This user
participates in WikiProject Biography. |
This user is a participant in WikiProject English Royalty |
not only flowered, but bore abundant fruit, and I'm happy to see the metaphor applies. Welcome back Nishidani ( talk) 12:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help. I notice that the spammy query about the artist is 8 years old, from an IP, included two spamlinks, and was unsigned. Of course, if the other Anne is in fact notable, then she's notable.
I also wanted to thank you for your work on Anne de Mortimer herself. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your help page request. If you find an image to append to the end of the lead section of an article, or find a really tall object or image to put at the top of the lead, it will extend downward into the space to the right of the table of contents. See Muhammad or Jesus for example. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could direct me to where you found the info that
Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge may be the product of an affair his mother had. The affair between Isabella and the Duke of Exeter is reported in the year 1379, 6 years before the birth of her son, Richard. How long did the affair last and does this have anything to do with the story The Complaint of Mars by Chaucer?
Your statement which I'm assuming you added seeing how you've edited more than a few things on that page within a few 24 hrs. --
Richard was twelve years younger than his brother, Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, and may have been the child of an illicit liaison between his mother and John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter, since he received no lands from his putative father, Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, and is not mentioned in his will.
--
Lady Meg (
talk) 04:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Good job on 15th earl. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have created a very impressive list of 119 articles that you have edited since September 2012 (I have tools to manipulate text, and this is simply a tricky search-and-replace on all your contributions since then). I hope you don't mind, but as I believe this will be useful, I have created your sandbox with the list, see User:NinaGreen/Sandbox. It's easy to move that or have it deleted if you like (ask if wanted). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much! This is really helpful. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears you're not gonna make it this time, but don't give up: time has an irritating tendency to pass too quickly, and you'll surely be successful in the future.
Pro tip: instead of linking to open edits to illustrate an edit, link to the diffs instead. That way the chances of an unintended edit are much less. Tom Reedy ( talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Tom, and for the amusing allusion, Nishidani. :-) NinaGreen ( talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I have reversed your edit on Mary Hungerford. The reasons are in the talk page. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I put a reference from tudorplace [1]. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nina. I have removed your amendment request, as there was no support from any Arbitrators to take action on it. I would advise waiting at least six months before reapplying to the Committee. Best, NW ( Talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all, let me express my sincere thanks to everyone from the Wikipedia community who supported my request! The support from the community was unanimous.
In light of the unanimous support for my request from those in the Wikipedia community who responded, I feel I should express once again my opinion that the Wikipedia arbitration process needs substantive reform. In the original arbitration I expressed my complete bewilderment at what was going on. It's clear that as a new and inexperienced editor I had wandered into a firestorm of controversy over the Shakespeare authorship issue which had been going on on Wikipedia for years, and which I had been no part of. The arbitration was brought on the ground that there was a conspiracy among Oxfordian editors, but not a scintilla of evidence of a conspiracy was introduced during the entire arbitration. The reason for that is clear. There was no conspiracy. Instead of dropping the arbitration for lack of proof of any conspiracy, as I had requested, the arbitrators focussed all their attention on me. The time period for adducing evidence elapsed, and I protested that no specific evidence had been adduced against me, and that I could not respond without knowing the case (if any) I had to meet. At that point, the time period for providing evidence was re-opened on the spurious grounds that another editor needed further time to respond because of family circumstances. No further evidence was adduced by or on the part of that editor (whose identity was never disclosed during the arbitration). Instead, further 'evidence' was adduced against me, and the case was immediately closed again, and I was slapped with what must be among the most Draconian sanctions Wikipedia has ever imposed on anyone.
It is clear that there is no due process or transparency in a Wikipedia arbitration, and no clarity whatsoever as to what is actually being arbitrated and what case an editor who finds him/herself in an arbitration has to meet. I'm quite willing to admit that I could have handled Talk page discussions better, but so could any number of editors involved in those same Talk page discussions, and none of them received even the most minimal of sanctions by the arbitrators.
One learns from experience, which is sometimes a harsh mistress, and I hope that my experience can help to improve the Wikipedia arbitration process. To that end, when Steven Zhang of the Wikipedia Foundation asked me to participate in a survey concerning Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, I responded to the survey. In addition to requesting completion of the survey, Steven Zhang requested volunteers to be part of a group which would offer suggestions for the improvement of Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. I volunteered to do so at least three times, suggesting that my experience with arbitration had given me some insights which would be helpful in improving the arbitration process. Steven Zhang completely ignored my offer to participate.
My Wikipedia account remained blocked for months after the one-year ban had expired, and there appears to be no process on Wikipedia for ensuring that accounts are automatically unblocked when fixed-time period sanctions expire. So that is one area obviously in need of substantive reform. There needs to be a process for unblocking accounts when fixed time period sanctions have expired because when a user's account is totally blocked, there's no way of contacting Wikipedia to get it unblocked. And why should a user have to do that in any event? The account should be automatically unblocked.
Once my account was unblocked, I began editing biographies of English historical personages from the Middle Ages and Tudor periods. I have considerable background knowledge in this area, and access to reliable sources of very high quality. Before I requested that the topic ban be lifted a short time ago, I had edited over 120 of these Wikipedia articles, sourcing unsourced statements, providing in-line citations, and expanding articles which were stubs. I suspect it would be difficult to find many other editors in the entire Wikipedia universe who contributed anything approaching that amount to Wikipedia in that short space of time. However if the arbitrators took any notice whatsoever of the volume and quality of my contributions during the past two and half months, or of the fact that my contributions were in an area which is now relatively neglected by other Wikipedia editors, and in which there are notices on many many articles indicating that they are in need of improvement, it was not evident in the slightest from the arbitrators' comments. Not a single arbitrator appears to have taken any of this into consideration, and my request was abruptly closed off yesterday on the ground that the arbitrators simply weren't interested in lifting the topic ban. It is obvious to any disinterested observer that when those in a position to decide can merely say, 'We're not interested in doing anything', there is no due process and no transparency, and no Wikipedia editor can feel confident that he/she will be given fair treatment.
Moreover the arbitrator who authored the original arbitration decision added unsubstantiated new allegations in his comments regarding my request that the topic ban be lifted, and it was rightly pointed out by another editor that those new allegations by that arbitrator could not, in fact, be substantiated. The record clearly shows that I did not at any time specifically advocate for Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare plays.
In addition, the path forward was not made clear in the slightest. There was no agreement whatsoever among the arbitrators as to what would be expected of me if I were to apply at a future date to have the topic ban lifted, or when such an application might be favourably received. And in fact the comments from several of the arbitrators that they had not the slightest interest in lifting the indefinite topic ban strongly suggests that there is no path forward, and that they will never agree to it being lifted, despite the fact that it has now been in place for almost two full years.
Moreover the comments from members of the Wikipedia community who offered support in my request to have the indefinite topic ban lifted were viewed with deep suspicion by some of the arbitrators, as though anyone who had anything positive to say about my work was somehow also suspect, and that was the case in the original arbitration as well, as the record shows. And some comments made earlier on this page suggest that in any future application I might make anyone who has anything positive to say about my work should just stay out of it. One can well imagine what the result would be for my application if that advice were taken, and anyone who had anything to say in support of my work just shut up, leaving the field to those who keep harping on the erroneous findings of the original arbitration.
In brief, neither the arbitration process nor the process governing requests for the lifting of indefinite topic bans provides for fairness, due process or transparency, and I would hope the entire Wikipedia community, including Jimmy Wales, would get behind an effort to put in place the substantive improvements which are needed to guarantee fairness, due process, and transparency, specifically:
(1) Editors need to know the specific case they have to meet, which implies that the arbitrators should never take on a case alleging a vast conspiracy without first requiring evidence establishing the alleged conspiracy, and if none is forthcoming, the arbitration should not be taken on.
(2) When an editor says, 'I don't know what the case is which I have to meet, and which specific Wikipedia policies I'm alleged to have violated', the arbitrators should spell out the details with specific diffs. In my case, the specific policies which I was alleged to have violated were never spelled out.
(3) If a large number of editors are swept into an arbitration, the case against each one should be spelled out very specifically, and those against whom there is no case should be immediately excused. One of the reasons for the vast amount of confusion in the original arbitration is that a very large number of people were dragged into it who had nothing to do with it, and it was never clear what the arbitration was about.
(4) Before a decision is voted on by the arbitrators, specific findings of fact, supported by diffs, should be spelled out, so that it is transparently clear to everyone exactly what the arbitrators are voting on.
(5) Before an arbitration is taken on, there should be a clear statement, supported by diffs, of the earlier steps in dispute resolution which were taken, and if no earlier steps have been taken, the case should not be taken on. In my case, no earlier steps were taken.
(6) Any decision by the arbitrators should include clear parameters as to what further steps need to be taken (if any) to lift the sanctions, particularly in the case of indefinite topic bans.
(7) Accounts should be automatically unblocked when fixed time period sanctions have expired.
(8) There should be a clear process set out as to what happens when a request is made to lift an indefinite topic ban. I was completely bewildered by what happened during my recent application. Arbitrators made laconic comments stating they didn't feel like doing anything, comments voicing suspicion, comments adding additional unsubstantiated allegations, etc. etc. The process seemed completely haphazard. And in the end the process was cut off abruptly without any agreement among the arbitrators as to what they would consider sufficient if I eventually reapplied, or when they would consider it suitable that I reapply.
I appreciate that the arbitrators have a thankless job, but there are a lot of editors out here on Wikipedia also doing what is, in essence, a thankless job. And we're all doing it for the common good because we feel Wikipedia is a worthwhile project which contributes to the store of human knowledge. I hope my comments will be taken in that light. They constitute a bona fide attempt to improve Wikipedia.
I would also like to add that it is one of Wikipedia's policies to encourage women editors, and I can't help but wonder how women editors would be encouraged by my experience on Wikipedia, which seems to smack in at least some measure of overt male chauvinism. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads, you stated above that 'everyone who was sanctioned in that case was horribly disruptive'. In fact, the only person who was sanctioned in the original arbitration was me. Although the arbitration was launched on the spurious grounds that there was a vast conspiracy among Oxfordian editors, not a scintilla of evidence of any such conspiracy was adduced, and the entire weight of the arbitrators came down full force on me. (Smtprt, with whom I'd never edited because he was under a ban the whole time I was editing, wasn't sanctioned in the arbitration; he merely used the arbitration as a vehicle to apply to have the earlier sanctions against him lifted, which didn't happen. And if the arbitrators are of the view that Smtprt was 'horribly disruptive', that has absolutely nothing to do with me because any editing Smtprt did on Wikipedia was before my time, and I should not be tarred with guilt by association.)
You also wrote, 'You really do need to go back and understand why your behaviour caused such a problem'. I told the arbitrators during the arbitration what caused the problem, namely that I was not allowed to make a single substantive edit on the SAQ page. Every single substantive edit I made was instantly reverted by other editors, and every single substantive edit I suggested was argued about endlessly on the Talk page by other editors. Any one of the arbitrators can go back to the SAQ page and see that for him/herself. Yet none of those other editors was sanctioned by the arbitrators, or even came in for the slightest criticism from the arbitrators.
You also wrote, 'You need more people saying 'Nina's editing has been neutral, well-researched, and valuable' and less people saying 'should never have been sanctioned in the first place.' Why do I need that? In the first place, all the editors who commented during my application supported the lifting of the sanctions. Secondly, and more importantly, I provided the arbitrators with a list of 120 articles I've edited in the past two and half months (since then I've edited several dozen more articles, usually revising them from top to bottom, adding references and in-line citations). Why couldn't the arbitrators go take a look for themselves at some of those articles and make up their own minds as to whether my editing is 'neutral, well-researched and valuable'? It undoubtedly is 'neutral, well-researched and valuable', and if the arbitrators would bother to take a few minutes to look at it, they'd see that.
You also wrote, 'You need to show that you have moved on'. All the editors in the Wikipedia community who responded to the application indicated that they are ready to move on. I'm ready to move on. The only ones who aren't ready to move on, and who seem to want to keep harping indefinitely on the past, are the arbitrators. Surely that's not what Wikipedia is about. Why don't the arbitrators just lift the indefinite ban? If things turn out badly, the arbitrators can just re-impose the ban. What have they got to lose? Nothing. But things won't turn out badly. Things will be just fine if the indefinite ban is lifted. NinaGreen ( talk) 01:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Nina, I was thinking of starting a page on Charles Arundell, the brother of Matthew Arundell, but I want to be sure he is notable. Do you have any thoughts? Moonraker ( talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
All references to the nomination to 'Did You Know' for the article on Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton [4], seem to have disappeared, both on the 'Did You Know' pages, and on the Talk page for the article, where two of the DYK editors had left brief comments asking for clarification as to which article was being nominated. I've left a message on the Talk page of one of the editors at [5]. I'd leave one for the other editor as well, but I can't recall his user name. It's very puzzling, as I didn't think comments on the Talk pages of Wikipedia articles, or the record of a nomination, could simply vanish. Any help resolving this would be much appreciated. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
AARON• TALK 00:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
On 2 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Roman Catholicism of the 2nd Earl of Southampton has been called the key to his unhappy life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have made a start on Anthony Browne (1552–1592), but for me he's struggling with notability. Although I have included the claim from the tudorplace site that he was Sheriff of Surrey and Kent in 1580, something about that seems to be wrong. Some more references would be a help. Moonraker ( talk) 12:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Away was just away for some rest. I am wondering whether that image might be an engraving after this portrait of Mary Guildford by Hans Holbein the Younger? See what you think. Moonraker ( talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted an answer on the Template to your question about counting characters in an article. — Maile ( talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
On 12 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Willoughby, 6th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Willoughby surrendered the Bastille to the French on 17 April 1436? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Willoughby, 6th Baron Willoughby de Eresby. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Nina,
Try these steps for installing DYK Check into your Toolbox: Click on the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NinaGreen/common.js
This should come up with a blue link message "Start the NinaGreen/common.js page" Click on the blue link. It should open up a blank Edit Window just like you were starting a new article.
Copy and Paste the "importScript" (etc) from the bottom of this message, all of it exactly as it is, into the blank edit window and hit Return.
That sets up your skin, hopefully, no matter which skin you use, with the DYK Check in the left-hand toolbox. You might have to refresh or restart your browser. This should put it in your Toolbox. If this does not work, please let me know. — Maile ( talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool importScriptURI(' http://en.wikipedia.org/?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User:Haza-w/cactions.js');
On 13 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, was on the commission which condemned to death Archbishop Scrope, the first English prelate to suffer judicial execution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby de Eresby. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Mifter ( talk) 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
On 14 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the funeral of his uncle, from whom he inherited the earldom, John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford, received an axe brought into the church by a mounted horseman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
On 21 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the eldest son of Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer, was married to Catherine Parr before she was King Henry VIII's Queen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Marmaduke Constable (died 1545) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rlendog ( talk) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Odie5533 ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I left you a reply there. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 18:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
On 31 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford, was abducted by the half-brother of her intended bridegroom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk) 00:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
On 2 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marmaduke Constable (died 1545), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Marmaduke Constable was the great-grandfather of the poet, Henry Constable, author of Diana, one of the first English sonnet sequences? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marmaduke Constable (died 1545). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
( X! · talk) · @309 · 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nina, I responded to your latest comments here-- Template:Did you know nominations/Adelina Domingues. Please see my latest response whenever you have time. Futurist110 ( talk) 01:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
On 3 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Neville (poet), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that poet William Neville made himself a cloak of linen and buckskin which was supposed to render him invisible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Neville (poet). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. First of all, I did not create the bot. The bot in question, Citation bot, was created by Smith609, and is available from the 'Preferences' page to all wikipedia users; it shows up as an 'Expand citations' link in the toolbox. I haven't experienced errors like this before, and I am unsure what went wrong, so for now I'll undo the edits and add a tag to prevent the bot from further editing of the page. My apologies. Bensci54 ( talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Nina. I've gone ahead and moved, first, William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros, and, second, William de Ros, 4th Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros, as you requested and have closed the discussions. There's probably some tidying up to do on these but I'll leave that to you. Kind regards, -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I passed the DYK nom for James Hales, but there are a few minor reference issues you need to address. Please reply on the DYK nom if needed. – Maky « talk » 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Robert Constable (died 1591) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
On 10 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Constable, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that poet Henry Constable was imprisoned in both the Tower and the Fleet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Constable. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice job expanding Henry Constable for DYK. It was pretty interesting. Happy editing! ComputerJA ( talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hey Nina,
Do you have some extra time? If so, would you please be able to review this DYK? nomination of mine? The previous two people that reviewed it haven't gotten back to me yet, and it's already been several days since I last messaged them. If you're unable to review this DYK? nomination, that's okay. Here is the DYK? nomination that I'm talking about-- Template:Did you know nominations/Demographic history profile of Detroit. Thank you very much. Futurist110 ( talk) 08:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the category "Canterbury Cathedral", if that's what you mean, [7] CTF83! 11:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
On 14 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Constable (died 1591), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Constable was a descendant of Richard, Earl of Cambridge, executed for his part in the Southampton Plot against King Henry V? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Constable (died 1591). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions regarding my article submission. I've made most or all of the suggested changes and I've clarified the text regarding Sinclair Lewis in a way that I think may satisfy your concern about the hook. Thanks. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out with my DYK nomination for Brunette Downs Station. Keep up the good work. Hughesdarren ( talk) 06:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Michaelh2001's talk page. Regarding your help with and response to the Did You Know? nomination for Juneau Raptor Center AlaskaMike ( talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nina, thanks for the review of my DYK nomination. I've replied to your concerns at the discussion page. Let me know if you want me to clarify anything. Take care, Moswento talky 09:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I've also replied to your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Blaufränkisch. Agne Cheese/ Wine 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there NinaGreen, I reviewed your submission at DYK, you can find the link here. Just a couple of things, nothing serious, and it's good to go. Parrot of Doom 00:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
On 5 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Waldegrave, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert Waldegrave printed the first four Marprelate tracts on a secret press in 1588/9? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Waldegrave. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
On 13 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walter Buckler, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Walter Buckler was secretary to Queen Katherine Parr and chamberlain to Princess Elizabeth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Buckler. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
On 18 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Wolley (MP), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Wolley was sent to King James in June 1586 to assure him that Mary, Queen of Scots was being well treated, and four months later was one of the commissioners who tried and convicted her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Wolley (MP). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Carabinieri ( talk) 08:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
On 19 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Wolley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Queen Elizabeth I nicknamed Elizabeth Wolley her "sweet apple"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Wolley. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Carabinieri ( talk) 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
On 19 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis Wolley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that from 1601 to 1609 Sir Francis Wolley provided a home at Pyrford for the poet John Donne and Anne More after their clandestine marriage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Wolley. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You've done some good work but I think you need to reread this. If you continue to step over the line it is liable to affect you in the future. Patience is a virtue. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of William More (died 1600) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod talk 11:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't make a talkback tag link properly for some reason, so I'll answer here. The earlier articles were someone of that name trying to post his CV. He was persistent enough for the title to be salted (create protected), but he gave up years ago, so I have unsalted the title, and there is nothing to stop you going ahead at Christopher More. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nina,
Could you please review this DYK? nomination of mine -- Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City. For the record, I previously reviewed one of your DYK? nominations (I think it was Walter Buckler). If not, that's okay, but please let me know your decision. Thank you very much. Futurist110 ( talk) 00:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
On 17 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Hales, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir James Hales' suicide by drowning inspired the gravedigger's speech in Shakespeare's Hamlet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Hales. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Shubinator ( talk) 18:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
On 26 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William More (died 1600), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a lawsuit by Sir William More brought the first Blackfriars Theatre to an end? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William More (died 1600). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
On 5 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christopher More, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Christopher More, stepuncle of Saint Thomas More, was one of the first officers in the Exchequer with formal legal training? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher More. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on William Drury (died 1558), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. smileguy91 talk 02:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be correct, according to my most recent research. There seems to be many people named Robert Drury or William Drury. Apologies for my late reply - I posted the link from my talk page to this talk page before I wrote the message. I'll negate my deletion notice when I can. smileguy91 talk 02:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
On 11 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Drury (died 1558), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir William Drury's name appears in the Ellesmere manuscript of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Drury (died 1558). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
On 13 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Drury (died 1577), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Drury was among the first to support Mary Tudor's claim to the throne in July 1553? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Drury (died 1577). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
On 17 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Sackville (died 1557), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir John Sackville was an uncle of the English queen Anne Boleyn and a great-uncle of Queen Elizabeth I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Sackville (died 1557). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've just reviewed your DYK for Abraham Holland. I was going to do a DYK? as I feel to belt and brace the rule about ref appearing immediately at the end of the sentence, it needed to be right at the end of the sentence. I then decided just to put it in place myself but could you double check I have it right? Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC) PS: There is also a DAB link for Folio.
