text:
User talk:Smurrayinchester

{| style="text-align:left; border:0px outset #99FFBB; background-color:#00DD77; -moz-border-radius: 15px;"
 * colspan=3 style= "text-align:center;background:#007722; color:white;-moz-border-radius: 15px;"|Contents
 * - padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"

Merge proposal
Hi, if you want to propose merging two articles you need to put the merge template on both articles and have them both point to a section on the destination article's talk page that gives your reasons why they should be merged so others can comment - see wp:merging. Richerman   (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Open–closed political spectrum
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Bamber Bridge
Vanamonde (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Government News Network

The article Government News Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Notability (media) and Notability (websites)"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Homepage?
Congratulations on the promotion to FA status of your Northern England article. I think it would make for an excellent article on the home page. I think you should propose it at WP:TFAR. I will certainly support it. Best, Edwininlondon (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Have nominated it here Today's featured article/requests/Northern England. Smurrayinchester 08:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Northern England scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Northern England article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 4, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/September 4, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "an increasingly distinctive cultural area, shaped by centuries of Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Danish, Norman and Scottish invasion and more recently by the rise and fall of heavy industry"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election
I've nominated this article for deletion. As a contributor, your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Irene Clennell
Hello! Your submission of Irene Clennell 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) 21:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Irene Clennell case
— Maile (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Airlift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supplies ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Airlift check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Airlift?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for GRIM test
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

... and three --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NSB Di 8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Steel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/NSB_Di_8 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/NSB_Di_8?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission of Alem Bekagn at the Did You Know nominations page
Hello! Your submission of Alem Bekagn 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! --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States federal government shutdown of 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2018 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2018?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for AU Conference Center and Office Complex
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alem Bekagn
Hello! Your submission of Alem Bekagn 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) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Alem Bekagn
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrik (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for July 1968 England and Wales dust fall storms
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

List organisations in the United Kingdom with a royal charter listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List organisations in the United Kingdom with a royal charter. Since you had some involvement with the List organisations in the United Kingdom with a royal charter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Independent Group
Hello. You moved the Independent Group DAB page to the main title, and the art movement article to a disambiguated title. However, you've left all the incoming links for the art movement pointing at the DAB page. Could you please fix them all? You can see the list here. Cheers, Number   5  7  13:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:EACherryicecream.JPG

The file File:EACherryicecream.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Bad edit of Image:Cherryicecream.jpg for the now-defunct Esperanza group. Not necessary."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Let Nature Sing
Hello! Your submission of Let Nature Sing 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! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Let Nature Sing
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Lemony Snicket
Template:WikiProject Lemony Snicket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Like-Minded Persons' Club
Well done. Keep it up. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarbecovirus
Hi, did you think about renaming Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome-related_coronavirus into sarbecovirus ? This would make it clearer and more accurate with respect to the scientific literature (look at page 7). Sarbcovirus is a "subgenus" of the genus betacoronavirus. Reuns (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For what it's worth, I went with Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus as the title because that's the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses nomenclature for the species. That said, it looks like Sarbecovirus taxonomy is currently a mess (there's no current distinction between Sarbecovirus and the SARS-related coronavirus species) and it seems perfectly plausible to me that when this is all over there will be a reorganisation that puts SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in different species under Sarbecovirus. This probably needs input from people who know more than me at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. Smurrayinchester 14:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Smurrayinchester I'm not saying Sars-related doesn't exist in the taxonomy, but according to https://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/ it is the only "species" of the subgenus sarbecovirus,

Riboviria › Nidovirales › Cornidovirineae › Coronaviridae › Orthocoronavirinae › Betacoronavirus › Sarbecovirus › Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus
 * so it would make it clearer to group Sars-Cov, Sars-Cov-2, Bat_SARS-like_coronavirus_WIV1 into the sarbecovirus subgenus (the article doesn't exist yet, all we have to do is to rename Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus and edit its Taxobox) Reuns (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases chart
Why "Putting a footnote inside the percentage breaks the chart"? I see the chart correctly, so maybe it changes with browsers? Can we put it in some other place? --151.48.13.156 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On Firefox, it seems to cause the bracket after the percentage to appear on the next line, making that row twice as wide. Smurrayinchester 12:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Relevance fallacies
Template:Relevance fallacies has been nominated for merging with Template:Formal fallacies. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Oxford Circus panic
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus

Hello, Smurrayinchester. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Wombat.svg

The file File:Wombat.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, is widely distributed on the Internet, no proof that the uploader is author."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Live laugh love
Hi there, with the recent page move made, can you please take care to fix all of the Clay Walker related links to the new article location? Thanks. DLManiac (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They should all be fixed now. Smurrayinchester 12:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Photography game
—valereee (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Need help for creation of finance and business pages.
Dear fellow Wikipedian, Despite having been off Wikipedia for sometime now, I am coming back with a few specific ideas in mind for which I may need to get help and advice. I am looking to create a few Wikipedia pages about various financial institutions which are quite high in notability but have not yet been covered, however, despite my experience and my knowledge of the field, I am new to this kind of content.

Therefore, I am looking for other, recognized editors that I could consult in case I need help or advice if I encounter roadblocks during my endeavor. I would need to get advice from someone who is well versed in the fields of finance and business.

Let me know if you could help me with this task and if not, let me know if you know someone on wikipedia that would be the go to person to help with such matters ? I am trying to contact a few administrators who seem to be highly competent in those fields but am currently having a hard time finding someone. Thanks in advance, SUPERGTOR (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the reply that I left at User talk:Legoktm -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Help me
I need help with editing protection templates around my data. Realme233 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Black-green coalition
Hello, Smurrayinchester. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Black-green coalition, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Criminal convictions
Being questioned is not a criminal conviction, receiving an FPN is not a criminal conviction, and under caution is not the same as receiving a caution. You need to be much more careful when editing in WP:BLP areas. DuncanHill (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Nargess Eskandari-Grünberg
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for a good one, featured also on Portal:Germany. Opera and Advent choral music on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 * }

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Greetings - note on the mods to Northern England.
Respectfully, rather than dropping a template on you - I'd like to explain things in my own words. Thanks for the clean up on Northern England.

I do think you removed language was useful - and terms like generally, perhaps, maybe - are not encyclopedic.

You seem a very experienced editor - so I do not think I need to push on this. I was actually surprised you left the language in the article.

I think the article has fundamental problems - I added citations as to the sources of where the area is - and I added the gov. regional refs months ago. They are administrative areas and they have changed frequently. The lack of citations was noted 'years' ago- but no editor has ever addressed them.

Some of this is also nebulous and editorialized as are many articles of this nature about this region.

I think these are certainly not contentious matters - again, looking at your excellent contributions - I was a little surprised at these edits.

Respectfully: Dr.BeingObjective (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. I admit I'm a bit confused. I removed almost no text from the article (If you're worried about the "Historically, there has been a significant challenge in defining what geographies precisely constitutes the 'North of England'" sentence, I just merged that with another paragraph slightly further down the intro and trimmed the redundant end of it) and as far as I can see I didn't add any "generally"s etc (the word "maybe" doesn't appear in the article at all, and "perhaps" only once). You're right that it certainly wasn't a full page clean-up – I only had a bit of time and mostly just wanted to update some outdated information and I also quickly shuffled around a couple of paragraphs that seemed jarringly long or short. If I have time I will go over it fully, but I didn't leave the article because I thought it was perfect and needed no additional edits. Smurrayinchester 08:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the reply.
 * The sentence was part of it and I do apologize - because, I rather followed a similar path of light edits, I really did not drill down too much when I visited the page - there were a few non-encyclopedic expressions, I did a few tweaks across the article -
 * I was born -- in Rochdale, my parents left many, many moons ago, hence the interest. I also took a run at Blackpool (that really upset a few folks) and English Language in the north, I suspect it is some nostalgic thing. Just in case you wondered as to why I might even be reading these things - these articles likely do not get a lot of traffic. My usual focus is on medicine/science articles.
 * Many thanks again, Cheers Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Nizza, Frankfurt
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Good job! Feel free to put your articles up at WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I added it to Portal:Germany and established a category for the related images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

British overseas cities on territories and dependencies
Hello User:Smurrayinchester, I recall you did some top work with some overseas historical details on the City status in the United Kingdom article couple years back, I am finally getting around after long-standing requests such as

Talk:List of cities in the United Kingdom Talk:City status in the United Kingdom

to spin those details out into a new article and would appreciate if you could sanity check it.

User:The Equalizer/Overseas cities

I'm still tweaking some sentences and am aware I could add some refs to the prose and update population counts, but any thoughts on aspects would be useful. I'll eventually mention on the above talk pages too (or might just go ahead once ready as several will see the linked updates on the main space articles) Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Also finding that as certain colonies received self government, the numbers of cities declared increased dramatically as the rules were not on the whim of a monarch and more defined on thresholds such as population and revenue which means a lot more to find, unsure whether I should restrict scope on the historical cities list for those and the dominions to either independence or responsible government being granted. Or just keep it as a list of key cities. The Equalizer (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Impressive work! And yeah, self-government is a bit of a grey area. I can definitely see the argument for cutting the list there. Otherwise it feels like every little village in Australia is a city! Smurrayinchester 13:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Cardiff Rift for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cardiff Rift is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Winter wonderland
— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Torchwood items for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Torchwood items is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Torchwood items until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

contacting admins listed as recently active
Could I request a look at the interventions of User:Maurnxiao in Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election, sections Infobox, Muslim Vote, and Workers Party.

