Tomb of Aegisthus DYK edit

Thanks for the edit - was the ping simply meant to clue me in (as you were kindly fixing up something I'd missed?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

UndercoverClassicist, yes, one of the numerous DYK rules (WP:DYKHOOK) says that the subject should be wikilinked and bolded, so I fixed the issue and pinged you to let you know. And then another editor fixed something else, which I had missed. TSventon (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I see - thought that might be the thinking! Thanks. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Verge (royal court) edit

User:TSventon Since the source cited is not online, I can't read it. I would be very interested to know, if you can tell me, who exactly it was that tried and fined the King? Even today, the King cannot be tried in his own courts, so who had that power in 1290? Textorus (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Textorus, the source is online at Google books, but access may vary by country. I had to search for "edward i" in the book. The book has a couple of sentences on the incident and says "At the wedding festivities of his daughter Margaret to John of Brabant in July 1290, Edward I struck a squire called Jean de Blaundyn on the head with a rod" and that Edward fined himself. The article recently went through the Did You Know process so I expected it to be fully referenced. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
TSventon, the source cited is now hyperlinked to the text, which I did not think it was the other day. I have now read the account that begins on page 25 and continues onto page 26, which, sadly, is not displayed. But I have rewritten the offending sentence to conform to what is readable in the source. I think you will surely agree that there is a great difference, in grammar and in law, between "the King was fined" and "the King fined himself."
BTW, I used to submit articles to the Do You Know process. It ensures only that one other person has glanced over the submitted article, but is by no means a quality control process - there is no fine-toothed comb applied to every jot and tittle of an article. Textorus (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Textorus, I agree that your version is clearer. To explain my comment about DYK, the article was newly written by an editor I believe to be trustworthy and then submitted to DYK, so I expected it to be fully referenced when submitted. DYK reviewers may or may not apply a fine-toothed comb to the article. TSventon (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank You edit

Thank You for Your help. J.D.K. (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Vermeer scholar edit

  Diligent communicator
I so appreciate that you hung in with me to sort out the Vermeer paintings for the Maria de Knuijt article. It's come so far!

P.S. I will wait to move the table over to the article until you've had a chance to check it out and make any changes you see fit. –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

CaroleHenson, I had not got around to saying that I saw the article because I watch out for interesting DYK articles, including Dutch subjects. Thank you for your kind words and especially for doing a lot of extra work on the article in response to my comments. TSventon (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Following DYK articles sounds like a fun thing to do! Once I got out of my own way (sorry, I wasn't on my best behavior this week) I really enjoyed it. I like solving puzzles. I am so glad that it is more accurate now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Moved to: Talk:Rowe Street Baptist Church
My digression now removed. TSventon (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Double D'oh edit

Thanks for the revert and links! I saw the red link, saw that I had "Minnesota" in the sources, and assumed the red link must have been wrong. Not my finest hour.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jerome Frank Disciple, thank you for your patience in working towards NPOV in the article. I watchlisted it when it appeared on ANI, but am steering clear of the controversy. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Further help with translation questions? edit

Hi there @TSventon,

My section on the Help Desk was archived so I figured I would ask here. I'm not sure if you can help me with this, but does starting/publishing a translation of an already existing Wikipedia page create a duplicate one if there's already an existing article? For example, the article Egor Kreed exists here, but there's a lot more content over on the Russian Wikipedia. I was planning to work on it with the Content Translation tool, but did not do anything because I feared it would make a duplicate and it would get deleted. Do you know, by any chance, a workaround to this other than having separate browser tabs open side by side? Or could the Content Translation tool help me with this? I read the Translation page you posted in response to my question, but now I'm kinda stuck.

If not you, do you know of another user that can provide better guidance? I was going to post another question on the Help Desk but I figured to reach out to you first with this. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Losipov (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Losipov, I am not an expert on the tool, but looking at Wikipedia talk:Content translation tool, Xaosflux seems to be helpful and knowledgable. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Losipov my best suggestion in such a case is to change the title of the page you are translating to a sandbox, for example User:Losipov/Egor Kreed; then go about your translation. Once you are done you can request to move the page over the existing article, completing replacing it. This may be contentious on a page like that (8 years old, 270 revisions). Another option is to do that, but only incorporate some of the translated information, merging it in. At that point, you would copy/paste in the sections, and note in your edit summary and on the article talk page that it contains some translations from (link to original source article on other project). — xaosflux Talk 01:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Xaosflux I have additional questions about translation so I'll ask them on specifically on your talkpage. For now, thanks to you and @TSventon for your help, for what it's worth. Losipov (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Notre Dame College of Education (Glasgow) has been accepted edit

Notre Dame College of Education (Glasgow), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for July 29 edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lindholm edit

Should we try to get her to GA? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Berit Lindholm edit

The article Berit Lindholm you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Berit Lindholm for comments about the article, and Talk:Berit Lindholm/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. --MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Precious edit