On 21 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Stafford, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while Elizabeth Stafford's family was in exile in Geneva in 1556, the Protestant reformer, John Calvin, stood godfather to her youngest brother, John Stafford? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Stafford. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
On 23 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Scott (died 1533), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir John Scott was the grandfather of Reginald Scott, author of The Discoverie of Witchcraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Scott (died 1533). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Also replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Finer. Thanks again. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 00:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
On 24 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abraham Holland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after having written a poem on the 1625 great plague of London, the poet Abraham Holland died of the plague the following year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Holland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Philemon Holland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
On 26 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philemon Holland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Philemon Holland claimed that he wrote out the whole of his translation of Plutarch's Moralia with a single quill pen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Philemon Holland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Chamal T• C 08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Before I plunge ahead with a talking point in the Discussion section of the article "Thomas Grey (chronicler), I thought I'd check with you first since I saw your name as a frequent recent contributor to the article. I'm going to propose changing the spelling of the surname (and therefore, the article title) to conform with what appears to be the most frequent form found in references, that is, "GrAy". In fact, I've never come across the "E" spelling for this man before. From what I can tell, this was an editing choice back in 2008, with no apparent reference to back it up. Your thoughts. Tmangray ( talk) 07:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
On 29 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew Browne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Matthew Browne was involved in legal and financial transactions concerning the Globe Theatre in 1601? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Browne. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Nina, how would an article about Margery Golding be titled? I've got enough information but I don't know how it should be titled: Margery Golding, since that's the name most used, or Margery de Vere, Countess of Oxford, with a redirect from "Margery Golding"? Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
On 31 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Berkeley, 7th Baron Berkeley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry Berkeley, 7th Baron Berkeley, is said to have rebuilt Caludon Castle in about 1580 after its deterioration following the 1398 banishment from England of Thomas Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Berkeley, 7th Baron Berkeley. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 08:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
On 3 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roger Townshend (died 1590), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Roger Townshend's portrait was among those on a tapestry commemorating the destruction of the Spanish Armada which hung in the House of Lords until the tapestry was destroyed by fire in 1834? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roger Townshend (died 1590). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. For the DYK rule, could you insert a ref for the last line in the article, I've temporarily stuck a {{cn}} tag there; sorry, I know it's a bit of a pain and may need a ref for each of her marriages but the DYK rule is a ref for every paragraph (or maybe just move it up so it becomes the final sentence of the preceding paragraph?) SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Joan Leche, NinaGreen!
Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I added some links.
To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
On 8 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Brend, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Brend. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
On 8 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621), which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Allen3 talk 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
On 10 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Stanhope (died 1552), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Michael Stanhope was beheaded on Tower Hill on 26 February 1552 after having been convicted of conspiring to take the life of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, and others? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Stanhope (died 1552). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
On 11 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Bourchier (died 1557), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in June 1537 Elizabeth Bourchier's servant received two shillings as a reward for bringing strawberries and cream to the future Queen Mary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Bourchier (died 1557). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
On 13 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Leveson (died 1621), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that William Leveson was sued by the Virginia Company in 1613? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Leveson (died 1621). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 08:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
For an elegant compromise :) Irondome ( talk) 00:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! I love strawberries! NinaGreen ( talk) 01:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thinking that I am trying to rain on your parade. Last night I was convinced that the only issue was that the article's name was unusual. On waking this morning I found that the article's name was the smaller of the two issues, and that genuine notability needed to be addressed first. I see him as borderline notable because i feel he inherits much of his notability from his surroundings. The verifiability also comes rom there, though I am sure the source passes WP:RS. On balance he is probably notable, but I may be basing that ion the paucity of notable people available at the time. I feel we need an absolute yardstick.
I wanted to drop this note on your talk page rather than the article's talk page because it is form me to you, tangentially about the article. I was asked to come and look at the discussion, and, if I have an opinion to offer, try very hard to add value to the discussion. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you use your sandbox.
Add {{ Disambiguation}} to it and see what happens.
When you want to create a real one, make sure it is one you wish and need to create. The create Nina Green's Very Own Page (disambiguation) adding {{ Disambiguation}} to it and a bulleted list of the articles it distinguishes between
Sometimes I am lousy at explaining things, but, if you place {{ Helpme}} on your talk page and ask for specific guidance after it, someone better than I will drop by and do their best to guide and help you. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
On 19 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Savage (died 1611), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Thomas Savage, Shakespeare's trustee in the purchase of shares in the Globe Theatre, was a friend of John Jackson, Shakepeare's trustee in the purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Savage (died 1611). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
On 20 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rowland Hayward, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1587 Sir Rowland Hayward entertained Queen Elizabeth I at his home of King's Place, which had once been owned by her father, King Henry VIII? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rowland Hayward. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
On 21 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Carmarden, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1566, Richard Carmarden funded the printing of an edition of the Great Bible in English at Rouen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Carmarden. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
One problem with Wikipedia is Too Long Didn't Read. I did read. You will notice that I have not commented on that talk page for a good length of time. This is because the article title truly does not matter.
No, really. It doesn't matter.
Why not?
Because it can be found anyway.
There is a point when one steps away from a battle. That point is when one realises that things do not matter, and that doing something else is more productive. One of the combatants seems to be on Wikipedia to have battles, though I suspect he does not realise that yet. When he does I think he will stop. He's doing it in all sorts of other paces, too, and with an imperfect understanding of those areas as well.
I'm sorry I came to the article. WIth hindsight I think I achieved a negative benefit for the article, but these things are transient.
What I suggest is that you let this article take its chances and work on a new one. I like your work. I think this load of mess is a distraction. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your DYK review of List of National Trust properties in Somerset. It was the most comprehensive I've ever seen, including correcting my poor grammar on several of the articles linked from the list - great work.— Rod talk 14:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
On 26 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katharine Way, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that nuclear physicist Katharine Way co-edited a 1946 bestseller which included essays by Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, and sold over 100,000 copies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katharine Way. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
On 28 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew Brend, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Matthew Brend conveyed the property on which the Globe Theatre was built to his wife, Frances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Brend. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
On 29 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sigismund Zinzan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Sigismund Zinzan tilted in the tournament celebrating the creation of King James's son, Henry, as Prince of Wales in 1610, and led a horse draped in black at Henry's funeral in 1612? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigismund Zinzan. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
On 29 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joan Leche, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Joan Leche founded a school in Saffron Walden which Gabriel Harvey attended in the early 1560s, where according to Thomas Nashe he was a "desperate stabber with pen-knives"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Leche. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
On 30 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas Brend, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Nicholas Brend, the first owner of the Globe Theatre, died in 1601, his heir was his infant son, Matthew, who would not come of age until 6 February 1621? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Brend. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
On 2 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorothy Kitson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dorothy Kitson was one of the few women in Tudor England to nominate burgesses for Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Kitson. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
If the text in a Wikipedia article has a substantial amount of text or structure that would be enough to be a breach of copyright if the work was not in the public domain then it must meet the attribution criteria laid down in WP:PLAGIARISM. The history articles John Pakington (serjeant-at-law) is clearly a copy of the the DNB article and so the attribution template {{ DNB}} needs to remain on the article and inline citations need to be provided to the DNB citation. This is particularly true for text copied from a DNB article because there is a danger that otherwise the article will be flagged as a breach of ONDB copyright.
I suspect that we approach biographies of historical English people from opposite ends of the spectrum. I put the emphasis on their historical notability while you are more interested in the genealogy of the subject. This in itself does not matter as we will probably meet in the middle. However there is one area where I think you are placing too much emphasis on genealogy which distorts the article and that is the {{ Infobox person}} I think for that you should only place information in the box that is notable for that person and that should in addition to the information you have provided one or more of theses three fields (or similar)
(for example I added "| occupation = Serjeant-at-law, MP and Sheriff of Herefordshire and Worcesershire" ) to John Pakington (serjeant-at-law). I also think you should substantially reduce the genealogy in those boxes for example in the William Dormer article wording along the lines of "He had about a dozen children including (and only explicitly mention the three for which there are articles)" and remove non-notable information (such as the names of children who died in infancy or were not themselves notable). Similarly if there are no articles on the parents then why mention them in the infobox as presumably they are not notable? -- PBS ( talk) 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
On 10 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Pakington, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after Robert Pakington was shot to death on the morning of 13 November 1536 while on his way to Mass, his murder was interpreted as a Protestant martyrdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Pakington. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
On 20 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice Baldwin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 400 years after Alice Baldwin surrendered Burnham Abbey at the Dissolution of the Monasteries, it was sold to a religious order and again became a community of nuns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Baldwin. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Stapleton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although Anthony Stapleton was granted the reversion of the office of Town Clerk of London in 1544, he was not able to take up the position until 1570? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Stapleton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
On 27 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Amadas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although implicated in corruption in the administration of the Mint in 1528, Robert Amadas retained his position as Henry VIII's Master of the Jewel House until his death in 1532? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Amadas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
On 27 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Hales (died 1608), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Hales was fined 1000 marks and imprisoned for allowing two of the Marprelate tracts to be printed at the Whitefriars, Coventry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hales (died 1608). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
On 28 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Dormer (Lord Mayor), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 300 years after Sir Michael Dormer purchased property that became a free school in Horsham, it was found that the school belonged to his heir at law? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Dormer (Lord Mayor). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
On 30 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Scrope, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mary Scrope was among those who walked with Anne Boleyn to the scaffold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Scrope. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Howz dat?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
On 13 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Jerningham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in October 1518 Richard Jerningham was one of the "sad and ancient knights" appointed to King Henry VIII's reorganized Privy Chamber? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Jerningham. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
On 13 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Broughton (died 1506), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Broughton was made a Knight of the Bath at the marriage in 1478 of the four-year-old Richard, Duke of York, one of the two princes later said to have been murdered in the Tower of London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Broughton (died 1506). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Edmund Walsingham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar · · 06:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this improvement to the John Barkstead article. But if you make such a change please cite the reliable source from which the information came. In the case of the ODNB there is a template available to help and speed up the process
{{ODNB|id=1426 |title=Barkstead, John (d. 1662)}}
which givesBut it also takes all the other usual parameters such as |first=Christopher |last=Durston |origyear=2004 |year=2008 |ref=harv which produces:
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) (Subscription or
UK public library membership required.)-- PBS ( talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Good job with the article, which must have been a lot of work! It could use a photo or drawing of one or two of the most prominent Lieutenants, if you can find any. I am happy to be a co-nom, if you like, but I have no idea how to do the nomination process. I can suggest, as a possible hook: "...that in 1517, during the Evil May Day riots, the Lieutenant of the Tower of London fired artillery into the City of London, drawing the ire of the city elders." Send me a link if you nominate it. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Morning Nina. Just regarding Parsley Peel, I worked on it in my userspace for a good few weeks before putting it live - it hit mainspace on 17 June, which is when I nominated it for DYK. Unless anything's changed in the process, I believe that's still fine - odd the tool missed it. WormTT( talk) 07:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
On 22 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edmund Walsingham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it was to Sir Edmund Walsingham that Sir Thomas More made his final ironic jest while ascending the scaffold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edmund Walsingham. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
On 23 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lieutenant of the Tower of London, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at least five of the Lieutenants of the Tower of London were later prisoners in the Tower themselves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lieutenant of the Tower of London. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Nina, Have you given up editing the article on 17th Earl of Oxford? If you have been deterred by other editors you might find you now have someone who shares some of your views Sceptic1954 ( talk) 19:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
On 29 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Shaa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the court of requests instituted by Sir John Shaa while he was Lord Mayor of London proved unpopular because it favoured the poor more than "Justyce & good lawe Requyrid"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Shaa. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 10:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
On 30 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Husee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the letters written by John Husee while he was servant to Lord Lisle in 1533–40 have been described as "a joy and a revelation to read"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Husee. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On 2 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joan Wilkinson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Joan Wilkinson was a silkwoman to Anne Boleyn and supplied bonnets and frontlets to Lady Lisle? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For writing Richard Carmarden - a fascinating (and wonderfully esoteric) subject :). Ironholds ( talk) 02:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC) |
On 24 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Tuddenham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Thomas Tuddenham was beheaded on Tower Hill on 23 February 1462 for allegedly plotting to murder King Edward IV? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Tuddenham. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
On 25 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Browne (died 1514), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir William Browne was present as Lord Mayor of London when the emissary of Pope Leo X presented Henry VIII with a "sword and cap of mystic value"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Browne (died 1514). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 21:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention that you have been making edits on the topics of various Shakespeare plays. Unless I'm missing something, I'm afraid that per the Arbcom decision you are still topic-banned not only from the authorship question but also from Shakespeare in general, broadly construed, so these edits would seem to be in breach of the sanction. I'm not particularly keen on having to enforce this through blocks, as long as the edits themselves appear to have been constructive and uncontroversial, but I'll still have to ask you to keep to the rules.
If you wish to have the sanction modified so as to allow you to make Shakespeare edits outside the SAQ topic, I guess there might well be a chance to get such a modification, but you'd have to do that through an appeal at WP:ARA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
On 23 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Crosby (died 1476), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir John Crosby's former mansion in Bishopsgate, Crosby Hall, is the "only extant example of domestic architecture built for a London merchant in the Middle Ages"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Crosby (died 1476). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Alex Shih Talk 12:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: One of the major differences between the DNB and the ODNB is that the ONDB has cut out most of the genealogical information from their biographies. This is a trend that one can see in many similar references works compiled and published post World War II.
I have removed the section you label "family" at the start of Francis Manners, 6th Earl of Rutland, in doing so I have also removed the mention of his brothers from the first paragraph. As we have discussed previously this is a general encyclopaedia, it does not focus on genealogy. Therefore if his relationship with his brothers is notable then they will be mentioned in the bibliography section (in this case his brothers played a significant part in his public life, so they are mentioned in the text, and I have supplemented that by adding the information about which one was older and which one was younger than the Francis: "On his return to England he took part, along with his older bother Roger and their younger bother George, in the 1601 rebellion...").
What is not needed in are sections at the start of a biography article listing what may or may not be notable relationships with other members of the subject's family, because they overemphasise the genealogy (tail wagging the dog), so I have removed the Family section from the start of the biography on the 6th Earl of Rutland and will take similar action when I find such as section in other articles. -- PBS ( talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You have brought up another point: erroneous information. In several articles that I have read and edited in the last few days you have made comments such as this:
(
here). The problem is that this is a POV based on your OR. As an editor you have several choices on how to handle erroneous information provided in (what are often old) secondary sources, but you can not state in the published Wikipedia text that it erroneous unless you have a source that does it for you. The second option is to mention it on the talk page or place it in a hidden inline comment <!--Hardy erroneously dates the letter to 1589-->
to warn other editors. The third is simply to silently ignore the incorrect/old information -- more modern sources (such as the ONDB) often alter information found in 100 year old biographies, this is normal history. The final option is simply to footnote the discrepancy eg:
One other thing that I notice is that when copying quotes from a British English source, you sometimes use single quotation marks. The MOS dictates that articles use doubles (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS).
By and large I approve of the changes you have made to the articles and I hope you take these comments as ways that we can improve articles, rather than confrontational (which is unfortunately all to common on Wikipedia). For example while looking through the changes you had made I decided that two more articles were necessary because your edits highlighed them in several places :
The latter is stub and could do with an expansion, particularly as there was a link from Wild William Darrell to Littlecote House#Wild William Darrell which is a sort of sourced biography of the man.
At the moment I have lots to do which are not directly linked to this historical period see for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations so I for one will not be expanding Wild William Darrell in the near future. -- PBS ( talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
See my comment at {{ Did you know nominations/William Paston (died 1444)}}. Nyttend ( talk) 04:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
On 22 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Poynings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Poynings was carver and sword-bearer to the rebel Jack Cade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Poynings. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
On 24 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adrian Poynings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Adrian Poyning's orders for the English forces at Newhaven included the stricture that "Any English who shall fight without the town shall lose his right hand"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adrian Poynings. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 20:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your information on this, which I have used in the article. Sjwells53 ( talk) 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
On 26 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Browne (died 1483), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a letter in the hand of Sir George Browne, later beheaded, containing the cryptic message "It shall never come out for me", survives among the Paston letters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Browne (died 1483). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 05:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
with regards to our last conversation about articles on notable women and how to link to them. I have been working on a few biographies today and came across a hole in Wikipedia's coverage:
The husband and father article exist and now have red links to Mary Speke I am not really interested in creating a biography as editing the husband was one step further than I wanted to go and I only started it because the article on he husband linked to her brother and not her father. The DNB article has next to no coverage but the ONDB does see
So I thought you might like do something with the information. -- PBS ( talk) 14:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
On 30 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Perrot, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at a tournament before Queen Elizabeth I at Whitehall in 1581, Sir Thomas Perrot and 16 others defended the Castle of Beauty against the Earl of Arundel and Sir William Drury? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Perrot. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 08:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
— Bloom6132 ( talk) 17:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
On 7 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Paston (died 1479), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it is owing to Sir John Paston that we have an account of a famous tournament in England between Paston's friend, Earl Rivers, and the Bastard of Burgundy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Paston (died 1479). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi NinaGreen, thanks for reviewing my submission, I believe addressed your concerns. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 10:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
On 12 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Heydon, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Heydon. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Allen3 talk 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
On 13 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Hastings, Baron Welles, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Richard Hastings, Baron Welles attended the coronation of Richard III only three weeks after Richard had beheaded Hastings' brother, William? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Hastings, Baron Welles. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
On 14 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Hastings (died 1495), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Ralph Hastings was Keeper of the Lions and Leopards in the Tower of London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Hastings (died 1495). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
On 14 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Paston (died 1466), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that between 1461 and 1465, John Paston, one of the writers of the Paston Letters, was outlawed, and imprisoned three times in the Fleet Prison? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Paston (died 1466). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
On 15 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Heydon (died 1479), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Heydon, believing the second child born to his wife Eleanor was not his, threatened to cut off her nose and kill the infant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Heydon (died 1479). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
On 15 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Paston (died 1444), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the letters of the family of William Paston are "the richest source there is for every aspect of the lives of gentlemen and gentlewomen of the English middle ages"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Paston (died 1444). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
On 17 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Waterton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert Waterton, as Constable of Pontefract Castle, had custody of Richard II of England after his deposition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Waterton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to your question at template:Did you know nominations/Haidoterminus.-- Kev min § 03:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
On 26 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice of Norfolk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alice of Norfolk, daughter of Thomas of Brotherton and granddaughter of Edward I, died as a result of an assault by her husband and his retainers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice of Norfolk. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
On 27 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugh Waterton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Henry IV campaigned in Wales, he left his two children in the charge of Sir Hugh Waterton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh Waterton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
On 28 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward of Norfolk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that two years after the magnificent wedding of Edward of Norfolk, his father-in-law was hanged at Tyburn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward of Norfolk. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
On 28 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert de Lisle, 1st Baron Lisle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert de Lisle, 1st Baron Lisle, was the owner of an illuminated manuscript, the Lisle Psalter, now Arundel 83 in the British Library? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert de Lisle, 1st Baron Lisle. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
What a wonderful article. I had always planned on writing an article on the subject since he is/was a namesake and a countryman. See User:Buster7/Sandbox-John Crabbe, Pirate for a rough draft. I'm so glad I never did. Mine would have been amateuristic compared to yours. Suggestion: The fact that he may have been the first to use a catapult aboard a ship may be worth DYK. Thanks again for the pleasure of reading your article. ``` Buster Seven Talk 05:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
On 29 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter de Montfort, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peter de Montfort was the first person to have presided over the English Parliament as a prolocutor, an office now known as Speaker of the House of Commons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter de Montfort. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 08:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
On 30 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Crabbe (died 1352), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Crabbe defended Berwick Castle for the Scots against the English in 1318, but assisted the English when they again besieged Berwick in 1333? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Crabbe (died 1352). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Nina, as you know, there are no extant plays by De Vere. He is notable as a courtier and poet. He is not notable as a playwright. We only characterise people by what makes them notable, not by everything they ever did. We don't say "Heather Mills was married to musician and painter Paul McCartney", even though it's true that McCartney is also a painter. Likewise we wouldn't say that Elizabeth de Vere was married to "courtier and playwright" William Stanley, Earl of Derby, even though the evidence that he wrote plays is just about as strong as the evidence that de Vere wrote plays. Paul B ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Nina, just observing from the side it looks to me that the issue at hand is the notability (or not) of De Vere as a playwright. Obviously, given all the myriad and complicated issues surrounding the SAQ question, this is bound to be a big contention point for the mainstream/"establishment" supporters here. As a matter of temporary tactics I would suggest to you 2 courses of action:
1. Defer to Paul on this question now, removing the contentious title/description as he is requesting.
2. Prepare for the long run a detailed document that would support the inclusion of the contentious title/description ("a notable playwright on his own") in the De Vere article. With such a document ready to pass muster in all the WP boards into which it would probably be submitted, either you, or if not, some other editor representing you, could then start the long fight to possibly include such a new section in the De Vere article/page itself. Even if such a document is very good and compliant with all WP policies, it may still be a long battle of years just to include such a new section in the main De Vere page/article. This is just a tactical suggestion for your consideration, in order to avoid immediate battles while you are still technically banned from the subject broadly considered. Regards, warshy ¥¥ 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me once again. This issue should be closed here, since Nina has already said very clearly above "Paul shouldn't have opened this discussion ... on my Talk page in the first place." I believe she simply does not appreciate engaging with you here, and I can definitely sympathize with her feelings on this matter. You should respect her feelings and specific multiple requests in this regard too.
However, to state here that "I forgotten that you seem to find the concept of an analogy difficult to understand" is a clear insult to any person's intelligence, let alone an accomplished scholar of the caliber of Nina Green. It should be completely stricken from the record by you forthwith.