A member of less than a week (although his very first post was challenging the status of sources as reliable, making me suspect he has been active under a different identity), entirely unaccepting of the principle of consensus, determined to see a level of coverage of one political party that is disproportionate to that given by mainstream news sources. Highly disruptive, unwilling to accept that his preference is not grounds to change the approach taken by the article. Time sensitive issue (election is in 10 days), so a quicker intervention would be desirable. Is seeking a topic ban suitable, or is some other solution more suitable.

With thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Obviously I feel an intense urge to defend myself after the way in which you have defaced my honor as an editor on here, but I should also really say that I had already acknowledged the lack of consensus and had stopped pushing for an inclusion of the Workers Party in the infobox with pictures should it be reintroduced. My question had been at what point does a regional party become significant enough in Westminster to be included. You had also promised to push for a "topic ban", whatever that is, if I should continue talking about Galloway in the talk page. I didn't make a single edit anywhere after that warning, and yet you chose to smear my name on so many different user talk pages? Maurnxiao (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Smurrayinchester, matter now seems closed. Kevin McE (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Smurrayinchester


text:
User talk:AJx

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.
 * User:Redwolf24/Bootcamp My own personal summarized Bootcamp.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 08:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:AJx


text:
User talk:Clean Pillowcase Needed

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Some users may remove personal attacks, and you may be banned from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. -Loren 08:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Clean Pillowcase Needed


text:
User:Thelistman

I am thelistman. I watch over the Big Rigs board.

title: User:Thelistman


text:
Talk:John Graham, 1st Viscount Dundee

Untitled
"He began his military career in the service of the French King, (Louis XIV), as many other Scots did over the centuries."

NB: Ambiguous - Louis XIV did not live for centuries.

"Dundee served in the French army for four years."

NB: He was not called "Dundee" at this time.

An only Victory
The legend of Dundee has done much to obscure the details of his career. Properly speaking Killiekrankie was the only time he led an army to victory in independent command. Up to that point his military career had not been one of great distinction. By precipitate action, and ignorance of the terrain, he allowed his troop of dragoons to be badly cut up by ill-armed rebels at Drumclog. He performed no decisive role at Bothwell Bridge in the army commanded by Monmouth. In the early 1680s he was little more than a policeman, chasing desperate peasants around the countryside of Ayrshire and Galloway. Rcpaterson 02:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultural references
Sir Walter Scott wrote a famous poem about him, which was parodied in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass". AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Graham, aka Bloody Clavers, is also a major figure in Scotts novel, "Old Mortality" which perhaps casts a rather too flattering light on him. 12.73.9.20 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

neutrallity and treatment of covenanters
some one disputed the part about Dundee recommending lenient treatment of the convenanters, why? is that fact wrong? or is did the tagger think that the juxatpution of that fact with the mentioning of his nickname "Bluidy Clavers" suggests that it(the nickname) is unwarranted. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There exists ample evidence in Claverhouse's own Letters of his lenient treatment of Covenanters.

With reference to the neutrality and bias, I think it should be the responsibility of those who use the Bluidy Claverse epithet to provide contemporary documentation to prove that he was ever called that during his lifetime. I'll wager none exists!

Lenient, yes and supported by contemporary historic evidence.

Bluidy, no! The term only appears a long time after his death and is only used by those who assert the 'saintly Christian nature' of what were ostensibly bigoted zealots - the 17th Century Scottish Taliban.

--Deeuu (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

this issue of Claverhouse's treatment of covenanters is indicative of a wider pro-Jacobite bias in the article and an attempt to form rather then inform readers' opinions.

Why is 'historians' in inverted commas. Presbetyrian "historians", whether you like their conclusions or not, historians they were. Also why the "so called glorious revolution" why not simply the "assumption of the throne by William of Orange" or some other neutral term. Referring to "the so called" glorious revolution implies it was not 'glorious'. Also why no consideration of the evidence that Claverhouse merits his title, 'Bluidy Clavers'. Extra judicial execution certainly was a characteristic of Covenanter persecution under Claverhouse. Whether or not the title "Bluidy Clavers" was "unfair", whether or not critics of Claverhouse were "historians" or not and whether or not the revolution was "glorious" are matters for the reader not the author to judge after a rounded consideration of the evidence.

It is extraordinary that no consideration is given at any point to viewpoints critical of Claverhouse.This surely should be a piece of history not a piece of Jacobite Hagiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Just to say that to comply with WP:NPOV neither a Jacobite/Tory or Presbyterian/Williamite perspective should be adopted by the article, although both should be explained. Probably the main issue is a lack of reliable sources to support the significant points.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 10:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

The 'issue of Claverhouse's treatment of covenanters' is actually taken from historical record. If you choose to infer pro-Jacobite bias - none is meant or intended - maybe you should find reliable historical evidence to the contrary.

The original article contained 'statements' supported by McFeeters who can in no way be described as a historian. The "so called Glorious Revolution" was not simply "assumption of the throne by William of Orange". Far more emotive, but factually correct "Dutch Invasion" was not used because the event has widely been described as "the Glorious Revolution". How the invasion of sovereign Kingdoms by a foreign power can be claimed to be a "Revolution", or that the event was "Glorious" is almost beyond comprehension. The annexation of Austria in 1938 is a closer parallel.

"The History" has invariably been written by the victor - in this case the Williamite Dutch and their Hanoverian successors who were very adept at propaganda. This does not make it any more true. John Churchill (hero of Blenheim) is a case in point. Like Claverhouse, he held a Royal Commission. When the Dutch invaded Churchill deserted his post and 'went over to the enemy'. Yet history records him an English National hero. Claverhouse remained at his post, remained loyal to his commission, yet was branded a traitor and his name has been subsequently blackened by later 'historians'.

History must be contextualised. The best evidence currently available shows Claverhouse to have been anything but a tyrant. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he appears not to have indulged in committing atrocities. In fact the evidence suggests he continually urged restraint and tolerance. Many issues have been clouded by later Presbyterian propagandists who write of 'martyrdom' and 'saints'. If we accept that men at arms, committing cold blooded murder can be 'martyrs' and 'saints' then we need to consider how we view the modern day Taliban who claim precisely the same about their adherents. Like it or not, we must view the period from the perspective of the laws and social behaviour of the time. If we do this and apply known historically supportable facts, then there is no Jacobite Hagiography at all - merely historically supported facts. To hold a Royal Commission required the holder to obey their Sovereign, uphold the laws of the Kingdoms and defend both. Claverhouse did what his duty required him to do. There would appear to be no genuine evidence to the contrary.

Deeuu (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * You seem to have misread my argument here. I am not arguing that Claverhouse should be treated like a tyrant, quite the reverse. The later part of your statement reads like an argument for bias "because it is true". What is much more important in a Wikipedia article is balance. To quote that section of the guidelines: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". The bit that follows on tone may also be important here.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 07:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems that way. I can see how you could construe my final paragraph reading 'like an argument for bias "because it is true"'. However, that is genuinely not my intention. I would contest that bias is a subjective element that can be applied. Although I would suggest that if bias appears to exist, it is maybe because an alternative viewpoint is expected, but not presented. Possibly because no properly authenticated alternative facts exist?

Much has been written about Claverhouse and the 'Glorious Revolution" that contains massive bias and untruth - little has been done to redress this imbalance, or more importantly provide a truthful, factual account. Maybe the article requires an additional section that deals with the Williamite and Presbyterian propaganda? It could include the "Bluidy Claverse myth" (I have yet to see an original contemporary source for this), the Wigtown Martyrs story (still widely told as a fact in some Scottish classrooms), 'John Brown martyr' and the good old 'silver bullet fable'. Please don't take this suggestion as me being flippant, I am definitely not.

Deeuu (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you have sen no contemporary evidence that Claverhouse was responsible for the death of Covenanters? I am very happy to provide it if necessary. There is within 100 yards of where I am sitting a gravestone naming a soldier under Claverhouse's command as responsible for the killing of a covenanter and within 15 miles there is one naming Claverhouse himself. Wheter the covenanters were saints and Martyrs or not (incidentally protestants hold with the sainthood of all beleivers so in their understanding the covenanters were saints, but thats by the by)is not relvant to questions about how Claverhouse prosecuted his campaign against them.

Do you not see how profound your bias is? You suggest a section on "Williamite and Presbytyrian Propoganda"and one on "The bluidy Clavers Myth". It is not for you as the author to tell the reader whether one interpritation or another is propoganda or myth.

Finally to suggest that the History was written by the Williamites is wrong. Whoever wrote the academic history, Jacobitism has always won the cultural battle. Tell me one popular book about a whig and I'll name five about the Jacobites, find one song about covenating and I'll find you 20 about the glorious 45. The Hanoverian propoganda machine obviously wasn't that succesful. Old Bonnie Dundee has had some pretty good propoganda himself (I could sing you a bit if you want). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

I said no historically sound evidence has been provided to support the alleged "atrocities of Claverhouse". If you have the evidence that you claim to, then yes, provide it. That is the whole point - getting to the truth - after all. Although it will have to be a little more substantial that some engraved stones. Claverhouse's own grave is wildly inaccurate about his age! And then - not withstanding the copious historical records of the day which include field reports, correspondence and papers of the Scottish Parliament - there is the small matter of Claverhouse's 'status' during the "Killing Time" itself.

During the "Killing Time" Claverhouse was very much out of favour with the Scottish Parliament. He had his judicial powers in Galloway removed. These were given over to Douglas. Hence Andrew Hislop was given over to Johnstone with an appeal for leniency NOT as is often misreported "murdered by Claverhouse". The "Killing Time" was perilous for Claverhouse himself if one reads the historical record. His powerful enemies would have loved any reason to further discredit and even punish him, if any had presented itself. Any of the "atrocities" that have later been ascribed to him would have allowed his enemies to bring about his ruin- yet this didn't happen - some would conclude that this is telling in itself?

Given that those who the historical records suggest were really responsible for the deaths - call them executions, murders, whatever you will - during the "Killing Time" were those who deserted their posts and joined William and his Catholic mercenary army soon after it invaded England. Is it any surprise that these 'martyrs monuments' - erected long after the events they speak of - but in all likelihood still during a time that these people held power in Edinburgh, don't name Douglas and others, but rather, they safely name their collective enemy Clavehouse - long dead and unable to defend his good name.

I refute that there is any "profound bias" as you put it. Clearly reading your final paragraph you don't do irony very well! I have read extensively from existing records; Parliamentary documents, Clavehouse's correspondence, the correspondence of others etc. and from this it seems fairly clear that the Williamites and the Presbyterians made extensive use of propaganda. Daniel Defoe, a known spy and liar figures large in some of this. Equally as I have pointed out above, 'gravestones' have been erected and clearly mislead or downright lie about events. Copious evidence exists to show that the Covenanters had a peculiar definition of murder and a martyrdom. This definition only seems to have applied to 'the Saints' and not to anyone else. For instance Archbishop Sharpe was not murdered, or a martyr specifically because he was not a Covenanter. You only have to read Wodrow or McFeeters to see clear evidence of Presbyterian propaganda. And, yes, as the author, if clear evidence of propaganda exist you need to explain and contextualise it surely?

As far as the 'academic history' goes, Thomas Babbington Macauley has been largely responsible for the inaccurate and lazy history that has barely been challenged subsequently. As for the cultural history, you cite a perfect example where you use monumental inscriptions to support your view. Your comments about Whigs and Jacobite popularity demonstrate how emotively people respond to the subject matter without ever looking at or challenging the whole issue with much academic rigour. My personal opinion is that Claverhouse was no more a Jacobite - in the sentimentalised, culturally cute sense of the word - than was Cameron of Lochiel. Both were Scots, first and foremost and had James VII predeceased Charles II - or any other permutation that would have provided a universally acceptable Scots Monarch - then he would have been equally loyal to them. At least that is what the actual history suggests!

My interest is the historical truth rather than culturally comfortable opinion. If you can add to this by providing real evidence I wholehearted welcome whatever you turn up.

Deeuu (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I am starting to think this is a little pointless, I will provide one example, Specifically the grave of Matthew McIlwriath in the churchyard at Colmonell. The text of which reads "‘I Matthew M’Ilwraith in Parish of Colmonell, By bloody Claverhouse I fell, Who did Command that I should die, For owning Covenanted presbytery. My Blood a Witness still doth stand, ‘Gainst all defections in this Land." The occurence of this event is supported by Shields who records "Item. the said Claverhouse Authorised his Troop to kill Matthew McKelwrath, without any Examination, in the Paroch of Camonel in Carrick, Anno 1685." (Shields, A Short Memorial, 35.)Whilst the current gravestone is a copy we know that it reproduces an inscription in place by 1730 at the latest.

Does that qualify as evidence that Claverhouse killed at least one covenanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it "a little pointless"? The point surely is to discover the truth. To do this evidence is required. The fourth line of the monumental inscription says much doesn't it - "For owning Covenanted presbytery"? Now what could that mean in the context of the times?

As I mentioned before, Claverhouse was 'out of favour' during the Killing Time. Therefore, if he "authorised his Troop to kill Matthew McKelwrath, without any Examination" as Shields claims, he would have laid himself open to a variety of charges that his enemies - specifically his superior Colonel Douglas and the powerful Queensberry - would most certainly have pressed home to their advantage and this would have been documented. Likewise if no examination had taken place, surely the monument would not include the "For owning Covenanted presbytery" line, as it would not have been true?

The cases of John Brown, John Browning and Andrew Hislop provide us with clear historical evidence of the methods employed by Claverhouse. The case of Matthew McIlwraith is clearly inconsistent with this and therefore it raises some doubt whether Claverhouse was involved at all. As there is no date - sad given Shield's precision thirty years later in his 1715 "A true and faithful relation of the sufferings of ... mr. Alexander Shields, written with his own hand" - it makes it hard to conclude much. In the early part of the year Claverhouse was nowhere near Colmonell, later he was in Edinburgh and finally in London.

On balance the evidence would seem to suggest the possibility that McIlwraith refused to take the Abjuration Oath and was (in the context of the times) legally executed. Although who carried out the deed is not at all clear. As has already been stated, at the time, Claverhouse was in dispute with Colonel Douglas and Queensberry, the High Treasurer. (Fountainhall, Historical Notices, II, 633.) On 27 March, 1685, Colonel Douglas was given an extensive commission to suppress the Society people in the western and southern shires. At the Revolution in 1688, unlike Claverhouse, Lieutenant General Douglas quickly switched sides and brought his troops over to William of Orange. Douglas’s well-known support for William of Orange may explain why his specific role in the the western and southern shires has slipped just beyond the reach of history. However, it is beyond doubt that the Colonel Douglas who was one of William’s trusted generals at the Battle of the Boyne, persecuted Covenanters. (Dalton, Scots Army, 78-86; Fountainhall, Historical Notices, II, 636.)

Another interesting fact about the McIlwraith death is the imaginative account of Defoe in 1717 in which the unwitting man is shot down in cold blood while crossing the street. Which might account for the monument - apparently erected at least forty five years after the event - being slightly inaccurate to say the least.

I think it is highly improbably to assume that Claverhouse did not kill any Covenanters. He would almost certainly have done so at Drumclog, Bothwell and the defence of Glasgow. The case of John Brown is one which he freely admits to and he writes about in some detail. I have never claimed that Claverhouse did not kill a single Covenanter - that would just be naive - however, what I do contest is that he only did so (in a historical context) as his duty required, legally and as a last resort. Therefore, the claims that he was some bloody sadist spurred on by the Devil are unjust and a hideous distortion of history and needs to be properly reassessed.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Deeuu (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A few points, firstly what are your sources for Claverhouse's treatment of Andrew Hislop, I am only familiar with accounts from Shields and Wodrow.If these are your sources you must concede that accepting Shields account when it is favorable to Claverhouse and rejecting it when it is critical lays you open to charges of being rather selective.

Secondly, my reading does not lead me to believe that extra judicial execution was a matter for censure it seems to have been pretty common. Indeed their is compelling evidence that troops under Douglas' command conducted exactly such executions. Specifically I would point you to the execution of Edward McKeen at Dalwyne near Barr as recorded by Shields and Wodrow.

These historical records along with both McKeen's gravestone (I do love a grave stone) inscription "1685, here lies Edward McKeen who was shot in this parish by Cornet James Douglas...". (the James Douglas named was in fact James Dundas an officer of Dragoons under Douglas' command) and at least one other gravestone naming Cornet James Douglas, would also go some way to refuting the suggestion that all evidence of Douglas' crimes has slipped beyond the reach of history.

If the monument to McIlwraith had been erected because of Defoe's account why does it say "For owning Covenanted presbytery". No-one owns covenanted presbytery in Defoe's account they just cross the road. We know it was there in 1730, but it may well have predated Defoe.

Finally, whether or not Claverhouse was elsewhere early in 1685, he was certainly in Ayrshire later in the year. One of his letters dated 03 May puts him at Galston. Which at a rough guess must be 40 or 50 miles from Colmonell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.210 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My sources are certainly not Shields or Wodrow. Napier, Morris, Sandford, Barrington and Scott; all deal with Claverhouse's alleged mistreatment of Covenanters. Invariably they conclude that when official facts are reviewed, Claverhouse did not commit atrocities in the manner that Shields, Wodrow, Walker, Defoe and MacAuley all claim! It is important to note that Shields was a 'Cameronian' during the 'Killing Time' so it is hardly surprising that he does not 'record' events in a balanced and factual manner. As we have seen, if he had done so we would have some reasonably accurate dates for these events which would allow one to marry up official records with events. Wodrow often simply repeats Shields and embellishes it with religious interpretations of his own.

I was not suggesting that Defoe's account was used verbatim, but rather that his 'fact' - Claverhouse butchered someone here - was siezed upon and embellished using Shields.

I don't disagree with you that Claverhouse was in Galston in May, but as you point out it is 40 or 50 miles from Colmonell. In the 17th Century that is a long way away. He was also charged with watching the border during the Monmouth rebellion. So from May to July is seems unlikely that he strayed too far from the border regions. We know that he then went to Edinburgh to resume his seat on the Privy Council.

I wasn't suggesting that extra-judicial execution per-se was a matter for censure. I was suggesting that had Claverhouse done anything during his time 'out of favour', that Douglas and Queensberry would have taken full advantage and at the very least publicly denounced Claverhouse - they didn't - which, as I said is most telling.

Jardine provides a detailed breakdown of claims made during the Killing Times in appendix 049 41 of his thesis on the United Societies. These account for 113 deaths in total. This record includes "Edward M'Keen" but, interestingly includes the description "House siege and shot". M'Keen is also clearly identified as a member of the United Societies, which in context would have clearly made him an insurgent and would suggest that Douglas (Dundasse) was acting within the law of the time on this occasion?

This is a fascinating period in Scottish history, and as such deserves to be treated with the utmost historical vigour and scrutiny. Hence my suggestions for additional sections to unravel the layers of mis and dis information that the likes of Shields, Wodrow and MacAuley have presented us with.

Deeuu (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Graham, 1st Viscount Dundee


text:
Talk:European plaice

Orange Spots
The most distinctive identifying feature of the European Plaice is its pronounced and regular orange spots on the back, sadly the photograph is lit in such a fashion as to make this feature less obvious. We need a better photograph of a more representative specimen.

When you create an article about an animal, it helps non-english speakers if you create a redirect from the Latin name, because otherwise they often won't be able to find it. (I have done that now with Pleuronectes platessa). --Fred-Chess 08:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is this now a full article and not a stub? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celticbattlepants (talk • contribs) 2006-04-22 15:35:05 (UTC)

Abundant?
Re-inserted 'abundant' which was removed because the editor claims they are overfished. Overfishing and abundance are not mutually exclusive, abundance is a specific ecological term referring to population density. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celticbattlepants (talk • contribs) 2006-04-28 19:23:55 (UTC)
 * If so, it might be a good idea to wikilink "abundant" to an explanation of the particular technical meaning you have in mind. Otherwise it will inevitably be read as the everyday meaning. Henning Makholm 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are 6 links off the disambiguation page for "Abundance", none of them are the ecological term mentioned above. It is misleading to leave "abundant" in the article in that context. - 11:11 GST, 4 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.138.156 (talk • contribs).

The idea that overfishing and abundance are not mutually exclusive also depends on your understanding of "overfishing". If it is "fishing beyond quotas" than this could be true. But if it is, as wikipedia defines it, "fishing beyond sustainable biomass", than this is not true. Plaice have been at below recommended spawning stock in recent years (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2529) so "abundant" does not seem to fit by any definition. - 80.169.138.156 14:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that plaice have been overfished (but only in the North Sea), for many years actually to get to the current levels of spawning biomass. The term overfishing as applied to fisheries management refers to the use of the logistic model of population growth, the idea that increasing densities of a population reduces the growth rate of the population, and is manifested as lower per-unit biomass. From this model, fisheries managers attempt to reduce the biomass of the target species to the point where growth rate is at a maximum. This point, according to the logistic growth model, is when the biomass of the population is at half of the theoretical maximum supported by the populations habitat (maximum population supported is called the carrying capacity of the habitat). At the maximum growth rate, the highest yield of biomass can be harvested, this is known as maximum sustainable yield (or MSY) Now, overfishing is when the population has been reduced to below MSY, so, in terms of abundance, overfishing could mean when the biomass is at 45% of the populations theoretical maximum. 45% of, as an example, 2 million individuals, is still 0.95 million individuals, which is abundant by whatever definition you use. I use 2 million because thats how many plaice were estimated to inhabit the Firth of Forth in Scotland, and that is considered marginal habitat for P. platessa. My own work on plaice in this area suggests that was an understimate (due to incorrect identification of the extent of plaice habitat usage in the area). In Port Erin Bay on the Isle of Man, juvenile plaice were measured at a population maximum of over 300 000 individuals. I would find more examples but its 2am and I have work tomorrow (erm today). By your definition of abundance, this jncc page suggests that plaice are "within safe biological limits..." therefore, according to you, abundant, in the Irish Sea. Thats why ovefishing and abundance are not mutually exclusive. Organisations like JNCC, ICES, CEFAS, NFS, NRS and FAO etc use overfishing in that specific context. Now, I will not put the word abundant back in the article, however, I would like whoever removed it in the first place to look at the following link CEFAS Report and then please tell me which two of the species (mentioned in the second paragraph) in this scientific survey are most abundant. When I have more time (phd on plaice ecology requires immediate attention), I will add some references from primary literature. Celticbattlepants 01:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is another link to a peer-reviewed article, read the first parapgraph of the introduction report. Another (lengthy) CEFAS Report with relative abundance data in the Western English Channel, again showing plaice and sole the two most abundant flatfish species in this area. One final link here. Look at page 6. The estimated numbers of plaice in ICES division IV (North Sea) in 1998, was approximately 250 million.Celticbattlepants 10:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at page 5. "ICES considers the stock outside safe biological limits" for the North Sea, same for the English Channel. You are correct on the Irish Sea. This is obviously your area of specialisation, and I don't mean to step on any toes. There are, of course, lots of fish in the sea (ahem). I just feel that using that word in an article for broad readership about a food fish suggests that there is no ecological impact in eating it - a controversial claim. Maybe we're straying into NPOV territory here, but we can at least agree that there is no consensus on that view. 80.169.138.156 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus on the view of abundance, as I explained above. Terms such as 'outside safe biological limits' 'overfished' etc, refer to MSY and fisheries management. MSY and management are aimed at maximising a harvest. Abundance is an ecological term that refers to the likelihood of encountering an individual of a species over its range, there is no value judgement attached to the term. However, if you feel that using the word abundant gives an impression to readers, perhaps you can add the stock advice from ICES and other statutory bodies (JNCC etc), as I feel that removing the word gives the wrong impression. Your own, please dont take offence, confusion regarding the meaning of the two terms warrants this. If you like I can add a section on fisheries and then a qualifier for the word abundant to show the terms are not linked.Celticbattlepants 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not what the term means, but how it will be read. It's a matter of common usage and intended audience. I understand abundance as an ecological term, but this is not a specialist publication. Most people will simply read it as a synonym for "plentiful" - which does carry a value judgment, and a misleading one, imo. The solution here is probably to reference and extend as you suggest. How about a simple modifier - "ecologically abundant"? 80.169.138.156 10:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am working (slowly) on compiling this. I am in the middle of fieldwork and preparing a manuscript to be submitted for publication (nearly done). Once I have a bit more time, I will add a small section on fisheries, as I have already started it. I am having a hard time aimimg at the right level, so am fully expecting some help in editing once I have written and submitted it.Celticbattlepants 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on European plaice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130602131956/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Irish_Sea?topic=49523 to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Irish_Sea?topic=49523
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011050658/http://www.seafish.org/plate/fishandchips.asp to http://www.seafish.org/plate/fishandchips.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410205501/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-species to http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-species