European culture

Thank you for your share to quality articles such as Berit Lindholm, Deutsches Romantik-Museum, Palucca University of Dance Dresden and Echte Wagner Margarine, for service to DYK, for diligent improvements of articles with good edit summaries, for de-orphaning, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipienßt no. 2873 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Gerda Arendt, as your examples show I stick fairly closely to topics that interest me. By the way, does the precious page need to be split, it seems not to show the last few names. TSventon (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The last month is on top, - is that what you mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I wasn't looking at the top. TSventon (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can just click on your number, or search for a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Gerda Arendt, I have today achieved the status of Passiver Sichter. Thank you for your help in reviewing pending changes for me previously. TSventon (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Berit Lindholm edit

On 30 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Berit Lindholm, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that dramatic soprano Berit Lindholm (pictured) was said to have been called "that damn primary school teacher" by the director of the Royal Swedish Opera, and used it in the title of her memoir? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Berit Lindholm. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Berit Lindholm), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is in recognition of your research diligence, your kindness in explaining things, and your collaborative editing spirit with State Children's Aid Association in particular, but elsewhere on Wikipedia in general. You are noticed and your work is appreciated. Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Rosiestep thank you. TSventon (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your value system is good, sir edit

Good, I say! (Thank you.) jengod (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

National Trust pilot 2 edit

Hello! Thanks for your with the National Trust 2022 pilot. Based on that work, the National Trust is supporting a second pilot, and some information is here WP:GLAM/National Trust. All the best Lajmmoore (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Another barnstar for you edit

  The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
Thank you, TSventon, for encouraging interest in machine translation and developments related to Women in Red. Your informative contributions contribute to improving user participation and satisfaction. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:WIR edit

I keep mistyping your username. I just came to let you know that I replied to your comment at the talk page for WP:WIR. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Scorpions1325, I recommend copying and pasting usernames, if your device can do that. My username was inspired by Ture Sventon. TSventon (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for looking over and responding to questions/posts on WT:WIR! Feedback is so invaluable, and good feedback can be hard to get. It is much appreciated Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy Holidays! edit

  |   ...thinking it'll be fun this year!

Seasons Greetings edit

  Merry Christmas, TSventon!
Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

RV (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas edit

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello TSventon: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply


A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 6 § Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peter Schreiner edit

Sorry, I haven't spent much time on WP lately, but I will have a look. ShockedSkater (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

ShockedSkater, good luck. Note to self Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 January 11#Referencing errors on Peter Schreiner (Byzantinist). TSventon (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

WIR technical assistance edit

Hi there, TSventon. As you have been pretty active trying to help us along on WIR talk, I thought you might like to take a look at our Technical support page and see if there's anything important that should be included. I am thinking of providing a link to it in our next invitation. If you are tied up with other things, no worries.--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ipigott, I have had a look at my scripts and several of mine are DYK related, so I have asked at WP:DYK whether they have a list, which WIR could then link to. It is probably worth asking on the talk page as hopefully some other WIR page watchers are more technically aware than I am. TSventon (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Although I have received credit for 325 DYK pages, TSventon, virtually all of them have been nominated by other contributors. I look carefully at the new nominations in connection with women every day and first make sure the articles have been correctly assessed. If there are significant problems with the hooks, I try to assist (sometimes just editing grammatical errors) but like several other WIR contributors I find the nomination process complex and time consuming. It's a pity it's not more straightforward for new participants as it can serve as a major incentive for them to continue editing. Some contributors, like you, seem to be able to cope better than others. Maybe on the technical assistance page we should include a list of contributors willing to help with DYK nominations.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ipigott, I get the impression that you are not overly keen on bureaucracy and DYK is fairly bureaucratic. There are tools that make it easier to submit a DYK nomination and I am hoping that it will be possible to make them easier for new editors to find. TSventon (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TSventon:: Helpful tools for nomination are to be welcomed. But for me it's not so much the nomination but the discussions which follow, sometimes with multiple suggestions for hooks running to pages and pages of comments. These can, for example, concern controversy between those who want to go for a really startling or even sexy hook which they think will attract more views and those who are keen to highlight an outstanding achievement in a specific field of interest, In some cases, the nominator is so upset that the DYK is simply withdrawn. Some regular participants are able to cope with this kind of thing to some extent but less experienced contributors can be really upset and ask for assistance. That said, I am always happy to be included in DYKs in connection with articles I have created or improved.--Ipigott (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ipigott:, I try to steer clear of multipage discussions on whether a hook is interesting. They are the kind of thing I meant by bureaucracy and only happen for a minority of nominations. For me the benefits of taking part in DYK outweigh the costs, but I can understand when other editors think differently. Hopefully new WIR editors know where to ask for help. Abigail Larson has just been nominated with my encouragement, so it will be interesting to see how it does. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 1 § Category:Indoor ice hockey venues on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Editor experience invitation edit