As for copying the material over, she also asked you to not do it, and I hope you don't. You are just going to compound the insult and affront already committed. If you want to make your point of view explicit there, once the insult is stricken above, you can just state it there once again. If you did that clearly and succintly, I believe there would be no need for Nina even to respond to it, since your edit was done a while ago and it was never changed. Thank you for understanding. warshy ¥¥ 22:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
On 4 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice of Hainault, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1310, the pirate John Crabbe seized a ship carrying jewels, gold, silver, and other goods worth £2000 belonging to Alice of Hainault? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice of Hainault. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
On 6 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bevis Bulmer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Bevis Bulmer presented Queen Elizabeth I with a porringer of pure gold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bevis Bulmer. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
On 7 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christopher Schutz, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a "great ruby stone" that Christopher Schutz wished to present to Queen Elizabeth I was never seen again after it came into the hands of Martin Frobisher? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Schutz. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 21:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
On 9 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Humfrey, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while he was Assay Master at the Royal Mint in 1568, William Humfrey was accused of robbing the Mint? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Humfrey. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 17:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
biographies of English history
Thank you for quality articles such as
Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford,
Christopher Schutz and
Burchard Kranich, and for contributing to article space alone, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Coming from you, it's a real honour. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
On 15 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Battista Agnello, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Giovanni Battista Agnello was the first to declare that the ore brought back from Baffin Island by Martin Frobisher in 1576 was gold-bearing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Battista Agnello. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
On 18 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean de Ferrieres, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although Jean de Ferrieres inherited immense riches, he died a prisoner in a galley, unable to pay his ransom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean de Ferrieres. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nina, I've just been admiring your work on R.H. It has become a very informative article, thanks! I have just been fiddling rather less effectively with Sir Thomas Lodge. Are you able to pinpoint exactly where the funders specifically for the Hawkins slaving expeditions are named? Similar things are said of Lodge, but in trying to navigate the Hakluyt references for Lodge I came up with the Guinea expeditions which seem to have crossed paths with Hawkins in 1563/4 by accident (or was it 'by accident on purpose'?). I realise all these adventurers were closely associated and related. Any guidance gratefully accepted! thanks, Eebahgum ( talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
On 21 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Burchard Kranich, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Burchard Kranich allegedly cured Queen Elizabeth I of smallpox? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Burchard Kranich. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
On 23 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward White (printer), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Edward White printed or sold works by Kyd, Greene, Munday, Marlowe and Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward White (printer). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 09:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
On 25 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rose Lok, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Tudor ship Mary Rose was named after Rose Lok and her sister-in-law, Mary Lok? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rose Lok. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
On 3 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Lok, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1555 John Lok brought five Africans from present-day Ghana to England to learn English and act as interpreters on future trading voyages to Guinea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Lok. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
On 3 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Fabyan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the chronicler Robert Fabyan recorded the arrival in England in 1502 of three men from Newfoundland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Fabyan. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 08:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nina. Sorry about that but I had an edit conflict with you as soon as I changed the hook to a new one. Do you mind checking the new hook and let me know if you approve of it? Many thanks. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 00:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, sorry again. Just done the QPQ. Whenever you have the time you can have a look. Thank you very much for your time. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
On 5 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Lok, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir William Lok brought French translations of the Gospels and Epistles from the continent for Anne Boleyn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Lok. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John Brayne at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
On 6 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Brayne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1567 John Brayne built the Red Lion playhouse, the first professional playhouse in the British Isles specifically built for that purpose since Roman times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Brayne. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On 6 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Lee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the favours done by Sir Anthony Lee for the poet Thomas Wyatt were so many that it made Wyatt "weary to think on them"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Lee. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi NinaGreen,
Can you check out the Vardges Sureniants' DYK nom. page please. Thanks! Proudbolsahye ( talk) 19:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
minute change in the hook and picture. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 07:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bridget Chaworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 01:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
On 15 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cromwell Lee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cromwell Lee compiled an Italian-English dictionary which, although unfinished, is said to have been "as big as a church bible"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cromwell Lee. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
On 19 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bridget Chaworth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the inscription on Bridget Chaworth's monument commemorates her 25 years of service as a gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber to Elizabeth I and 14 years of service to Anne of Denmark? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bridget Chaworth. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carelton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Hussey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Here you wrote: "no justice system in the Western world, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, uses indefinite sentences or sentences 'broadly construed'."
I'm not sure what you mean by "broadly construed" but there are several situations in Western cultures where sentences are "indefinite."
Just some food for thought. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
On 31 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Carleton (died 1590), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that George Carleton has been suggested as the real author behind the pseudonym Martin Marprelate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Carleton (died 1590). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
On 1 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Hussey, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Hussey allowed the first of the tracts by the anonymous satirist Martin Marprelate to be printed on a secret press at her home at East Molesey in October 1588? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Hussey. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
On 3 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hercules Underhill, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Anthony Carleton's son-in-law Hercules Underhill confirmed the sale of New Place to Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hercules Underhill. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On 3 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Carleton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Anthony Carleton's son-in-law Hercules Underhill confirmed the sale of New Place to Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carleton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you come across an article like Christopher Hatton that includes the template {{ EB1911}} most of the text is almost certainly copied from EB1911.
If the text is not available on Wikisource, you will be able to track it down through the versions available in the section Free, public-domain sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition.
To meet the requirements of the plagiarism guideline, articles that include text from public domain must contain suitable attribution (like {{ EB1911}} linking to the correct article) but also inline citations.
In the case of the Christopher Hatton article, links to the EB1911 article would have answered most of the {{ citation needed}} templates you added, and in many cases would have alleviated the need to add other sources to verify facts.
The reason why many of the articles like Christopher Hatton do not carry adequate inline citations is because the text was copied into a Wikipedia article long before (in this case in 2002) there were guidelines on how to support content with citations. That developed as a response by the Wikipepdia community to improve the quality of the content of articles in about 2006 because the press was having fun finding unsourced articles and showing how unreliable Wikipedia was.
So in future if you come across an article with {{ 1911}} (which redirects to {{ EB1911}}) or {[tl|EB1911}} a way to quickly improve reliability of the content is fill in the "|wstitle=wikisource" parameter or the parameters "|title=other source url=..." and add inline citations to the template (the parameter ref=harv is set by default so ( Chisholm 1911) usually works).
-- PBS ( talk) 16:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I see that you asked me at the Help Desk to stop attributing comments to you that you had not made. You made a similar comment to another poster in your comments on the 2013 review of discretionary sanctions. I understand that no one likes to be misquoted, but if you twice think that your comments were misinterpreted, please consider that maybe your comments were not entirely clear, and that they may have permitted two interpretations. On re-reading your comments about numeric vandalism, and my attribution that you thought that only a revert was needed, and that admins should handle the remaining details, I don't think that I misread your comments. I think that my interpretation was a valid interpretation of your comments, even if not what you meant. I am aware that discussions of complex topics such as numeric vandalism or discretionary sanctions are not always as clear as they could be. If you ask other posters repeatedly not to attribute comments to you that you did not make, maybe you should be patient with their efforts to understand your comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Second, I am familiar with ClueBot, as many of us are. It is an excellent vandalism-fighter. However, it is a bot, and doesn't have as much intelligence or the same kind of intelligence as a human. It uses a heuristic algorithm to detect edits that are likely to be vandalism. It is very good, although it has occasional false positives. I don't know the inner details of how it works, but I think that it mostly detects patterns that are either not good English, look like graffiti, or look like typical vandalism. I don't think that there is any practical way that it could be engineered to detect numeric vandalism, or, for that matter, the replacement of true statements by comparably worded false statements. I don't think that it would know the difference between: "Henry VII killed Richard III in 1485 at Bosworth Field", and "Richard III defeated Henry Tudor in 1486 in Kensington." I certainly don't know how it would recognize the changing of a 40% vote to a 60% vote, typical of what numeric vandals do. What could possibly done would be a different approach, which would be to flag or revert edits without edit summaries by unregistered editors. (That would offend those who think that unregistered editors should have all of the usual rights of registered editors, but reasonable Wikipedians differ on what those rights should be.) However, in that case, the numeric vandal would begin using an edit summary, such as "correction". I don't think that a bot can reasonably be used to detect and correct numeric vandalism. Only human editors with watch lists can do that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have raised the issue at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board. Paul B ( talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Nina, I've unblocked your account. One of the times I was looking at was UTC and the other was in local time which made it look like you were editing logged out during the block. I've removed the block and the entry on the case page. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nina. I pointed out on Sandstein's page just half an hour after Robert McClenon posted there that there was no block evasion, and also that I wasn't able to engage with the sock puppet investigation because of time constraints. [15] But it looks like Robert, who I hoped would fix his error, was no longer on line, nor Sandstein, and then the SPI was closed very quickly, before I was awake. I'm sorry it went like that, but I did what I could. Callanecc, have you considered adding a note to the SPI archive? Bishonen | talk 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. Much appreciated. Incidentally, the reason I didn't log in was because at WP:AIV administrator BrownHairedGirl stated that she had already blocked me, so I assumed I wouldn't be able to log in. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added the two paragraphs below to the page on which the procedures for administration of Discretionary Sanctions are being reviewed [16] because the example demonstrates why use of the phrase 'broadly construed' is a bad idea for Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. This is a discussion every editor on Wikipedia should take an interest in because sooner or later it's bound to affect a very large number of editors in some way or other. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting a new section to highlight the problem entailed with the phrase 'broadly construed', which is routinely used in the imposition of 'Discretionary sanctions'. I've just been blocked for 48 hours for an alleged violation of a topic ban which used the same phrase 'broadly construed', so the example is instructive. My edit was made last August, and the issue arose because another editor ran across it a few days ago and deleted both the factual statement and the unquestionably reliable source which supported it. During an extensive discussion on the article Talk page, I added two more unquestionably reliable sources to the article in support of the factual statement, and a further eminently RS to the Talk page. The other editor added nothing to the article, and when he could not prevail on the facts, complained to WP:AIV that I had allegedly violated a topic ban. There was a lengthy discussion there in which I explained that the article itself was not covered by the topic ban, nor was my edit. The matter was then whisked off to WP:AE at [17]], and I was rapidly blocked for 48 hours. About 10 administrators rushed into the fray on the two last-mentioned forums, some of whom were baying for lengthy blocks. The 'evidence' put forward was framed in this way: 'Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.' This is completely inaccurate. My edit, made last August, clearly refers to the relationship between a line in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit and an anonymous play published in 1595, The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, as I explained at WP:AIV. My edit has nothing to do with Shakespeare, either per se or tangentially, and it most certainly had absolutely nothing to do with 'the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare'. However the administrators involved clearly lacked the subject matter expertise to know the difference, and I was thus blocked under a topic ban 'broadly misconstrued'. It was sufficient that the editor had alleged to WP:AIV that I had violated the topic ban; that was enough for about 10 administrators to conclude that I must have done so because they have no expertise in the subject matter involved, and simply can't tell the difference.
I'm bringing it up here because, as I've mentioned here before, the use of the phrase 'broadly construed' in DS is a bad idea, both in terms of Wikipedia's public image, and in terms of the fact that administrators who are not involved in a particular subject area lack the expertise to determine whether an edit actually violates a topic ban 'broadly construed', which results in the injustices which have been complained of repeatedly by other editors elsewhere in this discussion. Wikipedia needs to get rid entirely of the phrase 'broadly construed' because it can't be administered fairly by administrators who lack expertise in the subject area.
Hi, since you started posting at the DS review I have been pondering how it is that you have had such DS troubles compared to myself. I mean, for over two years nearly all of my editing has been on articles subject to DS and I haven't had such troubles. Today I had a little light go off. FYI, One way you could make a much bigger splash in the DS review with your complaint and proposal for arb & admin reviews is to first demonstrate to the community an effort to comply with this bit of wisdom, and the best way to do that is to submit yourself to review, by way of a self-submission to WP:RFC/U. If you pass that with flying colors, then you'll be able to point to that as evidence of how badly DS treated you. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Fulke Underhill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hack ( talk) 03:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It is not appropriate to go around spamming the same 5k of text to multiple users talk pages. This is disruptive. A bunch of experienced, well-intentioned editors have been giving you good advice about how to participate in Wikipedia constructively. Not only have you ignored them, you seem to be going in the opposite direction, just to make a point.
Your account is blocked until you and the editors you've been mis-interacting with come to an agreement about how you will participate constructively rather than disruptively. Please take a break, regain perspective, then make a request to be unblocked. It will help to recognize any past errors and state how you would go about things differently in the future. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review
Regards,
— Neotarf ( talk) 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nina,
Thank you for your interest in discretionary sanctions. I'm afraid governance is a bit of a niche topic. There are so few editors who take an interest in it, or who take the time to ask questions and try to understand it.
To address some of the issues about DS you have been raising elsewhere:
From what I have been able to piece together, discretionary sanctions grew out of the community-based "article probation". For an example of that, here is the "men's rights" article probation page. [18] Draconian terms, no? There is no way I would agree to edit under those conditions. Admins have a blank check to do what they want, as well as to determine whether they are WP:INVOLVED. And the condescending, unprofessional language! "We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;" But in this case there is an admin who does not participate in the discussions, and can say she is not "involved", but who understands the article and the issues quite well. And she has dealt successfully with waves of meatpuppets from the Reddit "men's rights" group, the same one that the Southern Poverty Law center has labeled a hate group.
Unlike the old "article probation" admins, the current crop of DS admins do not know anything about the cases they are dealing with and have no intention of reading them. They just want to take a face-reading of the rules and apply them directly to the respective cases. What they are asking for, in this round of DS discussions, is a software decision-tree type flowchart with algorithms to apply blindly, that has been handed to them from a higher authority, to absolve them from knowing the reason behind their actions. I think the arbcom does not understand this, they think they are dealing with incompetence, but it is a disconnect based on ideology.
There is no question discretionary sanctions are needed. As far as I can see, they are useful in two situations. One is where there is some current event that draws a huge amount of vandalism, like during the election cycle. I believe that's how the DS started, with pages like Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. The admins can't take time to warn all the vandals, and then keep track of who has been warned. So they nuke everyone. And it seems there is a preference for keeping the page open to edits during fast-breaking news. I'm quite new to WP, actually, so I don't remember these discussions, but I think there has never been any traction for getting these pages locked, I don't think you will get a consensus for that. Consensus doesn't apply here anyway, since the ArbCom is authorized by policy to write their own internal "procedures", like DS. Discretionary sanctions are also often applied to perennially controversial subjects, like Palestine/Israel. Or, um, Shakespearean authorship theories. I'm not sure of the rationale behind this last application, perhaps it has more to do with 3R edit restrictions.
Regards,
— Neotarf ( talk) 05:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Nina I was going to ask you if you could look something up (if you have it) in:
Richardson, Douglas (2011), Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, ed. Kimball G. Everingham III (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City.
...as it would probably fulfil the last small requirements for GA status for Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, regarding his children. I don't have the book I'm afraid.
Having said that, you seem to be having some political issues here at the moment, so maybe it's not quite the best time to ask... sorry about that. Shame as you seem to have done grand work on historical biography. All the best. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I sent the message below to the Wikimedia Foundation. The arbitrators' refusal to define their own powers and to differentiate the powers they were elected to exercise from the powers they have illegally handed over to the 1400 administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not a problem which can be resolved within Wikipedia because the 15 arbitrators, who are the only structure within Wikipedia which could resolve the problem, are in fact the creators of the problem, and they block editors who even suggest that the arbitrators should resolve the problem by defining their and the administrators' respective powers to punish editors. The Wikimedia Foundation, the media and the general public must therefore become aware of the problem and take steps to force a resolution of it. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Maggie Dennis,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote:
I appreciate that you feel that the discretionary sanction system is a problem, but concerns such as this need to be resolved by the volunteer community.
The evidence in the messages I forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation proves that this issue cannot be resolved in the 'volunteer community' because the 15 arbitrators are an all-powerful oligarchy who have illegally handed over the powers they are elected to exercise to 1400 administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers, with the predictable result that the situation of abuse of editors by administrators is now out of control, and good editors are regularly being 'punished' to the extent that many good editors have left, and are continuing to leave Wikipedia. The situation of which I complained took place during an alleged 'community' review of discretionary sanctions (DS), and as the evidence on the review pages proves, any 'community' editor with whom the arbitrators disagreed was either blocked or his/her comments were totally ignored, ridiculed, or 'hidden' in collapsed or archived sections or totally edited out by the three arbitrators conducting the alleged review (Roger Davies, AGK, and Salvio). This sort of conduct by the arbitrators during an alleged 'community' review of DS is what one would expect of a totalitarian regime, not of an entity funded by the Wikipedia Foundation and an entity to which the unwitting general public is regularly asked to donate.
The Wikimedia Foundation is funding this totally undemocratic oligarchic and punitive situation, thus allowing it to worsen day by day, with the arbitrators now utterly refusing to define the powers they, the administrators in DS situations and the administrators in non-DS situations can wield against the hard-working editors who are actually building the encyclopedia. I was indefinitely blocked for posting a message on the arbitrators' Talk pages mentioning the need for the arbitrators to define the powers which can be wielded by the arbitrators and administrators to punish editors, and Roger Davies not only stated that the arbitrators would not define these powers, but praised the fact that administrators are 'creatively' inflicting whatever punishments they wish on editors, no matter how harsh and unreasonable, and that once one arbitrators has done so, those punishments become, in Roger Davies' view, accepted practice for administrators. The statement from Roger Davies I quoted in my message below proves that that is the case, and that therefore the only realistic way in which this out of control situation can be rectified is for the Wikipedia Foundation to withhold funding until the situation is resolved and some semblance of democracy, fairness and justice is restored to Wikipedia.
This will only be done if evidence of what is going on reaches the highest echelons at the Wikimedia Foundation, and I am therefore requesting that you pass on this message, and my earlier messages, to those persons at the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation so that they will know of the existence of this out of control situation on Wikipedia. In that regard, I also stress the fact that one of the passages I've quoted in my earlier message indicates that there is at least some awareness already of the problem of abuse of editors by administrators and arbitrators on Wikipedia, but that the Wikimedia Foundation has been turning a blind eye to it. If the general public and the media were aware that the Wikimedia Foundation is turning a blind eye to this steadily-worsening problem, and continuing to fund it, it is beyond question that neither the general public nor the media would approve of either the situation on Wikipedia itself, notof the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is turning a blind eye to it and continuing to provide the funds to allow it to continuously worsen day by day.
Nina is essentially right that DS gives uninvolved administrators arbitrator-like powers, subject to appeal, such as the power to impose a 1RR rule (in place of 3RR) on edit warriors, or to topic-ban POV-pushers, or to interaction-ban editors who cannot get along. (The will-o-the-wisp of "the community" also has those powers at the noticeboards.) In non-DS cases, administrators have basically one power, the power to block, which is subject to review. That is the basic difference. [[WP:Discretionary sanctions{Discretionary sanctions]] are recognized as a draconian remedy for disputes that would otherwise have to be re-arbitrated over and over again. Maybe that answers Nina's question, or maybe Nina has some other question that hasn't been formulated clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon. That's no longer really true and hasn't been for some time. Admins, especially the creative ones, can and do issue all sorts of "voluntary" restrictions of their own volition, usually as an alternative to further blocking or as a condition of unblocking. Because of the way that policy works (ie new policy is created by successful groundbreaking actions, rather than following what is written), these restrictions are now de facto part of the admin's arsenal. Conversely, there are no limits whatsoever on the ability of the community to issue whatever sanctions it pleases or to authorise administrators to do so. (Though most kinds of longterm restriction are theoretically appealable to ArbCom, ArbCom traditionally doesn't interfere in the reasonable exercise of administrative discretion or attempt to restrict the community's discretion.) So, in practical terms, I doubt that that there is very much difference at all and it is certainly not worth the effort of attempting to codify elusory differences, especially when such a codification will, in and of itself, be hugely controversial. Roger Davies talk 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Complaints about administrator abuse: Allegations have been made in Wikipedia's internal forums that administrator abuse has been steadily increasing in frequency and severity, and that it is one major reason for a decline in editor numbers since 2006. Allegations of administrator abuse have circulated outside of Wikipedia in blogs, online technical forums, and in mainstream media. It has also been argued that, despite the perception of Wikipedia as a "shining example of Web democracy", "a small number of people are running the show." In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted complaints that administrators sometimes use their special powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."
This proposal has been answered already:
That has been my bitter experience as well.
Page protection is actually pretty common; by the time a case gets to ArbCom, it has usually been tried already, so it's not an issue particular to discretionary sanctions. — Neotarf ( talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nina. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal your block by adding below this post the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. The point of using that code is that it'll automatically place your page in the category
Requests for unblock, which will draw an uninvolved admin to your page to review the block. (Just writing on this page won't have that effect.) But it's really important to read the guide to appealing blocks first, to understand what kind of appeal will be considered. You need to convince the reviewing admin that you're able and willing to avoid disruption going forward.
Bishonen |
talk 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
I have just read on Nina Green's talk page about your indefinite block on her and I am bewildered. Would you please explain the nature of any "disruption" which may have been caused by Nina, with diffs? She is a hugely valuable editor, busy producing a flood of good work in the field of English history, and in my view we need her back as soon as possible. Moonraker ( talk) 15:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This relates directly to the penultimate section above, but needs a separate section as it identifies the crux of the problem, which is that the Wikipedia community, i.e. the 26,000 editors, govern Wikipedia and write policy, not the arbitrators. See: [27]
Wikipedia editors as a community write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.
Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator", a group of privileged users who have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing. Despite the name, administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to block users making disruptive edits (such as vandalism).
The powers and limited mandate granted by the Wikipedia community to administrators are defined in policy at [28]
Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia, including the ability to block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools.
The powers and limited mandate granted by the Wikipedia community to arbitrators are also defined at: [29]
This policy governs the Arbitration Committee, arbitration proceedings and arbitration processes. It was ratified by the community on 13 June 2011.
Scope and responsibilities
The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:
To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
Via discretionary sanctions (DS), and the current DS review, arbitrators have made an end-run around this clear definition of powers and limited mandates granted to arbitrators and administrators by the Wikipedia community, i.e. the 26,000 editors, and are conducting themselves, and the current DS review, as though they (the arbitrators) had been elected to govern Wikipedia through a 1400-member 'police force' of administrators, and as though they (the arbitrators) had been elected to write Wikipedia policy (see penultimate section above for details). The arbitrators need to reverse course, and eliminate DS because through DS the entire Wikipedia power structure set out in policy, and the overriding principle on which Wikipedia was founded, i.e. that it is the Wikipedia community which governs Wikipedia and writes policy, has been subverted. The arbitrators may not have intended this result, but nonetheless that it what the arbitrators have done: they have subverted the Wikipedia structure of governance through DS, and they have silenced any member of the Wikipedia community who has pointed this out. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
(Nutshell and preamble)
Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track method for dealing with contentious or disruptive conduct within specified areas of conflict. It is a procedure authorised by the Arbitration Committee on a case by case basis and usually involves creating temporary, special rules for administrators to resolve disruption and promote civil participation.
Role of administrators
Only uninvolved administrators may impose discretionary sanctions. Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations.
Individual sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may impose warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, blocks of up to one year in duration, and/or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Sanctions must be logged.
Page restrictions
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, protection, move protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except where a firm consensus for the edit has been obtained); or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to prevent disruption. Such restrictions are enforceable by uninvolved administrators through the use of individual sanctions.
. The difference is essential. You are making a personal attack when you accuse people of illegal activity. It's a serious accusation that can only be made if there are facts to support it. In this case there is nothing illegal. If you continue throwing that word around I may remove your talk page access altogether to prevent further slanderous attacks. Think it over. Jehochman Talk 01:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Please undo the semi-protection of User_talk:NinaGreen. If you don't like what Kumioko is saying you're not required to respond to it. NE Ent 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Upon reflection I will just ban Kumioko from this page. He's being extremely unhelpful by goading NinaGreen into more problematic behavior. Jehochman Talk 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope; and may form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles. Where appropriate, the Committee may invite community comment on intended changes prior to implementing them.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve.
@ Jehochman Thank you for your further clarifications of the block here. IMO the "spam" explanation isn't enough, but the ANI peer review comments did provide some useful context, although I was disappointed by the lack of diffs.
I have been trying to follow the discretionary sanctions discussion from a distance, and it has been quite frustrating. The archiving practices have been impossible to follow, whole sections have been blanked, discussions are started in the middle of the page, or refactored into oblivion, and reasonable questions have gone unanswered. The draft proposal itself has no numbering system, and it is impossible to refer to a specific section for orderly discussion.
It doesn't help any that no one seems to be able to say why the discretionary sanctions are being reviewed at this time, after just having been approved two years ago, or why the proposal departs so drastically from current policy and practice, instead of offering incremental, tested changes. There have been some rather negative and provoking comments about non-admins as well, which no one has bothered to object to, although at least one admin has also been snarled at. I don't believe it serves either the Arbcom or the Project to have the subject of discretionary sanctions decided entirely by the arbitration enforcement admins--sort of like having the police make the laws.
In all fairness to Nina, my impression--without having read all the discussions, which are long--is that she has been given some mixed signals about her editing. In some cases her suggestions have been incorporated into the draft text after some convoluted discussion; in other cases her repeated questions, some of which were answered very cordially and I thought succinctly, were removed. She was asked by one editor to post less frequently, and wait for someone else to comment, but when someone else did comment and she responded to their direct question, she was blocked. It won't help Nina any if no one gives her any straight answers. — Neotarf ( talk) 08:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nina, can you agree to the following:
Do you agree with these terms? I'm looking for an answer by Nina. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, I see you asked on the DS review page (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2013_review] that 'people post their impressions of discretionary sanctions that worked well, and those that worked badly'. It might interest you to know that I earlier raised that very question on the DS review page, i.e. what statistical or anecdotal evidence, or any sort of evidence, exists to prove that DS are working, and did not get an answer. It will be interesting to see whether you get one. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, the question of "how [the process] is working" is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
For the purpose for which they are intended, there is not much doubt that DS are effective.
I am not going to get involved in a discussion about how to fix Wikipedia's procedures because such a discussion would be unproductive. The system has evolved to where it is in order to cope with the extraordinarily difficult task of providing some order in an open group of collaborative editors. It is simply impossible to design a system that would provide true justice, or which would satisfy everyone. Of course there will be less-than-perfect results and dissatisfied contributors, but the community is self-run by volunteers. If an admin sees trouble, they need to take action to allow others to go about their business in reasonable calm. The admin can be questioned, and their action can be reviewed at WP:ANI. It may be that only one person responds to such a review, and they might just say "looks ok". However, there are hundreds of others who will have seen the report and who did not think the admin action to be incorrect and so did not bother commenting, or who did not think the admin action to be sufficiently incorrect that a remedy was required. That's all that can be achieved in a self-run community of volunteers.
A long time ago I think I suggested to you that some experience watching noticeboards would be useful because it is eye-opening to see how many disputes arise here, and how passionately they are fought. I am confident that anyone who spent some time seeing what happens in a variety of hot spots would soon recognize that the system of governance at Wikipedia is remarkably successful, and how difficult it would be to devise something better. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As I've proved by quoting policy earlier on this page, it is 'the Wikipedia editors as a community' who govern Wikipedia and 'write and revise the website's policies and guidelines'. The Wikipedia community has defined administrators as merely a group of 'privileged users who have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing', but they 'are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making'. For the quoted statements see [38].
The limited powers granted by the Wikipedia community to administrators in policy are defined at [39] as 'the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia, including the ability to block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools'. According to the Wikipedia community, those powers give administrators sufficient powers to handle conflict-ridden pages by blocking users and blocking pages. And if that doesn't work, the Wikipedia community has provided that individual users can be taken to arbitration (see [40]).
User:Johnuniq and others imply through their messages that a system of governance by the 15 arbitrators and 1400 administrators has been de facto substituted for governance by the Wikipedia community because a system of governance by arbitrators and administrators is more practical. If that's the case, governance by the Wikipedia community has to be restored.
I made several suggestions in the DS review as to how governance by the Wikipedia community can be restored, and I'll recap and add to them here. The result of restoring governance by the Wikipedia community would be that administrator abuse (which is known to the Wikimedia Foundation and which is damaging Wikipedia's credibility, and will eventually cause major donors such as Google to reconsider their donations) would be substantially eliminated.
This package would restore governance by the Wikipedia community, and would in one fell swoop eliminate virtually all of the massive and complicated bureaucracy of punishment which has grown up on Wikipedia through assumption of ultra vires powers by the arbitrators and administrators. That massive and complicated bureaucracy of punishment, consisting of appeals, reviews, enforcement, applications for clarification of topic bans, applications for clarification of the term 'broadly construed' etc. etc., all results from discretionary sanctions (DS), from blocks which have no expiry date, from subjective interpretation of whether topic bans have been violated by administrators who themselves have no specialist knowledge of the topic, subjective interpretation of the term 'broadly construed' by administrators who themselves have no specialist knowledge of the topic, etc. etc., all of which is completely unnecessary, and has resulted in countless injustices, the loss of several thousand editors, damage to Wikipedia's credibility, and the creation of an atmosphere of fear among the 26,000 editors who are actually building the encyclopedia.
Let's fix it! NinaGreen ( talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I received a reply from Caitlin Cogdill at the Wikimedia Foundation a few days ago, and am copying my reply to her of today's date (4 March 2014) below. It is self-explanatory.
Dear Caitlin Cogdill,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote:
Wikipedia and the other websites the Wikimedia Foundation hosts are almost entirely self-governing.Administrators and arbitrators are chosen by the body of volunteers themselves, who also craft the policies and procedures on the site within the boundaries set by the Terms of Use.
I've explained in my previous messages to the Wikimedia Foundation that the problem is that self-government by the Wikipedia community has been usurped, and that it is the 15 arbitrators and 1400 administrators who are now de facto governing Wikipedia and imposing policies on the 26,000 editors who constitute the Wikipedia community.
As a result, it is impossible to deal with the situation unless the Wikimedia Foundation suspends funding until the arbitrators and administrators allow governance by the Wikipedia community to be restored.
I raised the foregoing issue in what purported to be a review by the Wikipedia community of Discretionary Sanctions (DS). As a result, at the instigation of one of the arbitrators who was conducting the review, Roger Davies, and with the support of another arbitrator heavily involved in the review, AGK, I was indefinitely blocked by an administrator, Jehochman, who has since adamantly refused to justify the indefinite block by providing evidence that I violated any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, and has also adamantly refused to lift it. Jehochan has also made many slanderous comments about me on my Talk page which he has refused to substantiate in any way (and cannot substantiate, since they are untrue). Another editor, Kumioko, who raised similar issues concerning the DS review was also recently blocked for six months. Other members of the Wikipedia community who have ventured to comment have been told that they have no right to speak up by Jehochman, on my Talk page, and by an arbitrator, AGK (who on the AIN noticeboard told another editor, Neotarf, that he also had been ordered 'to back away' from the DS review). Moreover Jehochman has also blocked all IP editors from editing on my Talk page from now until next August, contrary to Wikipedia policy, which allows editors to edit anywhere on Wikipedia using IPs.
It seems clear that members of the Wikipedia community who oppose the ultra vires usurpation of governance of Wikipedia by the arbitrators and administrators are threatened, slandered, silenced and blocked by the arbitrators and administrators, and that they will not be unblocked unless they agree to drop the issue. See my Talk page at [42]. Your suggestion that the issue be raised at Meta ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) is thus clearly impossible to carry out, as blocked editors cannot edit at Meta, and the treatment which the arbitrators and administrators have already meted out to any member of the Wikipedia community who has dared to raise the issue has undoubtedly struck fear into any other member of the Wikipedia community who might be concerned about the topic, and has persuaded such editors that it would be foolhardy indeed to raise the issue at Meta, or anywhere on Wikipedia, including the very DS review itself, which would be the most appropriate forum for raising it were the arbitrators and administrators conducting the review not determined to crush all dissent by blocking editors who express an opinion concerning their ultra vires assumption of governance of Wikipedia.
The Wikimedia Foundation cannot continue to fund Wikipedia when members of the Wikipedia community are intimidated, slandered, silenced, and rendered powerless in this way by the arbitrators and administrators, who clearly hold all the tools of power, and exercise them against members of the Wikipedia community who dare to raise the issue that they are acting ultra vires. Major donors such as Google would be shocked if they were made aware of this information.
I've copied below suggestions I made on my Talk page which would restore governance by the Wikipedia community. Please forward this e-mail, the suggestions, and all my earlier e-mails to your supervisor. It's important that those at the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation be made aware of the current situation.
Incidentally I was told by Maggie Dennis that she had passed my earlier e-mails on to Philippe Beaudette. Accordingly, I'm forwarding a copy of this message to both Maggie Dennis and Philippe Beaudette in order to inform everyone at the Wikimedia Foundation who has been involved so far.
Sincerely,
Nina Green
[I copied the immediately preceding section 'Restoring governance by the Wikipedia community' at the end of my e-mail to Caitlin Cogdill, but won't re-copy it here, as it's unnecessary to do so.]
See this [43] today at the alleged community review of DS in which the arbitrators have silenced all community editors who disagree with DS, and who hold that DS are ultra vires the powers of both the arbitrators to impose and administrators to enforce:
That probably goes a bit too far in the opposite direction but if you can bump this up in a week or so (I've got my hands full at the moment), we can look at the alert text once DSR v3 has been posted. User:Roger Davies 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia governed by the community of 26,000 editors? It would appear not. Community editors who challenged the ultra vires actions of the arbitrators and administrators in imposing and enforcing DS have been silenced and blocked for no other reason than that they raised the ultra vires issue, and any other community editor who holds that view has been put in fear of being indefinitely blocked without any reason being given by the blocking administrator, and Roger Davies then pushes ahead with an alleged 'community' review of DS as though the review had any legitimacy as a community review, when it fact it is a review dominated by three arbitrators and a handful of administrators who like, and routinely enforce, DS, and all views from community editors with whose views these arbitrators and administrators disagree are silenced. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Earlier on this page I quoted this paragraph as evidence that the Wikimedia Foundation had to be aware of complaints within Wikipedia of abuse of editors by administrators:
Complaints about administrator abuse: Allegations have been made in Wikipedia's internal forums that administrator abuse has been steadily increasing in frequency and severity, and that it is one major reason for a decline in editor numbers since 2006. Allegations of administrator abuse have circulated outside of Wikipedia in blogs, online technical forums, and in mainstream media. It has also been argued that, despite the perception of Wikipedia as a "shining example of Web democracy", "a small number of people are running the show." In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted complaints that administrators sometimes use their special powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."
I provided a link to this page entitled Criticisms of Wikipedia so that anyone interested, including the Wikimedia Foundation, could see the foregoing paragraph for themselves: [44]. However anyone now clicking on that link can no longer find a paragraph entitled 'Complaints about administrator abuse'. On 25 February the first statements in the paragraph concerning administrator abuse were entirely deleted, and the balance of the paragraph was given the completely misleading title 'Assessment that content is not widely generated by lots of users', as though it had to do with content, rather than administrator abuse (see [45] and [46]).
There is a disturbing pattern here. In the alleged 'community' review of discretionary sanctions (DS), comments by community editors which were in any way critical of DS were buried in archives by the arbitrators, and the community editors making them were silenced by arbitrators and administrators. Now the foregoing paragraph stating that there is widespread concern, both within Wikipedia and among the general public, about administrator abuse in Wikipedia has been deleted. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
On what authority, and for what purpose, is User:Jehochman, an administrator, repeatedly blocking an IP address from which no-one is attempting to do anything contrary to Wikipedia's policies? I noticed that there was a block on the IP address set to expire close to midnight on 11 March, and it has now expired, and Jehochman has immediately replaced it with a new block on the IP address which states that 'This block has been set to expire: 03:36, 13 March 2014. The block ID is: 5024526'. Is anyone (which certainly wouldn't be me!) who attempts to edit from this IP address going to be blocked ad infinitum by Jehochman, with a series of blocks which are immediately replaced as soon as one expires, and if so, under what authority? NinaGreen ( talk) 03:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)NOt
Nina, my apologies, there is indeed an account creation block on your account here.
Ivan, well spoken. I would certainly support an RFC on Meta. And I would welcome whatever metrics are available for further evaluation.
The current discretionary sanctions conversation is not meant to address the broader issue of how DS procedures are working; it is a narrowly tailored discussion, and is taking place on ArbCom subpages, which is hardly a neutral space for proper community discussion.
By the same token, the two arbs undertaking the review, Roger Davies and Anthony (AGK), are doing exactly what we elected them to do, and I publicly supported both of them for re-election. They have both been involved in previous work with developing discretionary sanctions procedures and should be given some leeway in making their investigation. Anthony in particular I believe was "present at the creation" and possibly knows more about the history of DS than anyone on the Wikipedia.
Perhaps there could be parallel discussions.
With regards to your first point, I believe there are only 2 or 3 admins currently working with Arbitration Enforcement, rather than 10-20, but I seem to recall a lot more than that a year or two ago. The AE admins seem to be the only ones whose input is being accepted in the present conversation and incorporated into the document.
I also ran into a comment the other day about a "bill of rights for content builders" [47]. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time and was startled to see someone else articulate it. I would like to see some community discussion about that one. — Neotarf ( talk) 11:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Future Perfect's action, while unusual, is appropriate in this particular situation. For some time Nina has ignored my suggestions that she agree to reasonable limits on behavior and politely request an unblock. She has repeatedly posted my name on this page, to repeatedly and annoyingly draw my attention when there's nothing new to look at. Many features of Wikipedia can be abused to annoy other editors, including the little red notification square. (As an administrator I am prepared to endure such annoyances indefinitely, but of course if somebody else spontaneously decides to end them, I welcome that.) Nina, Future Perfect has given you good advice on how to file a successful appeal. Please consider it. If you want to publish complaints about Wikipedia, please consider using Blogspot, Wordpress or some other site where such personal commentary is welcomed. For the record I did not request Future Perfect take this action, nor did I correspond with him at all about this. Jehochman Talk 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Fut.Perf., in all of the above it seems to be overlooked that NinaGreen is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia in the field of English history. As I see it, we need to take a step back from the surely not very significant forms of "disruption" which have been suggested recently and see if the matter can be resolved amicably. I should like to see what can now be sorted out, and to assist in that I should be grateful if you would unblock NinaGreen's access to this talk page. I do not see that there can be much harm in it, and it would improve the transparency of how this matter is resolved. Moonraker ( talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Nina, I was forwarded an email thread by you, which suggests that you have emailed a half-dozen WMF staff and tried to email every WMF trustee some of your lengthy comments above, many times over the past week. This is not helpful.
Please keep any discussion about this on the wiki (this one and Meta). These sorts of wiki governance and policy issues are owned and run by the community, and any disputes are resolved within the community. The WMF and its board are not a court of appeals.
Writing as a community member, it seems to me that you have gotten good advice above, and are frustrating your audience. Angry text-rich manifestos are not likely to gain support in the broader community. A concise, neutral proposal for change might stimulate a useful meta-discussion. – SJ + 19:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding mention by User:Paul Barlow. The thread is Abuse of Talk Page ownership. Thank you. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nina, I put a barnstar on your user page. It got whited out, so I thought I'd tell you here. I hope you get the account block taken back one day. Italick ( talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Nina. I am proposing at WP:AN that you be unblocked. Italick ( talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | ||
belatedly awarded for 25+ DYK creations/expansion DarjeelingTea ( talk) 06:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC) |
Future Perfect at Sunrise, could you please answer this, is NinaGreen able to edit her talk page now? Moonraker ( talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going to unblock the account. This could have been resolved immediately after the block if the NinaGreen had simply requested unblock and agreed to stop the various negative behaviors documented in their block log. Let's see what happens. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Someone kindly informed me via email today that I've been 'unblocked'. I'd like some official clarification from the arbitrators as to what 'unblocked' actually means, and what the status of the topic ban is after 10 years or whatever amount of time it's been since the Wikipedia arbitration. Nina Green
You are unblocked for now. You can edit constructively, or not. The choice is yours. The topic ban imposed by ArbCom is indefinite length. [51]. It appears to still be in effect. My unblock has no effect either way on that. If you want to know for sure, ask an arbitration clerk . Jehochman Talk 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
An arbitration clerk can't rule on this. The arbitrators need to rule on it. The topic ban has been in effect for ten years, and is vast (anything connected to Shakespeare or Edward de Vere). Shakespeare and Edward de Vere, and people, literary works and historical events connected to them, are my area of expertise (see my website, which has hundreds of transcriptions of original documents from the period). What would be the point of attempting to edit? It would be impossible to avoid infringing the topic ban. Nina Green
The lengthy and thoroughly sourced Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere I wrote a decade ago is essentially as it was when I wrote it. In short, the author of the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere has been indefinitely topic-banned by Wikipedia for 10 years and counting from editing on Edward de Vere. It's difficult to overstate the irony of this, don't you think? Nina Green
Not sure where you got that scenario. In any event, it's incorrect. Check the arbitration. Frankly, I think it's best not to speculate, and just let the arbitrators rule on this. It's their call as to whether they want to lift the topic ban after 10 plus years, or whether they just want to keep on keeping on. Nina Green
I'm not filing an appeal. Ten years and counting is long enough for any topic ban, and the arbitrators can lift the ban on their own initiative if they choose to do so. Nina Green
This decision just in the news today re Facebook:
>“It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored,” the board said.<
Why should Wikipedia be able to do what is impermissible for Facebook? Wikipedia blocked me indefinitely (a block which has only just now been lifted after many years), and imposed an indefinite topic ban (which has not yet been lifted, and for which no criteria were stated in the arbitration as to when it would be lifted). Impermissible, according to today's news story quoted above. The arbitrators should life the topic ban of their own accord. Nina Green
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi NinaGreen! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.
Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.
Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This user
participates in WikiProject Biography. |
This user is a participant in WikiProject English Royalty |
not only flowered, but bore abundant fruit, and I'm happy to see the metaphor applies. Welcome back Nishidani ( talk) 12:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help. I notice that the spammy query about the artist is 8 years old, from an IP, included two spamlinks, and was unsigned. Of course, if the other Anne is in fact notable, then she's notable.
I also wanted to thank you for your work on Anne de Mortimer herself. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your help page request. If you find an image to append to the end of the lead section of an article, or find a really tall object or image to put at the top of the lead, it will extend downward into the space to the right of the table of contents. See Muhammad or Jesus for example. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could direct me to where you found the info that
Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge may be the product of an affair his mother had. The affair between Isabella and the Duke of Exeter is reported in the year 1379, 6 years before the birth of her son, Richard. How long did the affair last and does this have anything to do with the story The Complaint of Mars by Chaucer?
Your statement which I'm assuming you added seeing how you've edited more than a few things on that page within a few 24 hrs. --
Richard was twelve years younger than his brother, Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, and may have been the child of an illicit liaison between his mother and John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter, since he received no lands from his putative father, Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, and is not mentioned in his will.
--
Lady Meg (
talk) 04:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Good job on 15th earl. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have created a very impressive list of 119 articles that you have edited since September 2012 (I have tools to manipulate text, and this is simply a tricky search-and-replace on all your contributions since then). I hope you don't mind, but as I believe this will be useful, I have created your sandbox with the list, see User:NinaGreen/Sandbox. It's easy to move that or have it deleted if you like (ask if wanted). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much! This is really helpful. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears you're not gonna make it this time, but don't give up: time has an irritating tendency to pass too quickly, and you'll surely be successful in the future.
Pro tip: instead of linking to open edits to illustrate an edit, link to the diffs instead. That way the chances of an unintended edit are much less. Tom Reedy ( talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Tom, and for the amusing allusion, Nishidani. :-) NinaGreen ( talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I have reversed your edit on Mary Hungerford. The reasons are in the talk page. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I put a reference from tudorplace [1]. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nina. I have removed your amendment request, as there was no support from any Arbitrators to take action on it. I would advise waiting at least six months before reapplying to the Committee. Best, NW ( Talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all, let me express my sincere thanks to everyone from the Wikipedia community who supported my request! The support from the community was unanimous.
In light of the unanimous support for my request from those in the Wikipedia community who responded, I feel I should express once again my opinion that the Wikipedia arbitration process needs substantive reform. In the original arbitration I expressed my complete bewilderment at what was going on. It's clear that as a new and inexperienced editor I had wandered into a firestorm of controversy over the Shakespeare authorship issue which had been going on on Wikipedia for years, and which I had been no part of. The arbitration was brought on the ground that there was a conspiracy among Oxfordian editors, but not a scintilla of evidence of a conspiracy was introduced during the entire arbitration. The reason for that is clear. There was no conspiracy. Instead of dropping the arbitration for lack of proof of any conspiracy, as I had requested, the arbitrators focussed all their attention on me. The time period for adducing evidence elapsed, and I protested that no specific evidence had been adduced against me, and that I could not respond without knowing the case (if any) I had to meet. At that point, the time period for providing evidence was re-opened on the spurious grounds that another editor needed further time to respond because of family circumstances. No further evidence was adduced by or on the part of that editor (whose identity was never disclosed during the arbitration). Instead, further 'evidence' was adduced against me, and the case was immediately closed again, and I was slapped with what must be among the most Draconian sanctions Wikipedia has ever imposed on anyone.
It is clear that there is no due process or transparency in a Wikipedia arbitration, and no clarity whatsoever as to what is actually being arbitrated and what case an editor who finds him/herself in an arbitration has to meet. I'm quite willing to admit that I could have handled Talk page discussions better, but so could any number of editors involved in those same Talk page discussions, and none of them received even the most minimal of sanctions by the arbitrators.
One learns from experience, which is sometimes a harsh mistress, and I hope that my experience can help to improve the Wikipedia arbitration process. To that end, when Steven Zhang of the Wikipedia Foundation asked me to participate in a survey concerning Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, I responded to the survey. In addition to requesting completion of the survey, Steven Zhang requested volunteers to be part of a group which would offer suggestions for the improvement of Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. I volunteered to do so at least three times, suggesting that my experience with arbitration had given me some insights which would be helpful in improving the arbitration process. Steven Zhang completely ignored my offer to participate.
My Wikipedia account remained blocked for months after the one-year ban had expired, and there appears to be no process on Wikipedia for ensuring that accounts are automatically unblocked when fixed-time period sanctions expire. So that is one area obviously in need of substantive reform. There needs to be a process for unblocking accounts when fixed time period sanctions have expired because when a user's account is totally blocked, there's no way of contacting Wikipedia to get it unblocked. And why should a user have to do that in any event? The account should be automatically unblocked.
Once my account was unblocked, I began editing biographies of English historical personages from the Middle Ages and Tudor periods. I have considerable background knowledge in this area, and access to reliable sources of very high quality. Before I requested that the topic ban be lifted a short time ago, I had edited over 120 of these Wikipedia articles, sourcing unsourced statements, providing in-line citations, and expanding articles which were stubs. I suspect it would be difficult to find many other editors in the entire Wikipedia universe who contributed anything approaching that amount to Wikipedia in that short space of time. However if the arbitrators took any notice whatsoever of the volume and quality of my contributions during the past two and half months, or of the fact that my contributions were in an area which is now relatively neglected by other Wikipedia editors, and in which there are notices on many many articles indicating that they are in need of improvement, it was not evident in the slightest from the arbitrators' comments. Not a single arbitrator appears to have taken any of this into consideration, and my request was abruptly closed off yesterday on the ground that the arbitrators simply weren't interested in lifting the topic ban. It is obvious to any disinterested observer that when those in a position to decide can merely say, 'We're not interested in doing anything', there is no due process and no transparency, and no Wikipedia editor can feel confident that he/she will be given fair treatment.
Moreover the arbitrator who authored the original arbitration decision added unsubstantiated new allegations in his comments regarding my request that the topic ban be lifted, and it was rightly pointed out by another editor that those new allegations by that arbitrator could not, in fact, be substantiated. The record clearly shows that I did not at any time specifically advocate for Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare plays.
In addition, the path forward was not made clear in the slightest. There was no agreement whatsoever among the arbitrators as to what would be expected of me if I were to apply at a future date to have the topic ban lifted, or when such an application might be favourably received. And in fact the comments from several of the arbitrators that they had not the slightest interest in lifting the indefinite topic ban strongly suggests that there is no path forward, and that they will never agree to it being lifted, despite the fact that it has now been in place for almost two full years.
Moreover the comments from members of the Wikipedia community who offered support in my request to have the indefinite topic ban lifted were viewed with deep suspicion by some of the arbitrators, as though anyone who had anything positive to say about my work was somehow also suspect, and that was the case in the original arbitration as well, as the record shows. And some comments made earlier on this page suggest that in any future application I might make anyone who has anything positive to say about my work should just stay out of it. One can well imagine what the result would be for my application if that advice were taken, and anyone who had anything to say in support of my work just shut up, leaving the field to those who keep harping on the erroneous findings of the original arbitration.
In brief, neither the arbitration process nor the process governing requests for the lifting of indefinite topic bans provides for fairness, due process or transparency, and I would hope the entire Wikipedia community, including Jimmy Wales, would get behind an effort to put in place the substantive improvements which are needed to guarantee fairness, due process, and transparency, specifically:
(1) Editors need to know the specific case they have to meet, which implies that the arbitrators should never take on a case alleging a vast conspiracy without first requiring evidence establishing the alleged conspiracy, and if none is forthcoming, the arbitration should not be taken on.
(2) When an editor says, 'I don't know what the case is which I have to meet, and which specific Wikipedia policies I'm alleged to have violated', the arbitrators should spell out the details with specific diffs. In my case, the specific policies which I was alleged to have violated were never spelled out.
(3) If a large number of editors are swept into an arbitration, the case against each one should be spelled out very specifically, and those against whom there is no case should be immediately excused. One of the reasons for the vast amount of confusion in the original arbitration is that a very large number of people were dragged into it who had nothing to do with it, and it was never clear what the arbitration was about.
(4) Before a decision is voted on by the arbitrators, specific findings of fact, supported by diffs, should be spelled out, so that it is transparently clear to everyone exactly what the arbitrators are voting on.
(5) Before an arbitration is taken on, there should be a clear statement, supported by diffs, of the earlier steps in dispute resolution which were taken, and if no earlier steps have been taken, the case should not be taken on. In my case, no earlier steps were taken.
(6) Any decision by the arbitrators should include clear parameters as to what further steps need to be taken (if any) to lift the sanctions, particularly in the case of indefinite topic bans.
(7) Accounts should be automatically unblocked when fixed time period sanctions have expired.
(8) There should be a clear process set out as to what happens when a request is made to lift an indefinite topic ban. I was completely bewildered by what happened during my recent application. Arbitrators made laconic comments stating they didn't feel like doing anything, comments voicing suspicion, comments adding additional unsubstantiated allegations, etc. etc. The process seemed completely haphazard. And in the end the process was cut off abruptly without any agreement among the arbitrators as to what they would consider sufficient if I eventually reapplied, or when they would consider it suitable that I reapply.
I appreciate that the arbitrators have a thankless job, but there are a lot of editors out here on Wikipedia also doing what is, in essence, a thankless job. And we're all doing it for the common good because we feel Wikipedia is a worthwhile project which contributes to the store of human knowledge. I hope my comments will be taken in that light. They constitute a bona fide attempt to improve Wikipedia.
I would also like to add that it is one of Wikipedia's policies to encourage women editors, and I can't help but wonder how women editors would be encouraged by my experience on Wikipedia, which seems to smack in at least some measure of overt male chauvinism. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads, you stated above that 'everyone who was sanctioned in that case was horribly disruptive'. In fact, the only person who was sanctioned in the original arbitration was me. Although the arbitration was launched on the spurious grounds that there was a vast conspiracy among Oxfordian editors, not a scintilla of evidence of any such conspiracy was adduced, and the entire weight of the arbitrators came down full force on me. (Smtprt, with whom I'd never edited because he was under a ban the whole time I was editing, wasn't sanctioned in the arbitration; he merely used the arbitration as a vehicle to apply to have the earlier sanctions against him lifted, which didn't happen. And if the arbitrators are of the view that Smtprt was 'horribly disruptive', that has absolutely nothing to do with me because any editing Smtprt did on Wikipedia was before my time, and I should not be tarred with guilt by association.)
You also wrote, 'You really do need to go back and understand why your behaviour caused such a problem'. I told the arbitrators during the arbitration what caused the problem, namely that I was not allowed to make a single substantive edit on the SAQ page. Every single substantive edit I made was instantly reverted by other editors, and every single substantive edit I suggested was argued about endlessly on the Talk page by other editors. Any one of the arbitrators can go back to the SAQ page and see that for him/herself. Yet none of those other editors was sanctioned by the arbitrators, or even came in for the slightest criticism from the arbitrators.
You also wrote, 'You need more people saying 'Nina's editing has been neutral, well-researched, and valuable' and less people saying 'should never have been sanctioned in the first place.' Why do I need that? In the first place, all the editors who commented during my application supported the lifting of the sanctions. Secondly, and more importantly, I provided the arbitrators with a list of 120 articles I've edited in the past two and half months (since then I've edited several dozen more articles, usually revising them from top to bottom, adding references and in-line citations). Why couldn't the arbitrators go take a look for themselves at some of those articles and make up their own minds as to whether my editing is 'neutral, well-researched and valuable'? It undoubtedly is 'neutral, well-researched and valuable', and if the arbitrators would bother to take a few minutes to look at it, they'd see that.
You also wrote, 'You need to show that you have moved on'. All the editors in the Wikipedia community who responded to the application indicated that they are ready to move on. I'm ready to move on. The only ones who aren't ready to move on, and who seem to want to keep harping indefinitely on the past, are the arbitrators. Surely that's not what Wikipedia is about. Why don't the arbitrators just lift the indefinite ban? If things turn out badly, the arbitrators can just re-impose the ban. What have they got to lose? Nothing. But things won't turn out badly. Things will be just fine if the indefinite ban is lifted. NinaGreen ( talk) 01:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Nina, I was thinking of starting a page on Charles Arundell, the brother of Matthew Arundell, but I want to be sure he is notable. Do you have any thoughts? Moonraker ( talk) 02:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
All references to the nomination to 'Did You Know' for the article on Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton [4], seem to have disappeared, both on the 'Did You Know' pages, and on the Talk page for the article, where two of the DYK editors had left brief comments asking for clarification as to which article was being nominated. I've left a message on the Talk page of one of the editors at [5]. I'd leave one for the other editor as well, but I can't recall his user name. It's very puzzling, as I didn't think comments on the Talk pages of Wikipedia articles, or the record of a nomination, could simply vanish. Any help resolving this would be much appreciated. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
AARON• TALK 00:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
On 2 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Roman Catholicism of the 2nd Earl of Southampton has been called the key to his unhappy life? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have made a start on Anthony Browne (1552–1592), but for me he's struggling with notability. Although I have included the claim from the tudorplace site that he was Sheriff of Surrey and Kent in 1580, something about that seems to be wrong. Some more references would be a help. Moonraker ( talk) 12:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Away was just away for some rest. I am wondering whether that image might be an engraving after this portrait of Mary Guildford by Hans Holbein the Younger? See what you think. Moonraker ( talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted an answer on the Template to your question about counting characters in an article. — Maile ( talk) 21:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
On 12 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Willoughby, 6th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Willoughby surrendered the Bastille to the French on 17 April 1436? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Willoughby, 6th Baron Willoughby de Eresby. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Nina,
Try these steps for installing DYK Check into your Toolbox: Click on the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NinaGreen/common.js
This should come up with a blue link message "Start the NinaGreen/common.js page" Click on the blue link. It should open up a blank Edit Window just like you were starting a new article.
Copy and Paste the "importScript" (etc) from the bottom of this message, all of it exactly as it is, into the blank edit window and hit Return.
That sets up your skin, hopefully, no matter which skin you use, with the DYK Check in the left-hand toolbox. You might have to refresh or restart your browser. This should put it in your Toolbox. If this does not work, please let me know. — Maile ( talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool importScriptURI(' http://en.wikipedia.org/?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User:Haza-w/cactions.js');
On 13 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby de Eresby, was on the commission which condemned to death Archbishop Scrope, the first English prelate to suffer judicial execution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Willoughby, 5th Baron Willoughby de Eresby. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Mifter ( talk) 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
On 14 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at the funeral of his uncle, from whom he inherited the earldom, John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford, received an axe brought into the church by a mounted horseman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
On 21 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the eldest son of Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer, was married to Catherine Parr before she was King Henry VIII's Queen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Neville, 2nd Baron Latimer. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Marmaduke Constable (died 1545) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rlendog ( talk) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Odie5533 ( talk) 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I left you a reply there. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 18:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
On 31 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford, was abducted by the half-brother of her intended bridegroom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk) 00:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
On 2 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marmaduke Constable (died 1545), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Marmaduke Constable was the great-grandfather of the poet, Henry Constable, author of Diana, one of the first English sonnet sequences? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marmaduke Constable (died 1545). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
( X! · talk) · @309 · 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nina, I responded to your latest comments here-- Template:Did you know nominations/Adelina Domingues. Please see my latest response whenever you have time. Futurist110 ( talk) 01:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
On 3 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Neville (poet), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that poet William Neville made himself a cloak of linen and buckskin which was supposed to render him invisible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Neville (poet). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. First of all, I did not create the bot. The bot in question, Citation bot, was created by Smith609, and is available from the 'Preferences' page to all wikipedia users; it shows up as an 'Expand citations' link in the toolbox. I haven't experienced errors like this before, and I am unsure what went wrong, so for now I'll undo the edits and add a tag to prevent the bot from further editing of the page. My apologies. Bensci54 ( talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Nina. I've gone ahead and moved, first, William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 2nd Baron de Ros, and, second, William de Ros, 4th Baron de Ros → William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros, as you requested and have closed the discussions. There's probably some tidying up to do on these but I'll leave that to you. Kind regards, -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I passed the DYK nom for James Hales, but there are a few minor reference issues you need to address. Please reply on the DYK nom if needed. – Maky « talk » 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Robert Constable (died 1591) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
On 10 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Constable, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that poet Henry Constable was imprisoned in both the Tower and the Fleet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Constable. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk) 00:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice job expanding Henry Constable for DYK. It was pretty interesting. Happy editing! ComputerJA ( talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hey Nina,
Do you have some extra time? If so, would you please be able to review this DYK? nomination of mine? The previous two people that reviewed it haven't gotten back to me yet, and it's already been several days since I last messaged them. If you're unable to review this DYK? nomination, that's okay. Here is the DYK? nomination that I'm talking about-- Template:Did you know nominations/Demographic history profile of Detroit. Thank you very much. Futurist110 ( talk) 08:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the category "Canterbury Cathedral", if that's what you mean, [7] CTF83! 11:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
On 14 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Constable (died 1591), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Constable was a descendant of Richard, Earl of Cambridge, executed for his part in the Southampton Plot against King Henry V? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Constable (died 1591). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions regarding my article submission. I've made most or all of the suggested changes and I've clarified the text regarding Sinclair Lewis in a way that I think may satisfy your concern about the hook. Thanks. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out with my DYK nomination for Brunette Downs Station. Keep up the good work. Hughesdarren ( talk) 06:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Michaelh2001's talk page. Regarding your help with and response to the Did You Know? nomination for Juneau Raptor Center AlaskaMike ( talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nina, thanks for the review of my DYK nomination. I've replied to your concerns at the discussion page. Let me know if you want me to clarify anything. Take care, Moswento talky 09:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I've also replied to your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Blaufränkisch. Agne Cheese/ Wine 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there NinaGreen, I reviewed your submission at DYK, you can find the link here. Just a couple of things, nothing serious, and it's good to go. Parrot of Doom 00:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
On 5 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Waldegrave, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert Waldegrave printed the first four Marprelate tracts on a secret press in 1588/9? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Waldegrave. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
On 13 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walter Buckler, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Walter Buckler was secretary to Queen Katherine Parr and chamberlain to Princess Elizabeth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walter Buckler. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
On 18 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Wolley (MP), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Wolley was sent to King James in June 1586 to assure him that Mary, Queen of Scots was being well treated, and four months later was one of the commissioners who tried and convicted her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Wolley (MP). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Carabinieri ( talk) 08:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
On 19 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Wolley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Queen Elizabeth I nicknamed Elizabeth Wolley her "sweet apple"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Wolley. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Carabinieri ( talk) 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
On 19 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis Wolley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that from 1601 to 1609 Sir Francis Wolley provided a home at Pyrford for the poet John Donne and Anne More after their clandestine marriage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Wolley. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Nyttend ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You've done some good work but I think you need to reread this. If you continue to step over the line it is liable to affect you in the future. Patience is a virtue. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of William More (died 1600) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod talk 11:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't make a talkback tag link properly for some reason, so I'll answer here. The earlier articles were someone of that name trying to post his CV. He was persistent enough for the title to be salted (create protected), but he gave up years ago, so I have unsalted the title, and there is nothing to stop you going ahead at Christopher More. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Nina,
Could you please review this DYK? nomination of mine -- Template:Did you know nominations/Race and ethnic history of New York City. For the record, I previously reviewed one of your DYK? nominations (I think it was Walter Buckler). If not, that's okay, but please let me know your decision. Thank you very much. Futurist110 ( talk) 00:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
On 17 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Hales, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir James Hales' suicide by drowning inspired the gravedigger's speech in Shakespeare's Hamlet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Hales. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Shubinator ( talk) 18:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
On 26 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William More (died 1600), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a lawsuit by Sir William More brought the first Blackfriars Theatre to an end? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William More (died 1600). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
On 5 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christopher More, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Christopher More, stepuncle of Saint Thomas More, was one of the first officers in the Exchequer with formal legal training? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher More. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on William Drury (died 1558), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. smileguy91 talk 02:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be correct, according to my most recent research. There seems to be many people named Robert Drury or William Drury. Apologies for my late reply - I posted the link from my talk page to this talk page before I wrote the message. I'll negate my deletion notice when I can. smileguy91 talk 02:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
On 11 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Drury (died 1558), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir William Drury's name appears in the Ellesmere manuscript of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Drury (died 1558). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
On 13 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Drury (died 1577), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Drury was among the first to support Mary Tudor's claim to the throne in July 1553? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Drury (died 1577). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
On 17 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Sackville (died 1557), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir John Sackville was an uncle of the English queen Anne Boleyn and a great-uncle of Queen Elizabeth I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Sackville (died 1557). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've just reviewed your DYK for Abraham Holland. I was going to do a DYK? as I feel to belt and brace the rule about ref appearing immediately at the end of the sentence, it needed to be right at the end of the sentence. I then decided just to put it in place myself but could you double check I have it right? Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC) PS: There is also a DAB link for Folio.
On 21 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Stafford, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while Elizabeth Stafford's family was in exile in Geneva in 1556, the Protestant reformer, John Calvin, stood godfather to her youngest brother, John Stafford? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Stafford. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
On 23 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Scott (died 1533), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir John Scott was the grandfather of Reginald Scott, author of The Discoverie of Witchcraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Scott (died 1533). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Also replied at Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Finer. Thanks again. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 00:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
On 24 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abraham Holland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after having written a poem on the 1625 great plague of London, the poet Abraham Holland died of the plague the following year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Holland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Philemon Holland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
On 26 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philemon Holland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Philemon Holland claimed that he wrote out the whole of his translation of Plutarch's Moralia with a single quill pen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Philemon Holland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Chamal T• C 08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Before I plunge ahead with a talking point in the Discussion section of the article "Thomas Grey (chronicler), I thought I'd check with you first since I saw your name as a frequent recent contributor to the article. I'm going to propose changing the spelling of the surname (and therefore, the article title) to conform with what appears to be the most frequent form found in references, that is, "GrAy". In fact, I've never come across the "E" spelling for this man before. From what I can tell, this was an editing choice back in 2008, with no apparent reference to back it up. Your thoughts. Tmangray ( talk) 07:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
On 29 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew Browne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Matthew Browne was involved in legal and financial transactions concerning the Globe Theatre in 1601? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Browne. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Nina, how would an article about Margery Golding be titled? I've got enough information but I don't know how it should be titled: Margery Golding, since that's the name most used, or Margery de Vere, Countess of Oxford, with a redirect from "Margery Golding"? Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
On 31 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Berkeley, 7th Baron Berkeley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry Berkeley, 7th Baron Berkeley, is said to have rebuilt Caludon Castle in about 1580 after its deterioration following the 1398 banishment from England of Thomas Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Berkeley, 7th Baron Berkeley. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 08:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
On 3 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roger Townshend (died 1590), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Roger Townshend's portrait was among those on a tapestry commemorating the destruction of the Spanish Armada which hung in the House of Lords until the tapestry was destroyed by fire in 1834? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roger Townshend (died 1590). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. For the DYK rule, could you insert a ref for the last line in the article, I've temporarily stuck a {{cn}} tag there; sorry, I know it's a bit of a pain and may need a ref for each of her marriages but the DYK rule is a ref for every paragraph (or maybe just move it up so it becomes the final sentence of the preceding paragraph?) SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Joan Leche, NinaGreen!
Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I added some links.
To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
On 8 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Brend, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Brend. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
On 8 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621), which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Bacon (died 1621). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Allen3 talk 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
On 10 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Stanhope (died 1552), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Michael Stanhope was beheaded on Tower Hill on 26 February 1552 after having been convicted of conspiring to take the life of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, and others? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Stanhope (died 1552). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
On 11 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Bourchier (died 1557), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in June 1537 Elizabeth Bourchier's servant received two shillings as a reward for bringing strawberries and cream to the future Queen Mary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Bourchier (died 1557). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 08:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
On 13 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Leveson (died 1621), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that William Leveson was sued by the Virginia Company in 1613? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Leveson (died 1621). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 08:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
For an elegant compromise :) Irondome ( talk) 00:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! I love strawberries! NinaGreen ( talk) 01:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thinking that I am trying to rain on your parade. Last night I was convinced that the only issue was that the article's name was unusual. On waking this morning I found that the article's name was the smaller of the two issues, and that genuine notability needed to be addressed first. I see him as borderline notable because i feel he inherits much of his notability from his surroundings. The verifiability also comes rom there, though I am sure the source passes WP:RS. On balance he is probably notable, but I may be basing that ion the paucity of notable people available at the time. I feel we need an absolute yardstick.
I wanted to drop this note on your talk page rather than the article's talk page because it is form me to you, tangentially about the article. I was asked to come and look at the discussion, and, if I have an opinion to offer, try very hard to add value to the discussion. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you use your sandbox.
Add {{ Disambiguation}} to it and see what happens.
When you want to create a real one, make sure it is one you wish and need to create. The create Nina Green's Very Own Page (disambiguation) adding {{ Disambiguation}} to it and a bulleted list of the articles it distinguishes between
Sometimes I am lousy at explaining things, but, if you place {{ Helpme}} on your talk page and ask for specific guidance after it, someone better than I will drop by and do their best to guide and help you. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
On 19 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Savage (died 1611), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Thomas Savage, Shakespeare's trustee in the purchase of shares in the Globe Theatre, was a friend of John Jackson, Shakepeare's trustee in the purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Savage (died 1611). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
On 20 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rowland Hayward, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1587 Sir Rowland Hayward entertained Queen Elizabeth I at his home of King's Place, which had once been owned by her father, King Henry VIII? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rowland Hayward. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
On 21 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Carmarden, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1566, Richard Carmarden funded the printing of an edition of the Great Bible in English at Rouen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Carmarden. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
One problem with Wikipedia is Too Long Didn't Read. I did read. You will notice that I have not commented on that talk page for a good length of time. This is because the article title truly does not matter.
No, really. It doesn't matter.
Why not?
Because it can be found anyway.
There is a point when one steps away from a battle. That point is when one realises that things do not matter, and that doing something else is more productive. One of the combatants seems to be on Wikipedia to have battles, though I suspect he does not realise that yet. When he does I think he will stop. He's doing it in all sorts of other paces, too, and with an imperfect understanding of those areas as well.
I'm sorry I came to the article. WIth hindsight I think I achieved a negative benefit for the article, but these things are transient.
What I suggest is that you let this article take its chances and work on a new one. I like your work. I think this load of mess is a distraction. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your DYK review of List of National Trust properties in Somerset. It was the most comprehensive I've ever seen, including correcting my poor grammar on several of the articles linked from the list - great work.— Rod talk 14:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
On 26 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katharine Way, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that nuclear physicist Katharine Way co-edited a 1946 bestseller which included essays by Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, and sold over 100,000 copies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katharine Way. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
On 28 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew Brend, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Matthew Brend conveyed the property on which the Globe Theatre was built to his wife, Frances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Brend. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
On 29 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sigismund Zinzan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Sigismund Zinzan tilted in the tournament celebrating the creation of King James's son, Henry, as Prince of Wales in 1610, and led a horse draped in black at Henry's funeral in 1612? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigismund Zinzan. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
On 29 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joan Leche, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Joan Leche founded a school in Saffron Walden which Gabriel Harvey attended in the early 1560s, where according to Thomas Nashe he was a "desperate stabber with pen-knives"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan Leche. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
On 30 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicholas Brend, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Nicholas Brend, the first owner of the Globe Theatre, died in 1601, his heir was his infant son, Matthew, who would not come of age until 6 February 1621? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Brend. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
On 2 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorothy Kitson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dorothy Kitson was one of the few women in Tudor England to nominate burgesses for Parliament? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorothy Kitson. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
If the text in a Wikipedia article has a substantial amount of text or structure that would be enough to be a breach of copyright if the work was not in the public domain then it must meet the attribution criteria laid down in WP:PLAGIARISM. The history articles John Pakington (serjeant-at-law) is clearly a copy of the the DNB article and so the attribution template {{ DNB}} needs to remain on the article and inline citations need to be provided to the DNB citation. This is particularly true for text copied from a DNB article because there is a danger that otherwise the article will be flagged as a breach of ONDB copyright.
I suspect that we approach biographies of historical English people from opposite ends of the spectrum. I put the emphasis on their historical notability while you are more interested in the genealogy of the subject. This in itself does not matter as we will probably meet in the middle. However there is one area where I think you are placing too much emphasis on genealogy which distorts the article and that is the {{ Infobox person}} I think for that you should only place information in the box that is notable for that person and that should in addition to the information you have provided one or more of theses three fields (or similar)
(for example I added "| occupation = Serjeant-at-law, MP and Sheriff of Herefordshire and Worcesershire" ) to John Pakington (serjeant-at-law). I also think you should substantially reduce the genealogy in those boxes for example in the William Dormer article wording along the lines of "He had about a dozen children including (and only explicitly mention the three for which there are articles)" and remove non-notable information (such as the names of children who died in infancy or were not themselves notable). Similarly if there are no articles on the parents then why mention them in the infobox as presumably they are not notable? -- PBS ( talk) 14:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
On 10 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Pakington, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after Robert Pakington was shot to death on the morning of 13 November 1536 while on his way to Mass, his murder was interpreted as a Protestant martyrdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Pakington. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
On 20 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice Baldwin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 400 years after Alice Baldwin surrendered Burnham Abbey at the Dissolution of the Monasteries, it was sold to a religious order and again became a community of nuns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Baldwin. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Stapleton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although Anthony Stapleton was granted the reversion of the office of Town Clerk of London in 1544, he was not able to take up the position until 1570? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Stapleton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
On 27 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Amadas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although implicated in corruption in the administration of the Mint in 1528, Robert Amadas retained his position as Henry VIII's Master of the Jewel House until his death in 1532? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Amadas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
On 27 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Hales (died 1608), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Hales was fined 1000 marks and imprisoned for allowing two of the Marprelate tracts to be printed at the Whitefriars, Coventry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hales (died 1608). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
On 28 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Dormer (Lord Mayor), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 300 years after Sir Michael Dormer purchased property that became a free school in Horsham, it was found that the school belonged to his heir at law? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Dormer (Lord Mayor). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
On 30 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Scrope, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mary Scrope was among those who walked with Anne Boleyn to the scaffold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Scrope. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Howz dat?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
On 13 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Jerningham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in October 1518 Richard Jerningham was one of the "sad and ancient knights" appointed to King Henry VIII's reorganized Privy Chamber? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Jerningham. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
On 13 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Broughton (died 1506), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Broughton was made a Knight of the Bath at the marriage in 1478 of the four-year-old Richard, Duke of York, one of the two princes later said to have been murdered in the Tower of London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Broughton (died 1506). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Edmund Walsingham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar · · 06:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this improvement to the John Barkstead article. But if you make such a change please cite the reliable source from which the information came. In the case of the ODNB there is a template available to help and speed up the process
{{ODNB|id=1426 |title=Barkstead, John (d. 1662)}}
which givesBut it also takes all the other usual parameters such as |first=Christopher |last=Durston |origyear=2004 |year=2008 |ref=harv which produces:
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) (Subscription or
UK public library membership required.)-- PBS ( talk) 15:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Good job with the article, which must have been a lot of work! It could use a photo or drawing of one or two of the most prominent Lieutenants, if you can find any. I am happy to be a co-nom, if you like, but I have no idea how to do the nomination process. I can suggest, as a possible hook: "...that in 1517, during the Evil May Day riots, the Lieutenant of the Tower of London fired artillery into the City of London, drawing the ire of the city elders." Send me a link if you nominate it. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Morning Nina. Just regarding Parsley Peel, I worked on it in my userspace for a good few weeks before putting it live - it hit mainspace on 17 June, which is when I nominated it for DYK. Unless anything's changed in the process, I believe that's still fine - odd the tool missed it. WormTT( talk) 07:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
On 22 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edmund Walsingham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it was to Sir Edmund Walsingham that Sir Thomas More made his final ironic jest while ascending the scaffold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edmund Walsingham. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
On 23 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lieutenant of the Tower of London, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at least five of the Lieutenants of the Tower of London were later prisoners in the Tower themselves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lieutenant of the Tower of London. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Nina, Have you given up editing the article on 17th Earl of Oxford? If you have been deterred by other editors you might find you now have someone who shares some of your views Sceptic1954 ( talk) 19:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
On 29 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Shaa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the court of requests instituted by Sir John Shaa while he was Lord Mayor of London proved unpopular because it favoured the poor more than "Justyce & good lawe Requyrid"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Shaa. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 10:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
On 30 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Husee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the letters written by John Husee while he was servant to Lord Lisle in 1533–40 have been described as "a joy and a revelation to read"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Husee. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On 2 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joan Wilkinson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Joan Wilkinson was a silkwoman to Anne Boleyn and supplied bonnets and frontlets to Lady Lisle? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For writing Richard Carmarden - a fascinating (and wonderfully esoteric) subject :). Ironholds ( talk) 02:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC) |
On 24 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Tuddenham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Thomas Tuddenham was beheaded on Tower Hill on 23 February 1462 for allegedly plotting to murder King Edward IV? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Tuddenham. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
On 25 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Browne (died 1514), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir William Browne was present as Lord Mayor of London when the emissary of Pope Leo X presented Henry VIII with a "sword and cap of mystic value"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Browne (died 1514). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 21:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention that you have been making edits on the topics of various Shakespeare plays. Unless I'm missing something, I'm afraid that per the Arbcom decision you are still topic-banned not only from the authorship question but also from Shakespeare in general, broadly construed, so these edits would seem to be in breach of the sanction. I'm not particularly keen on having to enforce this through blocks, as long as the edits themselves appear to have been constructive and uncontroversial, but I'll still have to ask you to keep to the rules.
If you wish to have the sanction modified so as to allow you to make Shakespeare edits outside the SAQ topic, I guess there might well be a chance to get such a modification, but you'd have to do that through an appeal at WP:ARA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
On 23 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Crosby (died 1476), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir John Crosby's former mansion in Bishopsgate, Crosby Hall, is the "only extant example of domestic architecture built for a London merchant in the Middle Ages"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Crosby (died 1476). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Alex Shih Talk 12:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: One of the major differences between the DNB and the ODNB is that the ONDB has cut out most of the genealogical information from their biographies. This is a trend that one can see in many similar references works compiled and published post World War II.
I have removed the section you label "family" at the start of Francis Manners, 6th Earl of Rutland, in doing so I have also removed the mention of his brothers from the first paragraph. As we have discussed previously this is a general encyclopaedia, it does not focus on genealogy. Therefore if his relationship with his brothers is notable then they will be mentioned in the bibliography section (in this case his brothers played a significant part in his public life, so they are mentioned in the text, and I have supplemented that by adding the information about which one was older and which one was younger than the Francis: "On his return to England he took part, along with his older bother Roger and their younger bother George, in the 1601 rebellion...").
What is not needed in are sections at the start of a biography article listing what may or may not be notable relationships with other members of the subject's family, because they overemphasise the genealogy (tail wagging the dog), so I have removed the Family section from the start of the biography on the 6th Earl of Rutland and will take similar action when I find such as section in other articles. -- PBS ( talk) 07:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
You have brought up another point: erroneous information. In several articles that I have read and edited in the last few days you have made comments such as this:
(
here). The problem is that this is a POV based on your OR. As an editor you have several choices on how to handle erroneous information provided in (what are often old) secondary sources, but you can not state in the published Wikipedia text that it erroneous unless you have a source that does it for you. The second option is to mention it on the talk page or place it in a hidden inline comment <!--Hardy erroneously dates the letter to 1589-->
to warn other editors. The third is simply to silently ignore the incorrect/old information -- more modern sources (such as the ONDB) often alter information found in 100 year old biographies, this is normal history. The final option is simply to footnote the discrepancy eg:
One other thing that I notice is that when copying quotes from a British English source, you sometimes use single quotation marks. The MOS dictates that articles use doubles (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS).
By and large I approve of the changes you have made to the articles and I hope you take these comments as ways that we can improve articles, rather than confrontational (which is unfortunately all to common on Wikipedia). For example while looking through the changes you had made I decided that two more articles were necessary because your edits highlighed them in several places :
The latter is stub and could do with an expansion, particularly as there was a link from Wild William Darrell to Littlecote House#Wild William Darrell which is a sort of sourced biography of the man.
At the moment I have lots to do which are not directly linked to this historical period see for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations so I for one will not be expanding Wild William Darrell in the near future. -- PBS ( talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
See my comment at {{ Did you know nominations/William Paston (died 1444)}}. Nyttend ( talk) 04:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
On 22 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Poynings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Robert Poynings was carver and sword-bearer to the rebel Jack Cade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Poynings. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
On 24 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adrian Poynings, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Adrian Poyning's orders for the English forces at Newhaven included the stricture that "Any English who shall fight without the town shall lose his right hand"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adrian Poynings. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 20:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your information on this, which I have used in the article. Sjwells53 ( talk) 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
On 26 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Browne (died 1483), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a letter in the hand of Sir George Browne, later beheaded, containing the cryptic message "It shall never come out for me", survives among the Paston letters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Browne (died 1483). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 05:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
with regards to our last conversation about articles on notable women and how to link to them. I have been working on a few biographies today and came across a hole in Wikipedia's coverage:
The husband and father article exist and now have red links to Mary Speke I am not really interested in creating a biography as editing the husband was one step further than I wanted to go and I only started it because the article on he husband linked to her brother and not her father. The DNB article has next to no coverage but the ONDB does see
So I thought you might like do something with the information. -- PBS ( talk) 14:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
On 30 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Perrot, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at a tournament before Queen Elizabeth I at Whitehall in 1581, Sir Thomas Perrot and 16 others defended the Castle of Beauty against the Earl of Arundel and Sir William Drury? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Perrot. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 08:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
— Bloom6132 ( talk) 17:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
On 7 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Paston (died 1479), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it is owing to Sir John Paston that we have an account of a famous tournament in England between Paston's friend, Earl Rivers, and the Bastard of Burgundy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Paston (died 1479). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi NinaGreen, thanks for reviewing my submission, I believe addressed your concerns. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 10:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
On 12 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Heydon, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Heydon. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Allen3 talk 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
On 13 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Hastings, Baron Welles, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Richard Hastings, Baron Welles attended the coronation of Richard III only three weeks after Richard had beheaded Hastings' brother, William? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Hastings, Baron Welles. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
On 14 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Hastings (died 1495), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Ralph Hastings was Keeper of the Lions and Leopards in the Tower of London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Hastings (died 1495). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
On 14 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Paston (died 1466), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that between 1461 and 1465, John Paston, one of the writers of the Paston Letters, was outlawed, and imprisoned three times in the Fleet Prison? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Paston (died 1466). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
On 15 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Heydon (died 1479), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Heydon, believing the second child born to his wife Eleanor was not his, threatened to cut off her nose and kill the infant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Heydon (died 1479). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
On 15 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Paston (died 1444), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the letters of the family of William Paston are "the richest source there is for every aspect of the lives of gentlemen and gentlewomen of the English middle ages"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Paston (died 1444). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
On 17 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Waterton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert Waterton, as Constable of Pontefract Castle, had custody of Richard II of England after his deposition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Waterton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to your question at template:Did you know nominations/Haidoterminus.-- Kev min § 03:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
On 26 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice of Norfolk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alice of Norfolk, daughter of Thomas of Brotherton and granddaughter of Edward I, died as a result of an assault by her husband and his retainers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice of Norfolk. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
On 27 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugh Waterton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Henry IV campaigned in Wales, he left his two children in the charge of Sir Hugh Waterton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh Waterton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
On 28 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward of Norfolk, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that two years after the magnificent wedding of Edward of Norfolk, his father-in-law was hanged at Tyburn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward of Norfolk. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
On 28 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert de Lisle, 1st Baron Lisle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Robert de Lisle, 1st Baron Lisle, was the owner of an illuminated manuscript, the Lisle Psalter, now Arundel 83 in the British Library? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert de Lisle, 1st Baron Lisle. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
What a wonderful article. I had always planned on writing an article on the subject since he is/was a namesake and a countryman. See User:Buster7/Sandbox-John Crabbe, Pirate for a rough draft. I'm so glad I never did. Mine would have been amateuristic compared to yours. Suggestion: The fact that he may have been the first to use a catapult aboard a ship may be worth DYK. Thanks again for the pleasure of reading your article. ``` Buster Seven Talk 05:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
On 29 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter de Montfort, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peter de Montfort was the first person to have presided over the English Parliament as a prolocutor, an office now known as Speaker of the House of Commons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter de Montfort. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 08:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
On 30 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Crabbe (died 1352), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Crabbe defended Berwick Castle for the Scots against the English in 1318, but assisted the English when they again besieged Berwick in 1333? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Crabbe (died 1352). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Nina, as you know, there are no extant plays by De Vere. He is notable as a courtier and poet. He is not notable as a playwright. We only characterise people by what makes them notable, not by everything they ever did. We don't say "Heather Mills was married to musician and painter Paul McCartney", even though it's true that McCartney is also a painter. Likewise we wouldn't say that Elizabeth de Vere was married to "courtier and playwright" William Stanley, Earl of Derby, even though the evidence that he wrote plays is just about as strong as the evidence that de Vere wrote plays. Paul B ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Nina, just observing from the side it looks to me that the issue at hand is the notability (or not) of De Vere as a playwright. Obviously, given all the myriad and complicated issues surrounding the SAQ question, this is bound to be a big contention point for the mainstream/"establishment" supporters here. As a matter of temporary tactics I would suggest to you 2 courses of action:
1. Defer to Paul on this question now, removing the contentious title/description as he is requesting.
2. Prepare for the long run a detailed document that would support the inclusion of the contentious title/description ("a notable playwright on his own") in the De Vere article. With such a document ready to pass muster in all the WP boards into which it would probably be submitted, either you, or if not, some other editor representing you, could then start the long fight to possibly include such a new section in the De Vere article/page itself. Even if such a document is very good and compliant with all WP policies, it may still be a long battle of years just to include such a new section in the main De Vere page/article. This is just a tactical suggestion for your consideration, in order to avoid immediate battles while you are still technically banned from the subject broadly considered. Regards, warshy ¥¥ 18:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me once again. This issue should be closed here, since Nina has already said very clearly above "Paul shouldn't have opened this discussion ... on my Talk page in the first place." I believe she simply does not appreciate engaging with you here, and I can definitely sympathize with her feelings on this matter. You should respect her feelings and specific multiple requests in this regard too.
However, to state here that "I forgotten that you seem to find the concept of an analogy difficult to understand" is a clear insult to any person's intelligence, let alone an accomplished scholar of the caliber of Nina Green. It should be completely stricken from the record by you forthwith.
As for copying the material over, she also asked you to not do it, and I hope you don't. You are just going to compound the insult and affront already committed. If you want to make your point of view explicit there, once the insult is stricken above, you can just state it there once again. If you did that clearly and succintly, I believe there would be no need for Nina even to respond to it, since your edit was done a while ago and it was never changed. Thank you for understanding. warshy ¥¥ 22:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
On 4 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alice of Hainault, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1310, the pirate John Crabbe seized a ship carrying jewels, gold, silver, and other goods worth £2000 belonging to Alice of Hainault? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice of Hainault. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
On 6 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bevis Bulmer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir Bevis Bulmer presented Queen Elizabeth I with a porringer of pure gold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bevis Bulmer. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
On 7 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Christopher Schutz, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a "great ruby stone" that Christopher Schutz wished to present to Queen Elizabeth I was never seen again after it came into the hands of Martin Frobisher? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Schutz. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 21:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
On 9 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Humfrey, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while he was Assay Master at the Royal Mint in 1568, William Humfrey was accused of robbing the Mint? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Humfrey. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 17:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
biographies of English history
Thank you for quality articles such as
Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford,
Christopher Schutz and
Burchard Kranich, and for contributing to article space alone, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Coming from you, it's a real honour. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
On 15 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Battista Agnello, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Giovanni Battista Agnello was the first to declare that the ore brought back from Baffin Island by Martin Frobisher in 1576 was gold-bearing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Battista Agnello. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
On 18 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean de Ferrieres, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although Jean de Ferrieres inherited immense riches, he died a prisoner in a galley, unable to pay his ransom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean de Ferrieres. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nina, I've just been admiring your work on R.H. It has become a very informative article, thanks! I have just been fiddling rather less effectively with Sir Thomas Lodge. Are you able to pinpoint exactly where the funders specifically for the Hawkins slaving expeditions are named? Similar things are said of Lodge, but in trying to navigate the Hakluyt references for Lodge I came up with the Guinea expeditions which seem to have crossed paths with Hawkins in 1563/4 by accident (or was it 'by accident on purpose'?). I realise all these adventurers were closely associated and related. Any guidance gratefully accepted! thanks, Eebahgum ( talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
On 21 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Burchard Kranich, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Burchard Kranich allegedly cured Queen Elizabeth I of smallpox? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Burchard Kranich. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
On 23 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward White (printer), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Edward White printed or sold works by Kyd, Greene, Munday, Marlowe and Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edward White (printer). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 09:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
On 25 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rose Lok, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Tudor ship Mary Rose was named after Rose Lok and her sister-in-law, Mary Lok? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rose Lok. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
On 3 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Lok, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1555 John Lok brought five Africans from present-day Ghana to England to learn English and act as interpreters on future trading voyages to Guinea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Lok. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
On 3 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Fabyan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the chronicler Robert Fabyan recorded the arrival in England in 1502 of three men from Newfoundland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Fabyan. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 08:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nina. Sorry about that but I had an edit conflict with you as soon as I changed the hook to a new one. Do you mind checking the new hook and let me know if you approve of it? Many thanks. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 00:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, sorry again. Just done the QPQ. Whenever you have the time you can have a look. Thank you very much for your time. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
On 5 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Lok, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sir William Lok brought French translations of the Gospels and Epistles from the continent for Anne Boleyn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Lok. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of John Brayne at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
On 6 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Brayne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1567 John Brayne built the Red Lion playhouse, the first professional playhouse in the British Isles specifically built for that purpose since Roman times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Brayne. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On 6 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Lee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the favours done by Sir Anthony Lee for the poet Thomas Wyatt were so many that it made Wyatt "weary to think on them"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Lee. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi NinaGreen,
Can you check out the Vardges Sureniants' DYK nom. page please. Thanks! Proudbolsahye ( talk) 19:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
minute change in the hook and picture. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 07:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bridget Chaworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 01:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
On 15 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cromwell Lee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cromwell Lee compiled an Italian-English dictionary which, although unfinished, is said to have been "as big as a church bible"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cromwell Lee. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
On 19 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bridget Chaworth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the inscription on Bridget Chaworth's monument commemorates her 25 years of service as a gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber to Elizabeth I and 14 years of service to Anne of Denmark? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bridget Chaworth. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carelton at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Elizabeth Hussey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Here you wrote: "no justice system in the Western world, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, uses indefinite sentences or sentences 'broadly construed'."
I'm not sure what you mean by "broadly construed" but there are several situations in Western cultures where sentences are "indefinite."
Just some food for thought. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
On 31 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Carleton (died 1590), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that George Carleton has been suggested as the real author behind the pseudonym Martin Marprelate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George Carleton (died 1590). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
On 1 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Hussey, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Hussey allowed the first of the tracts by the anonymous satirist Martin Marprelate to be printed on a secret press at her home at East Molesey in October 1588? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Hussey. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
On 3 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hercules Underhill, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Anthony Carleton's son-in-law Hercules Underhill confirmed the sale of New Place to Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hercules Underhill. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On 3 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anthony Carleton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Anthony Carleton's son-in-law Hercules Underhill confirmed the sale of New Place to Shakespeare? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carleton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you come across an article like Christopher Hatton that includes the template {{ EB1911}} most of the text is almost certainly copied from EB1911.
If the text is not available on Wikisource, you will be able to track it down through the versions available in the section Free, public-domain sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition.
To meet the requirements of the plagiarism guideline, articles that include text from public domain must contain suitable attribution (like {{ EB1911}} linking to the correct article) but also inline citations.
In the case of the Christopher Hatton article, links to the EB1911 article would have answered most of the {{ citation needed}} templates you added, and in many cases would have alleviated the need to add other sources to verify facts.
The reason why many of the articles like Christopher Hatton do not carry adequate inline citations is because the text was copied into a Wikipedia article long before (in this case in 2002) there were guidelines on how to support content with citations. That developed as a response by the Wikipepdia community to improve the quality of the content of articles in about 2006 because the press was having fun finding unsourced articles and showing how unreliable Wikipedia was.
So in future if you come across an article with {{ 1911}} (which redirects to {{ EB1911}}) or {[tl|EB1911}} a way to quickly improve reliability of the content is fill in the "|wstitle=wikisource" parameter or the parameters "|title=other source url=..." and add inline citations to the template (the parameter ref=harv is set by default so ( Chisholm 1911) usually works).
-- PBS ( talk) 16:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I see that you asked me at the Help Desk to stop attributing comments to you that you had not made. You made a similar comment to another poster in your comments on the 2013 review of discretionary sanctions. I understand that no one likes to be misquoted, but if you twice think that your comments were misinterpreted, please consider that maybe your comments were not entirely clear, and that they may have permitted two interpretations. On re-reading your comments about numeric vandalism, and my attribution that you thought that only a revert was needed, and that admins should handle the remaining details, I don't think that I misread your comments. I think that my interpretation was a valid interpretation of your comments, even if not what you meant. I am aware that discussions of complex topics such as numeric vandalism or discretionary sanctions are not always as clear as they could be. If you ask other posters repeatedly not to attribute comments to you that you did not make, maybe you should be patient with their efforts to understand your comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Second, I am familiar with ClueBot, as many of us are. It is an excellent vandalism-fighter. However, it is a bot, and doesn't have as much intelligence or the same kind of intelligence as a human. It uses a heuristic algorithm to detect edits that are likely to be vandalism. It is very good, although it has occasional false positives. I don't know the inner details of how it works, but I think that it mostly detects patterns that are either not good English, look like graffiti, or look like typical vandalism. I don't think that there is any practical way that it could be engineered to detect numeric vandalism, or, for that matter, the replacement of true statements by comparably worded false statements. I don't think that it would know the difference between: "Henry VII killed Richard III in 1485 at Bosworth Field", and "Richard III defeated Henry Tudor in 1486 in Kensington." I certainly don't know how it would recognize the changing of a 40% vote to a 60% vote, typical of what numeric vandals do. What could possibly done would be a different approach, which would be to flag or revert edits without edit summaries by unregistered editors. (That would offend those who think that unregistered editors should have all of the usual rights of registered editors, but reasonable Wikipedians differ on what those rights should be.) However, in that case, the numeric vandal would begin using an edit summary, such as "correction". I don't think that a bot can reasonably be used to detect and correct numeric vandalism. Only human editors with watch lists can do that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have raised the issue at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board. Paul B ( talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Nina, I've unblocked your account. One of the times I was looking at was UTC and the other was in local time which made it look like you were editing logged out during the block. I've removed the block and the entry on the case page. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nina. I pointed out on Sandstein's page just half an hour after Robert McClenon posted there that there was no block evasion, and also that I wasn't able to engage with the sock puppet investigation because of time constraints. [15] But it looks like Robert, who I hoped would fix his error, was no longer on line, nor Sandstein, and then the SPI was closed very quickly, before I was awake. I'm sorry it went like that, but I did what I could. Callanecc, have you considered adding a note to the SPI archive? Bishonen | talk 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. Much appreciated. Incidentally, the reason I didn't log in was because at WP:AIV administrator BrownHairedGirl stated that she had already blocked me, so I assumed I wouldn't be able to log in. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added the two paragraphs below to the page on which the procedures for administration of Discretionary Sanctions are being reviewed [16] because the example demonstrates why use of the phrase 'broadly construed' is a bad idea for Wikipedia, and should be eliminated. This is a discussion every editor on Wikipedia should take an interest in because sooner or later it's bound to affect a very large number of editors in some way or other. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting a new section to highlight the problem entailed with the phrase 'broadly construed', which is routinely used in the imposition of 'Discretionary sanctions'. I've just been blocked for 48 hours for an alleged violation of a topic ban which used the same phrase 'broadly construed', so the example is instructive. My edit was made last August, and the issue arose because another editor ran across it a few days ago and deleted both the factual statement and the unquestionably reliable source which supported it. During an extensive discussion on the article Talk page, I added two more unquestionably reliable sources to the article in support of the factual statement, and a further eminently RS to the Talk page. The other editor added nothing to the article, and when he could not prevail on the facts, complained to WP:AIV that I had allegedly violated a topic ban. There was a lengthy discussion there in which I explained that the article itself was not covered by the topic ban, nor was my edit. The matter was then whisked off to WP:AE at [17]], and I was rapidly blocked for 48 hours. About 10 administrators rushed into the fray on the two last-mentioned forums, some of whom were baying for lengthy blocks. The 'evidence' put forward was framed in this way: 'Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.' This is completely inaccurate. My edit, made last August, clearly refers to the relationship between a line in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit and an anonymous play published in 1595, The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, as I explained at WP:AIV. My edit has nothing to do with Shakespeare, either per se or tangentially, and it most certainly had absolutely nothing to do with 'the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare'. However the administrators involved clearly lacked the subject matter expertise to know the difference, and I was thus blocked under a topic ban 'broadly misconstrued'. It was sufficient that the editor had alleged to WP:AIV that I had violated the topic ban; that was enough for about 10 administrators to conclude that I must have done so because they have no expertise in the subject matter involved, and simply can't tell the difference.
I'm bringing it up here because, as I've mentioned here before, the use of the phrase 'broadly construed' in DS is a bad idea, both in terms of Wikipedia's public image, and in terms of the fact that administrators who are not involved in a particular subject area lack the expertise to determine whether an edit actually violates a topic ban 'broadly construed', which results in the injustices which have been complained of repeatedly by other editors elsewhere in this discussion. Wikipedia needs to get rid entirely of the phrase 'broadly construed' because it can't be administered fairly by administrators who lack expertise in the subject area.
Hi, since you started posting at the DS review I have been pondering how it is that you have had such DS troubles compared to myself. I mean, for over two years nearly all of my editing has been on articles subject to DS and I haven't had such troubles. Today I had a little light go off. FYI, One way you could make a much bigger splash in the DS review with your complaint and proposal for arb & admin reviews is to first demonstrate to the community an effort to comply with this bit of wisdom, and the best way to do that is to submit yourself to review, by way of a self-submission to WP:RFC/U. If you pass that with flying colors, then you'll be able to point to that as evidence of how badly DS treated you. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Fulke Underhill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hack ( talk) 03:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. It is not appropriate to go around spamming the same 5k of text to multiple users talk pages. This is disruptive. A bunch of experienced, well-intentioned editors have been giving you good advice about how to participate in Wikipedia constructively. Not only have you ignored them, you seem to be going in the opposite direction, just to make a point.
Your account is blocked until you and the editors you've been mis-interacting with come to an agreement about how you will participate constructively rather than disruptively. Please take a break, regain perspective, then make a request to be unblocked. It will help to recognize any past errors and state how you would go about things differently in the future. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review
Regards,
— Neotarf ( talk) 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nina,
Thank you for your interest in discretionary sanctions. I'm afraid governance is a bit of a niche topic. There are so few editors who take an interest in it, or who take the time to ask questions and try to understand it.
To address some of the issues about DS you have been raising elsewhere:
From what I have been able to piece together, discretionary sanctions grew out of the community-based "article probation". For an example of that, here is the "men's rights" article probation page. [18] Draconian terms, no? There is no way I would agree to edit under those conditions. Admins have a blank check to do what they want, as well as to determine whether they are WP:INVOLVED. And the condescending, unprofessional language! "We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;" But in this case there is an admin who does not participate in the discussions, and can say she is not "involved", but who understands the article and the issues quite well. And she has dealt successfully with waves of meatpuppets from the Reddit "men's rights" group, the same one that the Southern Poverty Law center has labeled a hate group.
Unlike the old "article probation" admins, the current crop of DS admins do not know anything about the cases they are dealing with and have no intention of reading them. They just want to take a face-reading of the rules and apply them directly to the respective cases. What they are asking for, in this round of DS discussions, is a software decision-tree type flowchart with algorithms to apply blindly, that has been handed to them from a higher authority, to absolve them from knowing the reason behind their actions. I think the arbcom does not understand this, they think they are dealing with incompetence, but it is a disconnect based on ideology.
There is no question discretionary sanctions are needed. As far as I can see, they are useful in two situations. One is where there is some current event that draws a huge amount of vandalism, like during the election cycle. I believe that's how the DS started, with pages like Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. The admins can't take time to warn all the vandals, and then keep track of who has been warned. So they nuke everyone. And it seems there is a preference for keeping the page open to edits during fast-breaking news. I'm quite new to WP, actually, so I don't remember these discussions, but I think there has never been any traction for getting these pages locked, I don't think you will get a consensus for that. Consensus doesn't apply here anyway, since the ArbCom is authorized by policy to write their own internal "procedures", like DS. Discretionary sanctions are also often applied to perennially controversial subjects, like Palestine/Israel. Or, um, Shakespearean authorship theories. I'm not sure of the rationale behind this last application, perhaps it has more to do with 3R edit restrictions.
Regards,
— Neotarf ( talk) 05:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Nina I was going to ask you if you could look something up (if you have it) in:
Richardson, Douglas (2011), Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, ed. Kimball G. Everingham III (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City.
...as it would probably fulfil the last small requirements for GA status for Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland, regarding his children. I don't have the book I'm afraid.
Having said that, you seem to be having some political issues here at the moment, so maybe it's not quite the best time to ask... sorry about that. Shame as you seem to have done grand work on historical biography. All the best. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I sent the message below to the Wikimedia Foundation. The arbitrators' refusal to define their own powers and to differentiate the powers they were elected to exercise from the powers they have illegally handed over to the 1400 administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not a problem which can be resolved within Wikipedia because the 15 arbitrators, who are the only structure within Wikipedia which could resolve the problem, are in fact the creators of the problem, and they block editors who even suggest that the arbitrators should resolve the problem by defining their and the administrators' respective powers to punish editors. The Wikimedia Foundation, the media and the general public must therefore become aware of the problem and take steps to force a resolution of it. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Maggie Dennis,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote:
I appreciate that you feel that the discretionary sanction system is a problem, but concerns such as this need to be resolved by the volunteer community.
The evidence in the messages I forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation proves that this issue cannot be resolved in the 'volunteer community' because the 15 arbitrators are an all-powerful oligarchy who have illegally handed over the powers they are elected to exercise to 1400 administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers, with the predictable result that the situation of abuse of editors by administrators is now out of control, and good editors are regularly being 'punished' to the extent that many good editors have left, and are continuing to leave Wikipedia. The situation of which I complained took place during an alleged 'community' review of discretionary sanctions (DS), and as the evidence on the review pages proves, any 'community' editor with whom the arbitrators disagreed was either blocked or his/her comments were totally ignored, ridiculed, or 'hidden' in collapsed or archived sections or totally edited out by the three arbitrators conducting the alleged review (Roger Davies, AGK, and Salvio). This sort of conduct by the arbitrators during an alleged 'community' review of DS is what one would expect of a totalitarian regime, not of an entity funded by the Wikipedia Foundation and an entity to which the unwitting general public is regularly asked to donate.
The Wikimedia Foundation is funding this totally undemocratic oligarchic and punitive situation, thus allowing it to worsen day by day, with the arbitrators now utterly refusing to define the powers they, the administrators in DS situations and the administrators in non-DS situations can wield against the hard-working editors who are actually building the encyclopedia. I was indefinitely blocked for posting a message on the arbitrators' Talk pages mentioning the need for the arbitrators to define the powers which can be wielded by the arbitrators and administrators to punish editors, and Roger Davies not only stated that the arbitrators would not define these powers, but praised the fact that administrators are 'creatively' inflicting whatever punishments they wish on editors, no matter how harsh and unreasonable, and that once one arbitrators has done so, those punishments become, in Roger Davies' view, accepted practice for administrators. The statement from Roger Davies I quoted in my message below proves that that is the case, and that therefore the only realistic way in which this out of control situation can be rectified is for the Wikipedia Foundation to withhold funding until the situation is resolved and some semblance of democracy, fairness and justice is restored to Wikipedia.
This will only be done if evidence of what is going on reaches the highest echelons at the Wikimedia Foundation, and I am therefore requesting that you pass on this message, and my earlier messages, to those persons at the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation so that they will know of the existence of this out of control situation on Wikipedia. In that regard, I also stress the fact that one of the passages I've quoted in my earlier message indicates that there is at least some awareness already of the problem of abuse of editors by administrators and arbitrators on Wikipedia, but that the Wikimedia Foundation has been turning a blind eye to it. If the general public and the media were aware that the Wikimedia Foundation is turning a blind eye to this steadily-worsening problem, and continuing to fund it, it is beyond question that neither the general public nor the media would approve of either the situation on Wikipedia itself, notof the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is turning a blind eye to it and continuing to provide the funds to allow it to continuously worsen day by day.
Nina is essentially right that DS gives uninvolved administrators arbitrator-like powers, subject to appeal, such as the power to impose a 1RR rule (in place of 3RR) on edit warriors, or to topic-ban POV-pushers, or to interaction-ban editors who cannot get along. (The will-o-the-wisp of "the community" also has those powers at the noticeboards.) In non-DS cases, administrators have basically one power, the power to block, which is subject to review. That is the basic difference. [[WP:Discretionary sanctions{Discretionary sanctions]] are recognized as a draconian remedy for disputes that would otherwise have to be re-arbitrated over and over again. Maybe that answers Nina's question, or maybe Nina has some other question that hasn't been formulated clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon. That's no longer really true and hasn't been for some time. Admins, especially the creative ones, can and do issue all sorts of "voluntary" restrictions of their own volition, usually as an alternative to further blocking or as a condition of unblocking. Because of the way that policy works (ie new policy is created by successful groundbreaking actions, rather than following what is written), these restrictions are now de facto part of the admin's arsenal. Conversely, there are no limits whatsoever on the ability of the community to issue whatever sanctions it pleases or to authorise administrators to do so. (Though most kinds of longterm restriction are theoretically appealable to ArbCom, ArbCom traditionally doesn't interfere in the reasonable exercise of administrative discretion or attempt to restrict the community's discretion.) So, in practical terms, I doubt that that there is very much difference at all and it is certainly not worth the effort of attempting to codify elusory differences, especially when such a codification will, in and of itself, be hugely controversial. Roger Davies talk 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Complaints about administrator abuse: Allegations have been made in Wikipedia's internal forums that administrator abuse has been steadily increasing in frequency and severity, and that it is one major reason for a decline in editor numbers since 2006. Allegations of administrator abuse have circulated outside of Wikipedia in blogs, online technical forums, and in mainstream media. It has also been argued that, despite the perception of Wikipedia as a "shining example of Web democracy", "a small number of people are running the show." In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted complaints that administrators sometimes use their special powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."
This proposal has been answered already:
That has been my bitter experience as well.
Page protection is actually pretty common; by the time a case gets to ArbCom, it has usually been tried already, so it's not an issue particular to discretionary sanctions. — Neotarf ( talk) 20:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nina. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal your block by adding below this post the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. The point of using that code is that it'll automatically place your page in the category
Requests for unblock, which will draw an uninvolved admin to your page to review the block. (Just writing on this page won't have that effect.) But it's really important to read the guide to appealing blocks first, to understand what kind of appeal will be considered. You need to convince the reviewing admin that you're able and willing to avoid disruption going forward.
Bishonen |
talk 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC).
I have just read on Nina Green's talk page about your indefinite block on her and I am bewildered. Would you please explain the nature of any "disruption" which may have been caused by Nina, with diffs? She is a hugely valuable editor, busy producing a flood of good work in the field of English history, and in my view we need her back as soon as possible. Moonraker ( talk) 15:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This relates directly to the penultimate section above, but needs a separate section as it identifies the crux of the problem, which is that the Wikipedia community, i.e. the 26,000 editors, govern Wikipedia and write policy, not the arbitrators. See: [27]
Wikipedia editors as a community write and revise the website's policies and guidelines.
Editors in good standing in the community can run for one of many levels of volunteer stewardship: this begins with "administrator", a group of privileged users who have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing. Despite the name, administrators are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making; instead, their powers are mostly limited to making edits that have project-wide effects and thus are disallowed to ordinary editors, and to block users making disruptive edits (such as vandalism).
The powers and limited mandate granted by the Wikipedia community to administrators are defined in policy at [28]
Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia, including the ability to block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools.
The powers and limited mandate granted by the Wikipedia community to arbitrators are also defined at: [29]
This policy governs the Arbitration Committee, arbitration proceedings and arbitration processes. It was ratified by the community on 13 June 2011.
Scope and responsibilities
The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:
To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
Via discretionary sanctions (DS), and the current DS review, arbitrators have made an end-run around this clear definition of powers and limited mandates granted to arbitrators and administrators by the Wikipedia community, i.e. the 26,000 editors, and are conducting themselves, and the current DS review, as though they (the arbitrators) had been elected to govern Wikipedia through a 1400-member 'police force' of administrators, and as though they (the arbitrators) had been elected to write Wikipedia policy (see penultimate section above for details). The arbitrators need to reverse course, and eliminate DS because through DS the entire Wikipedia power structure set out in policy, and the overriding principle on which Wikipedia was founded, i.e. that it is the Wikipedia community which governs Wikipedia and writes policy, has been subverted. The arbitrators may not have intended this result, but nonetheless that it what the arbitrators have done: they have subverted the Wikipedia structure of governance through DS, and they have silenced any member of the Wikipedia community who has pointed this out. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
(Nutshell and preamble)
Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track method for dealing with contentious or disruptive conduct within specified areas of conflict. It is a procedure authorised by the Arbitration Committee on a case by case basis and usually involves creating temporary, special rules for administrators to resolve disruption and promote civil participation.
Role of administrators
Only uninvolved administrators may impose discretionary sanctions. Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations.
Individual sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may impose warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, blocks of up to one year in duration, and/or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Sanctions must be logged.
Page restrictions
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, protection, move protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except where a firm consensus for the edit has been obtained); or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to prevent disruption. Such restrictions are enforceable by uninvolved administrators through the use of individual sanctions.
. The difference is essential. You are making a personal attack when you accuse people of illegal activity. It's a serious accusation that can only be made if there are facts to support it. In this case there is nothing illegal. If you continue throwing that word around I may remove your talk page access altogether to prevent further slanderous attacks. Think it over. Jehochman Talk 01:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Please undo the semi-protection of User_talk:NinaGreen. If you don't like what Kumioko is saying you're not required to respond to it. NE Ent 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Upon reflection I will just ban Kumioko from this page. He's being extremely unhelpful by goading NinaGreen into more problematic behavior. Jehochman Talk 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope; and may form subcommittees or designate individuals for particular tasks or roles. Where appropriate, the Committee may invite community comment on intended changes prior to implementing them.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve.
@ Jehochman Thank you for your further clarifications of the block here. IMO the "spam" explanation isn't enough, but the ANI peer review comments did provide some useful context, although I was disappointed by the lack of diffs.
I have been trying to follow the discretionary sanctions discussion from a distance, and it has been quite frustrating. The archiving practices have been impossible to follow, whole sections have been blanked, discussions are started in the middle of the page, or refactored into oblivion, and reasonable questions have gone unanswered. The draft proposal itself has no numbering system, and it is impossible to refer to a specific section for orderly discussion.
It doesn't help any that no one seems to be able to say why the discretionary sanctions are being reviewed at this time, after just having been approved two years ago, or why the proposal departs so drastically from current policy and practice, instead of offering incremental, tested changes. There have been some rather negative and provoking comments about non-admins as well, which no one has bothered to object to, although at least one admin has also been snarled at. I don't believe it serves either the Arbcom or the Project to have the subject of discretionary sanctions decided entirely by the arbitration enforcement admins--sort of like having the police make the laws.
In all fairness to Nina, my impression--without having read all the discussions, which are long--is that she has been given some mixed signals about her editing. In some cases her suggestions have been incorporated into the draft text after some convoluted discussion; in other cases her repeated questions, some of which were answered very cordially and I thought succinctly, were removed. She was asked by one editor to post less frequently, and wait for someone else to comment, but when someone else did comment and she responded to their direct question, she was blocked. It won't help Nina any if no one gives her any straight answers. — Neotarf ( talk) 08:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nina, can you agree to the following:
Do you agree with these terms? I'm looking for an answer by Nina. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, I see you asked on the DS review page (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2013_review] that 'people post their impressions of discretionary sanctions that worked well, and those that worked badly'. It might interest you to know that I earlier raised that very question on the DS review page, i.e. what statistical or anecdotal evidence, or any sort of evidence, exists to prove that DS are working, and did not get an answer. It will be interesting to see whether you get one. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, the question of "how [the process] is working" is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
For the purpose for which they are intended, there is not much doubt that DS are effective.
I am not going to get involved in a discussion about how to fix Wikipedia's procedures because such a discussion would be unproductive. The system has evolved to where it is in order to cope with the extraordinarily difficult task of providing some order in an open group of collaborative editors. It is simply impossible to design a system that would provide true justice, or which would satisfy everyone. Of course there will be less-than-perfect results and dissatisfied contributors, but the community is self-run by volunteers. If an admin sees trouble, they need to take action to allow others to go about their business in reasonable calm. The admin can be questioned, and their action can be reviewed at WP:ANI. It may be that only one person responds to such a review, and they might just say "looks ok". However, there are hundreds of others who will have seen the report and who did not think the admin action to be incorrect and so did not bother commenting, or who did not think the admin action to be sufficiently incorrect that a remedy was required. That's all that can be achieved in a self-run community of volunteers.
A long time ago I think I suggested to you that some experience watching noticeboards would be useful because it is eye-opening to see how many disputes arise here, and how passionately they are fought. I am confident that anyone who spent some time seeing what happens in a variety of hot spots would soon recognize that the system of governance at Wikipedia is remarkably successful, and how difficult it would be to devise something better. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
As I've proved by quoting policy earlier on this page, it is 'the Wikipedia editors as a community' who govern Wikipedia and 'write and revise the website's policies and guidelines'. The Wikipedia community has defined administrators as merely a group of 'privileged users who have the ability to delete pages, lock articles from being changed in case of vandalism or editorial disputes, and block users from editing', but they 'are not supposed to enjoy any special privilege in decision-making'. For the quoted statements see [38].
The limited powers granted by the Wikipedia community to administrators in policy are defined at [39] as 'the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia, including the ability to block and unblock user accounts and IP addresses from editing, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools'. According to the Wikipedia community, those powers give administrators sufficient powers to handle conflict-ridden pages by blocking users and blocking pages. And if that doesn't work, the Wikipedia community has provided that individual users can be taken to arbitration (see [40]).
User:Johnuniq and others imply through their messages that a system of governance by the 15 arbitrators and 1400 administrators has been de facto substituted for governance by the Wikipedia community because a system of governance by arbitrators and administrators is more practical. If that's the case, governance by the Wikipedia community has to be restored.
I made several suggestions in the DS review as to how governance by the Wikipedia community can be restored, and I'll recap and add to them here. The result of restoring governance by the Wikipedia community would be that administrator abuse (which is known to the Wikimedia Foundation and which is damaging Wikipedia's credibility, and will eventually cause major donors such as Google to reconsider their donations) would be substantially eliminated.
This package would restore governance by the Wikipedia community, and would in one fell swoop eliminate virtually all of the massive and complicated bureaucracy of punishment which has grown up on Wikipedia through assumption of ultra vires powers by the arbitrators and administrators. That massive and complicated bureaucracy of punishment, consisting of appeals, reviews, enforcement, applications for clarification of topic bans, applications for clarification of the term 'broadly construed' etc. etc., all results from discretionary sanctions (DS), from blocks which have no expiry date, from subjective interpretation of whether topic bans have been violated by administrators who themselves have no specialist knowledge of the topic, subjective interpretation of the term 'broadly construed' by administrators who themselves have no specialist knowledge of the topic, etc. etc., all of which is completely unnecessary, and has resulted in countless injustices, the loss of several thousand editors, damage to Wikipedia's credibility, and the creation of an atmosphere of fear among the 26,000 editors who are actually building the encyclopedia.
Let's fix it! NinaGreen ( talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I received a reply from Caitlin Cogdill at the Wikimedia Foundation a few days ago, and am copying my reply to her of today's date (4 March 2014) below. It is self-explanatory.
Dear Caitlin Cogdill,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote:
Wikipedia and the other websites the Wikimedia Foundation hosts are almost entirely self-governing.Administrators and arbitrators are chosen by the body of volunteers themselves, who also craft the policies and procedures on the site within the boundaries set by the Terms of Use.
I've explained in my previous messages to the Wikimedia Foundation that the problem is that self-government by the Wikipedia community has been usurped, and that it is the 15 arbitrators and 1400 administrators who are now de facto governing Wikipedia and imposing policies on the 26,000 editors who constitute the Wikipedia community.
As a result, it is impossible to deal with the situation unless the Wikimedia Foundation suspends funding until the arbitrators and administrators allow governance by the Wikipedia community to be restored.
I raised the foregoing issue in what purported to be a review by the Wikipedia community of Discretionary Sanctions (DS). As a result, at the instigation of one of the arbitrators who was conducting the review, Roger Davies, and with the support of another arbitrator heavily involved in the review, AGK, I was indefinitely blocked by an administrator, Jehochman, who has since adamantly refused to justify the indefinite block by providing evidence that I violated any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, and has also adamantly refused to lift it. Jehochan has also made many slanderous comments about me on my Talk page which he has refused to substantiate in any way (and cannot substantiate, since they are untrue). Another editor, Kumioko, who raised similar issues concerning the DS review was also recently blocked for six months. Other members of the Wikipedia community who have ventured to comment have been told that they have no right to speak up by Jehochman, on my Talk page, and by an arbitrator, AGK (who on the AIN noticeboard told another editor, Neotarf, that he also had been ordered 'to back away' from the DS review). Moreover Jehochman has also blocked all IP editors from editing on my Talk page from now until next August, contrary to Wikipedia policy, which allows editors to edit anywhere on Wikipedia using IPs.
It seems clear that members of the Wikipedia community who oppose the ultra vires usurpation of governance of Wikipedia by the arbitrators and administrators are threatened, slandered, silenced and blocked by the arbitrators and administrators, and that they will not be unblocked unless they agree to drop the issue. See my Talk page at [42]. Your suggestion that the issue be raised at Meta ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) is thus clearly impossible to carry out, as blocked editors cannot edit at Meta, and the treatment which the arbitrators and administrators have already meted out to any member of the Wikipedia community who has dared to raise the issue has undoubtedly struck fear into any other member of the Wikipedia community who might be concerned about the topic, and has persuaded such editors that it would be foolhardy indeed to raise the issue at Meta, or anywhere on Wikipedia, including the very DS review itself, which would be the most appropriate forum for raising it were the arbitrators and administrators conducting the review not determined to crush all dissent by blocking editors who express an opinion concerning their ultra vires assumption of governance of Wikipedia.
The Wikimedia Foundation cannot continue to fund Wikipedia when members of the Wikipedia community are intimidated, slandered, silenced, and rendered powerless in this way by the arbitrators and administrators, who clearly hold all the tools of power, and exercise them against members of the Wikipedia community who dare to raise the issue that they are acting ultra vires. Major donors such as Google would be shocked if they were made aware of this information.
I've copied below suggestions I made on my Talk page which would restore governance by the Wikipedia community. Please forward this e-mail, the suggestions, and all my earlier e-mails to your supervisor. It's important that those at the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation be made aware of the current situation.
Incidentally I was told by Maggie Dennis that she had passed my earlier e-mails on to Philippe Beaudette. Accordingly, I'm forwarding a copy of this message to both Maggie Dennis and Philippe Beaudette in order to inform everyone at the Wikimedia Foundation who has been involved so far.
Sincerely,
Nina Green
[I copied the immediately preceding section 'Restoring governance by the Wikipedia community' at the end of my e-mail to Caitlin Cogdill, but won't re-copy it here, as it's unnecessary to do so.]
See this [43] today at the alleged community review of DS in which the arbitrators have silenced all community editors who disagree with DS, and who hold that DS are ultra vires the powers of both the arbitrators to impose and administrators to enforce:
That probably goes a bit too far in the opposite direction but if you can bump this up in a week or so (I've got my hands full at the moment), we can look at the alert text once DSR v3 has been posted. User:Roger Davies 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia governed by the community of 26,000 editors? It would appear not. Community editors who challenged the ultra vires actions of the arbitrators and administrators in imposing and enforcing DS have been silenced and blocked for no other reason than that they raised the ultra vires issue, and any other community editor who holds that view has been put in fear of being indefinitely blocked without any reason being given by the blocking administrator, and Roger Davies then pushes ahead with an alleged 'community' review of DS as though the review had any legitimacy as a community review, when it fact it is a review dominated by three arbitrators and a handful of administrators who like, and routinely enforce, DS, and all views from community editors with whose views these arbitrators and administrators disagree are silenced. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Earlier on this page I quoted this paragraph as evidence that the Wikimedia Foundation had to be aware of complaints within Wikipedia of abuse of editors by administrators:
Complaints about administrator abuse: Allegations have been made in Wikipedia's internal forums that administrator abuse has been steadily increasing in frequency and severity, and that it is one major reason for a decline in editor numbers since 2006. Allegations of administrator abuse have circulated outside of Wikipedia in blogs, online technical forums, and in mainstream media. It has also been argued that, despite the perception of Wikipedia as a "shining example of Web democracy", "a small number of people are running the show." In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted complaints that administrators sometimes use their special powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."
I provided a link to this page entitled Criticisms of Wikipedia so that anyone interested, including the Wikimedia Foundation, could see the foregoing paragraph for themselves: [44]. However anyone now clicking on that link can no longer find a paragraph entitled 'Complaints about administrator abuse'. On 25 February the first statements in the paragraph concerning administrator abuse were entirely deleted, and the balance of the paragraph was given the completely misleading title 'Assessment that content is not widely generated by lots of users', as though it had to do with content, rather than administrator abuse (see [45] and [46]).
There is a disturbing pattern here. In the alleged 'community' review of discretionary sanctions (DS), comments by community editors which were in any way critical of DS were buried in archives by the arbitrators, and the community editors making them were silenced by arbitrators and administrators. Now the foregoing paragraph stating that there is widespread concern, both within Wikipedia and among the general public, about administrator abuse in Wikipedia has been deleted. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
On what authority, and for what purpose, is User:Jehochman, an administrator, repeatedly blocking an IP address from which no-one is attempting to do anything contrary to Wikipedia's policies? I noticed that there was a block on the IP address set to expire close to midnight on 11 March, and it has now expired, and Jehochman has immediately replaced it with a new block on the IP address which states that 'This block has been set to expire: 03:36, 13 March 2014. The block ID is: 5024526'. Is anyone (which certainly wouldn't be me!) who attempts to edit from this IP address going to be blocked ad infinitum by Jehochman, with a series of blocks which are immediately replaced as soon as one expires, and if so, under what authority? NinaGreen ( talk) 03:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)NOt
Nina, my apologies, there is indeed an account creation block on your account here.
Ivan, well spoken. I would certainly support an RFC on Meta. And I would welcome whatever metrics are available for further evaluation.
The current discretionary sanctions conversation is not meant to address the broader issue of how DS procedures are working; it is a narrowly tailored discussion, and is taking place on ArbCom subpages, which is hardly a neutral space for proper community discussion.
By the same token, the two arbs undertaking the review, Roger Davies and Anthony (AGK), are doing exactly what we elected them to do, and I publicly supported both of them for re-election. They have both been involved in previous work with developing discretionary sanctions procedures and should be given some leeway in making their investigation. Anthony in particular I believe was "present at the creation" and possibly knows more about the history of DS than anyone on the Wikipedia.
Perhaps there could be parallel discussions.
With regards to your first point, I believe there are only 2 or 3 admins currently working with Arbitration Enforcement, rather than 10-20, but I seem to recall a lot more than that a year or two ago. The AE admins seem to be the only ones whose input is being accepted in the present conversation and incorporated into the document.
I also ran into a comment the other day about a "bill of rights for content builders" [47]. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time and was startled to see someone else articulate it. I would like to see some community discussion about that one. — Neotarf ( talk) 11:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Future Perfect's action, while unusual, is appropriate in this particular situation. For some time Nina has ignored my suggestions that she agree to reasonable limits on behavior and politely request an unblock. She has repeatedly posted my name on this page, to repeatedly and annoyingly draw my attention when there's nothing new to look at. Many features of Wikipedia can be abused to annoy other editors, including the little red notification square. (As an administrator I am prepared to endure such annoyances indefinitely, but of course if somebody else spontaneously decides to end them, I welcome that.) Nina, Future Perfect has given you good advice on how to file a successful appeal. Please consider it. If you want to publish complaints about Wikipedia, please consider using Blogspot, Wordpress or some other site where such personal commentary is welcomed. For the record I did not request Future Perfect take this action, nor did I correspond with him at all about this. Jehochman Talk 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Fut.Perf., in all of the above it seems to be overlooked that NinaGreen is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia in the field of English history. As I see it, we need to take a step back from the surely not very significant forms of "disruption" which have been suggested recently and see if the matter can be resolved amicably. I should like to see what can now be sorted out, and to assist in that I should be grateful if you would unblock NinaGreen's access to this talk page. I do not see that there can be much harm in it, and it would improve the transparency of how this matter is resolved. Moonraker ( talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Nina, I was forwarded an email thread by you, which suggests that you have emailed a half-dozen WMF staff and tried to email every WMF trustee some of your lengthy comments above, many times over the past week. This is not helpful.
Please keep any discussion about this on the wiki (this one and Meta). These sorts of wiki governance and policy issues are owned and run by the community, and any disputes are resolved within the community. The WMF and its board are not a court of appeals.
Writing as a community member, it seems to me that you have gotten good advice above, and are frustrating your audience. Angry text-rich manifestos are not likely to gain support in the broader community. A concise, neutral proposal for change might stimulate a useful meta-discussion. – SJ + 19:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding mention by User:Paul Barlow. The thread is Abuse of Talk Page ownership. Thank you. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nina, I put a barnstar on your user page. It got whited out, so I thought I'd tell you here. I hope you get the account block taken back one day. Italick ( talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Nina. I am proposing at WP:AN that you be unblocked. Italick ( talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | ||
belatedly awarded for 25+ DYK creations/expansion DarjeelingTea ( talk) 06:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC) |
Future Perfect at Sunrise, could you please answer this, is NinaGreen able to edit her talk page now? Moonraker ( talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going to unblock the account. This could have been resolved immediately after the block if the NinaGreen had simply requested unblock and agreed to stop the various negative behaviors documented in their block log. Let's see what happens. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Someone kindly informed me via email today that I've been 'unblocked'. I'd like some official clarification from the arbitrators as to what 'unblocked' actually means, and what the status of the topic ban is after 10 years or whatever amount of time it's been since the Wikipedia arbitration. Nina Green
You are unblocked for now. You can edit constructively, or not. The choice is yours. The topic ban imposed by ArbCom is indefinite length. [51]. It appears to still be in effect. My unblock has no effect either way on that. If you want to know for sure, ask an arbitration clerk . Jehochman Talk 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
An arbitration clerk can't rule on this. The arbitrators need to rule on it. The topic ban has been in effect for ten years, and is vast (anything connected to Shakespeare or Edward de Vere). Shakespeare and Edward de Vere, and people, literary works and historical events connected to them, are my area of expertise (see my website, which has hundreds of transcriptions of original documents from the period). What would be the point of attempting to edit? It would be impossible to avoid infringing the topic ban. Nina Green
The lengthy and thoroughly sourced Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere I wrote a decade ago is essentially as it was when I wrote it. In short, the author of the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere has been indefinitely topic-banned by Wikipedia for 10 years and counting from editing on Edward de Vere. It's difficult to overstate the irony of this, don't you think? Nina Green
Not sure where you got that scenario. In any event, it's incorrect. Check the arbitration. Frankly, I think it's best not to speculate, and just let the arbitrators rule on this. It's their call as to whether they want to lift the topic ban after 10 plus years, or whether they just want to keep on keeping on. Nina Green
I'm not filing an appeal. Ten years and counting is long enough for any topic ban, and the arbitrators can lift the ban on their own initiative if they choose to do so. Nina Green
This decision just in the news today re Facebook:
>“It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored,” the board said.<
Why should Wikipedia be able to do what is impermissible for Facebook? Wikipedia blocked me indefinitely (a block which has only just now been lifted after many years), and imposed an indefinite topic ban (which has not yet been lifted, and for which no criteria were stated in the arbitration as to when it would be lifted). Impermissible, according to today's news story quoted above. The arbitrators should life the topic ban of their own accord. Nina Green
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi NinaGreen! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.
Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.
Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)