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European plaice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008001434/http://www.seafish.org/upload/file/fisheries_management/Plaice%20Factsheet2%20%20final.pdf to http://www.seafish.org/upload/file/fisheries_management/Plaice%20Factsheet2%20%20final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060310232641/http://www.cefas.co.uk/fishinfo/fish/Plaice.htm to http://www.cefas.co.uk/fishinfo/fish/Plaice.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Update
Hello! I have recently done a project at university on the European Plaice. I want to add in some new references and update a couple of facts. Anna2624 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Age and size
I have updated the information on age and size. Previous information said maximum size of 100 cm and 50 years. This information originates from a fish id book which does not provide references for the information, and is unlikely to be accurate and cannot be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumpus (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:European plaice


text: Category:Beninese musicians

title: Category:Beninese musicians


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oilily

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. --Canderson7 15:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oilily
POV marketing swill. would be good to have an article on Oilily, but this isn't it. should be thwacked until a real article is attempted. SaltyPig 11:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep with information about the actual store rather than a jumble of obscure and useless data from the store's website Drdisque 07:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * okay, who's going to do that? i saw about 1 sentence that wasn't marketing dreck. it's not like anything's lost by deleting the page. sometimes i think these votes for deletion are viewed as though it's the last chance for the entire future of an article. the best future for this article might be to zap it so that somebody actually starts it right one day. not jamming on you personally, but i wonder what the value is in leaving up some of these hack pages. the vote for deletion is voting to delete this article, not any article that might be made about the subject later. if you can fill me in, please do. thanks. this general "keep everything possible" flavor i've noticed lately confuses me. it seems to presume that creating a page is difficult, as though we're fortunate that somebody happened by one day and left us these pieces of litter. strange (IMO). SaltyPig 08:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyvio tagged n' reported. BTW POV is not a valid reason to delete Ryan Norton T 15:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * re POV, i'm aware of that claim and disagree. SaltyPig 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Its only valid if it is not possible to make the article NPOV for some reason (like List of ethnic stereotypes). In this case its just a company, so it would be fairly easy to rework it from a NPOV Ryan Norton T 22:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * again, i'm aware of that claim, and i disagree. if you'd like to argue it, point me to the correct spot to let fly. i'm shocked by this VfD procedure. horrible! i gather we're not supposed to ramble too much here though. feel free to use my talk page if interested. SaltyPig 22:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oilily


text:
User:小籃子

xiao lanzi

title: User:小籃子