Hi TSventon :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Categories edit

Hi, you appear to be very knowledgeable about categories. Earlier you had a discussion with TheBishopAndHolyPrince (then removed by TBAHP). I came across TBAHP blanking two categories, and, coupled with a history of problems, I indeffed them for disruptive editing. Now I'm wondering if I was hasty. I believe what they've done is to create new categories and then blank the existing categories, essentially merging a bunch of articles from one or two older cats to one new one. I would've thought something like this needs to be discussed first. I also don't think they should have removed the discussion you were having. However, I'm not sure enough of my ground and wondered if you could give me your input. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bbb23, I can summarise what they did with Category:Combined authorities as
I agree that what they did was somewhat disruptive, I would ask an admin active in categories such as Fayenatic whether they think it was disruptive enough to block them. I notice they were previously blocked on 3 March 2024. TSventon (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much for taking the time to explain and for pinging Fayenatic. What about what we're left with? From what I can see, the user has achieved their objective, despite the block, by recategorizing many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bbb23, Fayenatic I have hopefully reversed all the out of process recategorisations, now the full discussion can take its course. TSventon (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Yes, I consider this disruptive, although the editor may have thought they were being helpful by doing the work. Copy-and-paste moves are discouraged because they (i) leave the edit history at the old category page to be deleted, removing attribution of the original category creation and subsequent maintenance, which will be preserved if we move the page instead; (ii) fail to update Wikidata, in this case ; (iii) leave behind the old category talk page; (iv) probably overlook other necessary housekeeping such as checking other pages that link to the old page; (v) when moving the member pages, fail to link to the consensus decision for changing the category. Using CFD may be confusing at first, and takes a week if the Speedy criteria do not apply, but for the first time in years there is hardly any backlog at the moment, so IMHO it's pretty efficient! Also, CFD allows for multiple editors to review the proposal, and they quite often come up with a better idea than the first idea. And a bot will do the heavy lifting to implement the move.
In this case it was disruptive to open a full discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_8#Category:Combined_authorities and then pre-empt the outcome. That is going to confuse and annoy other participants.
TheBishopAndHolyPrince also created the new Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities only with explanatory text, lacking any parent categories. So they clearly do not know what they are doing.
Whether sanctions are called for depends whether the editor, after being given an explanation of what they did wrong, pays attention to requests to follow CFD process in future.
In this case I note that the editor had previously been warned about edit-warring and then blocked for personal attacks. With such a messy track record, if the editor sincerely wishes to remain part of the community, they ought to be showing more willingness to listen and learn. – Fayenatic London 22:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fayenatic should the new Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities be deleted now or wait until it has been empty for 7 days.
Bbb23 would it help to explain to TheBishopAndHolyPrince what they did wrong, as explained by Fayenatic? TSventon (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The user is aware of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It can be deleted later, when the CFD is implemented – for the moment it stands as evidence for TheBishopAndHolyPrince to see what they did wrong. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
A huge thank you for your copyedit of Jumalan teatteri Seddon talk 01:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

source for "The Arch Street Theatre in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was during the 19th century one of the three main Philadelphia theaters for plays; the other two were the Walnut Street Theater and the Chestnut Street Theatre": Hornblow, Arthur (1919). A History of the Theatre in America. Vol. 2. Philadelphia; London: J. B. Lippincott Company. pp. 308–310. Arthur Hornblow Jr. has a Wikipedia page — but Arthur Hornblow Sr. does not. Suslindisambiguator (talk)

Issue with moving "Fishing in Turkey" to "Fishing industry in Turkey" edit

Hello, you were the one discussing this topic of moving pages at the help desk, so I'm coming to you for some help. I'm having trouble moving in particular the Fishing in Turkey article to Fishing industry in Turkey due to some disputes with other editors. They believe that it should stay as-is, even after I gave viable and practical evidence as to why it should be moved. I didn't necessarily consider what I would do if someone disputed, so what do you think I should do?

They already looked for a third opinion, who is siding with them, stating that fishing industry in Turkey would confuse readers, in terms of recreational fishing, despite that not making sense since you can always make "fishing in Turkey" a redirect, as well as the fact that wikipedia's search function allows you to find the closest topic to what you search, meaning that there shouldn't be much trouble looking for such a topic. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

SonOfYoutubers, I am neutral on this. Are you familiar with e the criteria for article titles, WP:CRITERIA? Arguably "fishing industry" is more WP:PRECISE and "fishing" is more WP:CONCISE. In either case the other title could be a redirect.
You could try a Wikipedia:Requested move discussion to get wider input, possibly including any other outstanding articles. If you do that, I would warn the other involved editors. Wikipedia operates by consensus, so sometimes you have to accept that other editors disagree with your arguments. TSventon (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright, thank you for the help. Honestly, I think I might just focus on other articles and just let this one be, but I can use this information in the future. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply