amazon uses product recommendations. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed a lot of overlinks in my time too, though in marginal cases, there'll never quite be consensus as to what constitutes too much/not enough! Geopersona (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of churches in Cambridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westcott House.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aberthaw power stations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Trade and Industry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Verbcatcher! I just wanted to reassure you that both "pontifical" and "episcopal" can be used interchangeably to describe the functions performed by a bishop (as can be seen at the disambiguation pages), so your latest edit to St Peter's Church, Roath is good. Thank you for your work on the article. Hoping you are well, Bibeyjj (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that pontifical was the same as papal, but wikt:pontifical confirms what you say. I suspect 'episcopal' is more widely understood, perhaps from Anglican usage, so I prefer it here. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

In Glamorgan John Newman names some sites: There is an article for Pontardawe Tinplate Works, and if you are interested in creating more there is potential for articles on Gwalia Tinplate Works, Briton Ferry (Newman p.164 and Coflein 309216), and Beaufort Tinplate Works, Llansamlet. (Newman p.398-9, Cadw 11719 and Coflein 85028) EdwardUK (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@EdwardUK: of those you mention I might go for Llansamlet as my grandfather was from there, but a section in the Llansamlet article is probably more appropriate than a specific article. There is scope for an article on the Welsh tinplate industry as a whole, if we can access the sources. The Llanelli article says it was "the global centre for tinplate production", this is probably covered in the 'Pevsner' for Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion (of which I don't have a copy). Verbcatcher (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There may be some useful information available from books online, either in full (e.g. internet archive) or as search/preview sections (google books). It could also be worth posting a comment about it on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales. Some of the members are likely to have suggestions for, and better access to, important sources, and may be interested in helping with the article. EdwardUK (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Verbcatcher. I do hope you are well. I just spotted your edit here. I was wondering why you might have any doubts it was Christ Church Congregational Church in Oswestry? Here's a page about the church. (Might even warrant its own article?) Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I'm well, I hope you are as well. I'm sure this was the church in which Walford sang, because there is a plaque on its wall that says so (next to File:Walford Davies plaque Oswestry.jpg). My doubt is whether it was called Christ Church when Walford sang there. The noticeboard outside the church says "Christ Church – United Reformed Church & Presbyterian Church of Wales" (I'm about to post a photo that shows this). The Congregational church article indicates that it is not a Presbyterian denomination, so the church has changed denomination since Walford was there. Its quite likely that the change of denomination was accompanied by a change of name. 'Christ Church' sounds more like a URC name than a Congregational Church name, and it may have been simply 'Oswestry Congregational Church'. My earlier wording implied that it had changed its name. This might be clarified in the Musical Times source, but it is paywalled. Do you have jstor access? The church is not named on the old OS maps available at the National Library of Scotland. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Christ Church, Oswestry.jpg Verbcatcher (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have followed your link, which says it was opened as Christ Church. The photo confirms that it is the church that has the plaque to Walford. I will edit the Walford Davies article accordingly. Some editors would assess the chapel as 'non-notable', unless we can find good sources. It does not appear to be a listed building. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am also very well, thanks. I'd agree that many Congregational churches did not have any dedication name and that when they joined with the Presbyterian church, to become URC, they sometimes changed their name. Glad you looked at the link, which says this (from Cambrian News. 25 October 1872. page 7): "OPENING OF A NEW CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH - The opening of the new church which has been erected for the congregation recently worshipping in the Old Chapel, Oswestry, took place on Friday, October 18th. The new Congregational Church—which is to be called Christ Church—stands upon the site of the old Borough Gaol, between Arthur-street and Chapel-street, facing the Pitcher Bank..." I think that's pretty clear. Yes, seems it's not listed, so it probably just needs expanding a bit in the Oswestry article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverting an IP for violating WP:NOTBROKEN. This particular one is block evasion by a very long-term LTA. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harry the house and User:DuncanHill/LTA for more info. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is frustrating. Is there a better way of handling this? If I had left these edits would that have been mass-reverted by an admin? Verbcatcher (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert on sight and report to AIV is probably the best thing. DuncanHill (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Note that most of the WBO urls changed a couple of years ago; I've been updating them when I spot them but it could be a long job. Deb (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: yes there are a lot of them. It would be good to convert them all to {{Cite DWB}}, but that may not be achievable unless someone develops a way to automate it. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

To me, the straight apostrophe is about as anal, and pointless as the en-dash/em-dash. Great to see you again. KJP1 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@KJP1: I don't make a major campaign to 'fix' apostrophes, but the style of apostrophe is significant in the title of an article – an editor could be needlessly confused by St Collen's Church, Llangollen failing to resolve to an article. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The book also used to be sold on the Amazon India website (Amazon India ASIN: B08XXXMQP3), if you go to Amazon India website and see the photos of the book then you'll also see the same ISBN on the photo of the back of the hardcover copy. 42.107.84.5 (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I found at here, and I agree that the ISBN you give is on the back cover. I assume that the ISBN is missing from the database used by Wikipedia:Book sources. I can't find this book on the Amazon's US or UK websites, although they list other books by Victor Rangel-Ribeiro. Amazon gives the publication date as 1 January 2019, which seems to conflict with the 'book release video' on FaceBook, which is dated 21 January 2021. Do you know if these dates are accurate? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Verbcatcher. We wouldn't use the template 'please check ISBN' for a book that is merely hard to find. The template was introduced years ago to designate ISBNs with a bad check digit. This is a valid ISBN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I thought the ISBN should be checked as it did not resolve with Wikipedia:Book sources and was it not found be a Google search. I have removed the template. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, it appears that the publisher has not been very effective in distributing the book. If the book was held by any major libraries it ought to be in worldcat.org. The Facebook link already cited includes a comment section in which someone gives a phone number and email address for ordering the book. See also the the web site of Sunaparanta, Goa Centre for the Arts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that one, Verbcatcher. Still learning at 74! Valetude (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I was glad to help. I knew that the term was used in relation to poetry, but was unsure of its exact meaning. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Help add ref. Thanks you. Edmyoa (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

add ref for section 'Achievements'. Thanks you. Edmyoa (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Why ask me? I have never edited this article and I am unfamiliar with its topic. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Verbcatcher,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I removed Lostprophets because of the horrific crimes that Ian Watkins did to children and the bands’ legacy is forever destroyed because of it. FireDragonValo (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed Lostprophets because of the horrific crimes that Ian Watkins did to children and the bands’ legacy is forever destroyed because of it. FireDragonValo (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@FireDragonValo: thank you for the explanation. However, Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:NOTCENSORED), and in my view Watkins' crimes do not warrant his band's omission from these articles. You could raise this on the article talk pages, or at Wikipedia:Village pump. You could add a sentence where the band is mentioned in Music of Cardiff#Rock music: something like "Lostprofits disbanded in 2013 following the conviction of singer Ian Watkins for sexual offences." Verbcatcher (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I respect the fact that you are a long-time, constructive editor, but in your reversion of my edit you ignored the note at the top of the list, which says: "Such list (sic) are for items with articles on Wikipedia". Either a lot of material needs to be deleted from the article, or the note should go. See stand-alone list common selection criteria. where it states, re "all-notable" lists:

• This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate lists; prevents individual list articles from becoming targets for spam and promotion;...,

and where it states, re "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group":

• These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.

Nearly any list article is a potential "promo magnet" (sadly, in my experience). While the list is short, its entries without articles do not "enhance navigation", nor are they likely to be "interesting to readers" (my opinion).

I also question the manner in which you have determined the hospital's notability, given that a draft article on the hospital with promo and notability problems was recently speedily deleted, and that the hospital's size doesn't confer notability.

It's fairly common for undeclared paid contributors to "count their chickens before they hatch" by seeding their article's subject throughout Wikipedia wherever they can find a plausible place to put it. If the list article isn't cleaned up, it needs to have the note "Such list (sic) are for items with articles on Wikipedia" removed, but with what justification? It's obvious that many of its entries were made while ignoring that note, but actual notability does matter. A list which contains non-article entries which most readers would find quite obscure isn't "interesting", nor is it navigable.

I realize that I'm splitting hairs here, but I hope you can follow my logic and respond to my points, either here or on the article's Talk page. Respectfully yours,--Quisqualis (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: thank you for your note. While I accept that an organisation's size is not proof of its notability, it is likely that lager hospitals will be notable, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability. I did not see the deleted article, but I would probably have favoured stubbing, to leave basic information on location, size and date of establishment. I do not want to encourage advertising or promotional articles, but we should not delete valid content solely on what we assume were the motivations of the editor who introduced it.

A list of hospitals in an area could be complete and would be reasonably short. In many places they would be listed in a medical directory.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability supports the inclusion of hospitals without articles in lists of hospitals:

• Hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in the country/state list of hospitals and in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name.

Most lists of hospitals seem to include hospitals that do not have articles, for example:

• List of hospitals in England
• List of hospitals in South Africa
• List of hospitals in Washington, D.C.

There are lots more in Category:Lists of hospitals by country.

My main reason for reverting was probably that your edit appeared arbitrary as you removed only one of the many entries that did not have articles.

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and you ae correct that I was targeting that one entry. The connected contributor seemed to be trying to gain attention for his clients by whatever means, and I don't remember the entry being correctly formatted, either. I don't believe it helps his WP:UPE cause too much by leaving the entry alone, especially as you have pointed out that hospital list articles are prone to having such entries. I agree he should have written a stub, as should all UPEs. Quisqualis (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Breakthrough Party logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Re your reversion of my addition of vorpostensicherungsboot to the VS dab page, we do have the redirect German trawler Vs 518 Ostpreussen. Could this be handled by giving it as an example? Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Disambiguation pages are intended to help readers find useful content on a topic. I reverted your entry the linked Vorpostensicherungsboot to Picket boat, because the term was not mentioned there. It would not be helpful to link to 'German trawler V 305 Ostpreussen' or to 'German trawler V 314 Heinrich Lehnert', because they do not discuss the characteristics or role of a vorpostensicherungsboot, so they would be of little use to a reader seeking information on this.

We need is a concise (and sourced) description of vorpostensicherungsboot in a Wikipedia article somewhere, to which the disambiguation entry could link. The best place for this appears to be List of naval ship classes of Germany, or possibly List of Kriegsmarine ships. Vorpostenboote should also be described, and any other small naval craft. Are you in a position to do this?

You might get some information from German Wikipedia. de:Kriegsfischkutter appears to cover this, although I don't understand German. No sources are explicitly cited in the relevant section.

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We already have the Vorpostenboot article. A kriegfischkutter is similar to a vorpostenboot, and both are equivalent to a naval trawler. These small naval auxiliaries can get quite complicated. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The page is showing a missing or empty |title= again.

Please revert your Revert or add a Title.

Thank you

@Franz.wohlkoenig:, please take a closer look at your edit. As I indicated in my edit summary ('the archived webpage relates to teachers salaries in Missouri'), your edit was misconcieved and misleading.

You added this URL:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20061012010019/https://dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/building/staff0920891050.html

as an archived copy of the original URL:

• https://fmscan.org/transmitter.php?t=2800552

The archived page is unrelated to the original page, and is unrelated to the article.

The title that you added applies to the archived page but is unrelated to the original page.

Red error messages in articles are undesirable, but misleading content is much worse. Clearly something went wrong on this occasion: either you did not take sufficient care or you used a tool did not work correctly.

I will do as you ask and add a title to the citation, although I did not add the citation originally.

Lastly, please sign your talk page contribution with four tildes (~~~~).

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Thank you for your answer and your correction of my misconcieved and misleading edit. I don't know how i get the wrong url and apologize. Franz.wohlkoenig (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Verbcatcher thought I'd drop by to let you know how much I appreciate your assistance with the Cwmgelli Cemetery article. Your edit summaries are informative. I've "upped my game" in this area because reasoning behind edit summaries can help prevent misunderstanding and create a better collaborative environment. Also, your edits re the area conversion template are helpful. I wasn't aware of the settings you utilised as not everything appears to come up when using the template in visual editing mode. Regards. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rupples: thank you for your kind remarks. I don't use the visual editor, partly because my experience of writing software makes me comfortable with text editing and markup. If I want to make a complex edit I sometimes copy the Wikipedia source text into a stand-alone text editor program (Notepad++) and make the edits there. You can see the full capabilities of the conversion template at Template:Convert. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Verbcatcher!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! You recently tagged this entry for notability. You were concerned that there was a single source (the publishers website). I have made some improvements today; if you have a moment to remove them you might consider removing the the notability tag? Taibhseoir (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done – I have removed the tag. Thank you for your work on the article, Verbcatcher (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Heyyy!!! I wanted to see if you can help take a look at this draft I submitted for review Draft:Trendupp Awards. I'm still looking at ways to make it better. However, I really believe it is ready to be published. Kindly help take a look if you can as this will also improve my editing as well. Thank you very much Olakunle Rufai (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Quick facts Five years! ...

Precious

Five years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No 93.39.144.177 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)