User talk:Jean-de-Nivelle

Hello. You reverted me in Ronni Ancona with a bad faith edit. see here: Assume good faith You didn't even try to use the talk page. This is unacceptable. Dava4444 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

You've explicitly assumed bad faith on my part. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I reverted your bold edit because it was unsourced and ungrammatical. To judge by your other contributions you seem to have a particular bias, but I didn't assume you were editing in bad faith: I thought you were probably inebriated.

I looked for a reliable source that describes Ancona as English, but I couldn't find one, while there are many that discuss her Scottish roots. Can you provide a source to support your edit?

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good cleanup on Friday. I looked up Bentley and the "Marxist" comment sounds more plausible coming from him . I would love to know how you are so sure of your info; do you have a hard copy? Page numbers are supposed to be provided - can you identify the pages? Mark^Dask 20:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The cited work is available on Googlebooks - snippet view only, but the fragments quoted are visible, all on page 10. We could certainly use some more sources, and I agree that the article deserves a rewrite. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Bicycle wheel: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. You might also find WP:TWINKLE useful. With this tool, you can automatically place such warnings. (see also Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Warn (user talk warnings) --TheImaCow (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Wikilink to "Huguenots" was an excellent idea. Thanks for catching my omission! -- 2603:6081:8004:DD5:6451:2AC4:EB73:1BE (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've been correcting the misspelling "Hugenot" wherever I find it, but the example on Jetersville, Virginia was present in an external link! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in a headline, no less! Sigh...fortunately there are astute editors like us. ;-) Happy New Year. -- 2603:6081:8004:DD5:6451:2AC4:EB73:1BE (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting to Alcohol rather than 'denatured alcohol' which is an absurdity for the reasons given. Dave 3142 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I still think "alcohol" tout court is too ambiguous, and we could still use a source for the "stated purpose", but I'm satisfied that there's no reason to call the cargo "denatured" on the basis of the sources we have. Best wishes. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the Battle of Krasnoi? It took seven years to improve this article. Taksen (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Seven years! I'll gladly take a look, but I'm not very familiar with the subject matter. Is there anything specific you'd like me to look at, or just copy edit stuff? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section on 17 November is rather unclear. I did not find many details which could explain, or improve the story. By the way, I had help from a Russian local historian, based in Smolensk, who concentrated on Ney. I am very satisfied with her help.Taksen (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This morning a Dutchman (Dijkgraaf) added some details on the talkpage. I hesitate to add them, as they go too much into the Dutch side of the story. May be you can take a look at that too?Taksen (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to do, and there's a risk of edit conflicts when the article is being edited so heavily. I may come back to it when I'm less busy. I can certainly copy edit, but I really don't know enough about the subject to make a significant contribution without doing a lot of reading, and I just don't have the time for that at the moment. Sorry! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did refer to the source. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! And so did I!

I can't see the edition you're reading, because you're reading it, but Duranti is quoting a speech Churchill gave to Parliament in 1906, as recorded in Hansard.

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I rarely look on Google books because access is so restricted. Anyway, the preview (which does support your spelling) looks like the 2020 paperback, though if you ask Google books to generate a citation it says it's the 2017 hardback, which is what Archive.org uses in the link I gave. Google books has got the 2017 hardback as well, but they seem to say it's from 2016. Best to specify what edition you are using, and never take Google's word for what edition they are showing you! DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps we should give Hansard as the source to eliminate ambiguity. Randolph Churchill also quotes the same speech.Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Duranti has "sordid profile" for "sordid profit" in the same passage - in both editions! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! How about use Hansard for the quotation and Duranti for the context of Churchill's views? I am loath to use a mis-quotation (even if just a matter of spelling conventions), but I think Duranti is pretty good for the analysis. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Would you mind taking care of it? I'm still a little unsure of myself when it comes to referencing. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a shot later on today. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and gave it a try using the {{cite Hansard}} template, because {{cite book}} was giving me errors. Would you mind checking it over when you have a minute? Thanks.Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your superfluous edits and edit warring. And please take part in the discussion on the talk page there. The Banner talk 13:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had only opened that discussion, at my request, two minutes before posting here! Please see my reply there. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted a discussion. So it is there now. The Banner talk 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - though you might've just pinged me there. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 48 hours. For future reference, WP:SPI might be a better venue as they can potentially look at other IPs and see if they are related. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 82.132.187.72 may be another one - when I saw this making a contribution to one of the articles, I sent a message suggesting creating an account to gain more privileges but then saw an edit summary of yours claiming block evasion at Hero Fiennes Tiffin. Also there is a tag "Reverted" appearing in your edit as well. I was not aware of block evasion until observing your edit summary. I will follow Ritchie333's suggestion should this becomes noticeable again by various IP address patterns. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggy the Swan: Thank you. I spotted 82.132.187.72 last night. It's an odd situation: I'm in two minds whether to revert those edits or not since the inevitable back-and-forth is likely to be more disruptive than leaving them in place, and by tomorrow he'll be on a different IP address doing the same elsewhere.

Other recent active addresses are 82.132.186.18, 109.144.30.248, 86.131.169.171, 217.163.2.182, 80.41.33.252, 51.6.35.255 ... the list is long! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that list is indeed long - too long. Obviously the IP address in the name of this section is part of the list. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief link cleanup per MOS:LINK. First few sections only. More to do"; in the interests of fairness, it should be all or nothing, you can't leave it half done. JackkBrown (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: I don't intend to, but I don't have time to finish now. I'll try later. Meanwhile, anyone else is free to continue what I began - including you!

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, the lowercase initials are correct; why on two very famous pages ("Messi" and "Cristiano Ronaldo") is this not the case? Then a question: are you stalking me? Obviously in the last question I'm joking, or maybe not. JackkBrown (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: It's not the case for Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo because you changed them both! Actually, on reflection I'm not convinced that I'm right. To my eye the capitalised version looks more correct - or at least, it did. But now they both look wrong.

I'm not really stalking you: I'm helping fix your errors in the spirit of cooperation. I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Reading about all this Italian food is making me hungry!

I'm going to make the whole Wikipedia hungry :)! What nationality are you? Sounds French from the name. JackkBrown (talk) 15:01 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: I'm British, but I lived in Paris for quite a long time. I chose the name - more or less at random - from a Serge Gainsbourg song. "Comme le chien de Monsieur Jean de Nivelle / Tu ne viens jamais à moi quand je t'appelle." ("Like the dog of Monsieur Jean de Nivelle / You never come to me when I call you.") There was a historical figure of the same name and an opera based on his life, but I know very little about either. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greylag goose is about Anser anser, but contains no information on the grey Landes goose, which based on information at Foie gras I guess is a breed of it. Could you add some? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hairy Dude: the thing is, most European breeds of domestic goose are descended from the (wild) greylag. The Landes goose is listed at "List of goose breeds", but like most of the other breeds on that list, it's currently a red link. It's even a red link on French Wikipedia. Wiktionary does have a brief entry for "grise des Landes", and it's mentioned at "fr:Oie domestique". I think probably the best thing would be to create "Landes goose". I'll add it to my "to do" list. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the things I should improve. I consider myself a useful user, but I should improve, I am tired of the warnings other users leave me. Write me a list and I will try to correct my faults one by one. JackkBrown (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it some thought. But I'll expect the same from you! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jean-de-Nivelle! Here's the paragraph I was editing:

"Von Braun had a charismatic personality and was known as a ladies' man. As a student in Berlin, he often was seen in the evenings in the company of two girlfriends at once. He later had a succession of affairs within the secretarial and computer pool at Peenemünde."

First, thanks so much for your help. Happy to talk.

1. I think that "Ladies' Man" could comfortably fall into the category of gendered language, and I know we're trying to work on that.

2. Heartthrob was my first pass at it to indicate he had charisma and good looks, which I think is synonymous.

3. I'm not even sure this is supported-- the source is unavailable so I can't verify. Maybe you have access?

Assuming that it can be, I think the best total edit would be:

"Von Braun was noted in having a charming and charismatic personality. When he was a student in Berlin, he was frequently seen in the evenings in the company of two girlfriends at once. Later, he was involved in a succession of affairs within the secretarial and computer pool at Peenemünde."

thoughts/suggestions? Doctor165 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see your point, but I think this is using gendered language to describe an unescapably gendered situation. I'm old-fashioned though. The book cited does use the phrase "ladies' man" on page 63. I don't have access to the full work, but what I can see seems to support the assessment. To me, "heartthrob" suggests celebrity and sex appeal, while "ladies' man" has connotations of maturity and savoir faire.

Having said that, I wouldn't have any objection to the edit you suggest above, although "noted for having" seems a more natural wording to me.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get it! Some of these phrases you cant escape from (see: scarlet woman, femme fetale, etc). And I was thinking about this too before I started over whether or not it's worth the edit, but ultimately realized that we don't call women with savoir faire a "man's lady".

And if there's a way to get the point across without using the idiom, we should try.

I'll go ahead and make the edit. Thanks so much.! Doctor165 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m sorry for changing redirect links to piped links because they actually link to the correct article for example in Edward VI Henry VIII of England redirects to Henry VIII. I will never do any of these mistakes again.

KevinNov3 (talk) 3:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

KevinNov3, please, there's no need to apologise. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the guidelines. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...just seems petty to me. Cavrdg (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavrdg:You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I just wanted to point out the broader context in case you were unaware of it. I'd left edits of that sort untouched because they conform to the MoS. DuncanHill reverted them (I assume) in the hope of discouraging a prolific long-term block evader. I'd hoped to initiate a discussion about it to avoid more pointless to-and-fro, but it seems nobody else is interested in trying to resolve the situation cooperatively. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if the petty edits are undone with a mildly critical summary the perpetrators will desist but that may be a vain hope. Cavrdg (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavrdg: I have got a talk-page. You want to call my edits petty you can do so there. DuncanHill (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavrdg and DuncanHill: Gentlemen, since the three of us are here, why don't we continue the discussion here? I'm happy to host. I'm sure we're all acting in good faith, but please let's keep it civil.

There's a principle, expressed here, that "anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason", so DuncanHill was quite within his rights to act as he did. Cavrdg was following WP:NOPIPE (and on this occasion, so was Harry the house), and had a right to do so. My stance is that Harry's edits weren't harmful in this instance, so I'd noted them but let them pass. I also didn't revert DuncanHill's edits because, while I don't think Harry's edits were harmful in isolation, I understand the broader context, and I don't want to encourage a disruptive block-evader, or allow him to trigger an edit war between well-meaning editors with different approaches. If Harry made only edits of this type, he wouldn't be a problem.

Cavrdg, Would you have undone DuncanHill's edits if you'd been aware he was reverting block evasion? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My question about an edit is 'does it make the the encyclopaedia better?'. If so, it's a good edit. No one would object to those edits if I'd made them without reference to their history. --Cavrdg (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cavrdg, I agree (with caveats) with your third sentence, but I think we differ on the importance of context. It could be argued that DuncanHill's edits were making the encyclopaedia better by discouraging a troublesome and persistent banned editor. There's a conflict in this case between narrow and broad contexts. You couldn't be expected to be aware of the broader context, and Duncan forgot to use edit summaries in the cases you reverted. The important thing is to resolve that conflict amicably so that we don't all waste our time reverting one another while Harry laughs at us. Would you be willing to leave DuncanHill's reversions alone for now while we work out how to deal with the Harry problem? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think Duncan has only undone one and I certainly wasn't going to get into edit warring about a something that was hardly worth doing in the first place. --Cavrdg (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely at a loss why Jean thinks he is improving Wikipedia with what I call a useless hobby. The Banner talk 09:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved from the section above by Jean-de-Nivelle with the edit summary: This isn't really the moment for it, The Banner. Please try to exercise some self-restraint. Happy new year, by the way.] Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why must I exercise "self-restraint" while you are taking my comment out of context? I was responding to @Cavrdg: above, not starting a new discussion. The Banner talk 10:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you a) stop using this script and b) self-revert your recent run of edits, as they seem to introduce links to redirects, which is discouraged. For example, on Ed Stewart, you added a link to the redirect Junior Choice. ([1]). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take a break, but I'd rather not revert for the moment while I check over my recent run of edits. I've been acting according to WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE, according to which (for example) [[Junior Choice]] is preferable to [[Children's Favourites|Junior Choice]] for a number of reasons. Let me check my recent edits again, and I'll get back to you. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that The Rambling Man said links to redirects were discouraged, in case the redirect changed in the future and suddenly the article pointed to the wrong thing. I know this sounds a bit like Argument from authority (ie: if TRM says this about the MOS, it's probably true) but hopefully he can give some further advice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no hurry, so I'll put the script on hold while we resolve this. I've checked all the edits I've made today, and they're good, as far as I can tell, per WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE. The advice given in those pages is that redirects are generally preferred to piped links (with some exceptions). Quoting WP:NOPIPE:

N [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]

Y [[Mozart]]

I think this is actually a disagreement about the interpretation of those pages in the manual, rather than a problem with the functioning of the script. As far as I'm aware, the script is doing what it's meant to do. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I think Talk:London Waterloo station/GA1 had a (bizarrely acrimonious) argument that had something to do with linking to redirects. To be honest, I looked through that discussion now and just thought "good grief". If you can find the actual claim I was looking for ("don't link to a redirect") in amongst that melee, then well done! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually went through all this in August/September of last year, here, and the strong consensus at that time (although with caveats) was that redirects are generally to be preferred, and the advice given at WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE is good advice. I'm going to be busy for the next few hours, but I'm happy to have a think and pick this up again later. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the script hasn't got any documentation. A link to that to discussion (to show consensus) would probably clear up any other confused editors like myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I think that's a good idea, but it's not my script, and it's still only a prototype. I'd be happy to help with documentation, of course.

There's quite a lot of background here that might help clarify the situation. I've been following the activity of a prolific block-evader - that was him above - whose favourite game is changing redirects into piped links, against the advice of WP:NOTBROKEN, and who refuses to stop, change his approach, or communicate. He will also sometimes change piped links into direct links in cases where the page has been moved leaving a piped link of the form [[B|A]], which he will simplify to [[A]]. This was causing strife between a couple of editors here when one editor was reverting the edits on principle, while another felt they should be retained.

I had an idea for a script that would effectively revert edits of the first type, while leaving the second type unchanged, so I put in a request here, and Nardog kindly came up with a prototype. I did quite a lot of testing before unleashing it on real pages, and I check the edits that I make using it. I'm aware that it does still have a few flaws, but it's been a very useful tool in dealing with Harry. It may not be quite ready for general use.

You've been here a lot longer than I have. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Let me just add that if you ignore the words "script assisted" in the edit summary of the edit I made at "The Who", WP:NOPIPE explains every change:

N [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]]

Y [[Mozart]]

so:

N [[Polydor Records|Polydor]]

Y [[Polydor]]

and

N [[Acton High School|Acton County Grammar School]]

Y [[Acton County Grammar School]]

and

N [[Marshall Stack|Marshall stack]] NNN

Y [[Marshall stack]]

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Marshall stack one is fine, I'm just not sure about the others. But that's my opinion, rather than consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the "Acton County Grammar School" example, it's also a redirect piped to a redirect. The target page of both Acton County Grammar School and Acton High School is actually "Ark Acton Academy". This illustrates one of the drawbacks of preferring direct links: if they're to remain direct links, they require constant updating as names change and pages are moved. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Here's another example. "Henry VIII of England" was moved to "Henry VIII" in July 2020, leaving a redirect at Henry VIII of England. 6,264 pages currently make use of that redirect. I looked at the first thirteen examples listed:

April 30 [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Abbot [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

August 16 [[Henry VIII of England]]

Acre [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Act of Settlement 1701 [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Apostolic succession [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

April 21 [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Aberdeen Bestiary [[Henry VIII of England|King Henry the VIII]]

Admiralty (United Kingdom) [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Bishop [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Bernardino Ochino [[Henry VIII of England]]

Bowls [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Christianity [[Henry VIII of England|King Henry VIII]]

and then I got bored. If the aim of the eleven editors who "piped" those links was to avoid a redirect, they must be disappointed now. Of those thirteen links, nine are actually piped links that could be replaced by direct links to [[Henry VIII]]. If they'd been constructed as redirects to Henry VIII in the first place, they would still point there, rather than going through redundant redirects to [[Henry VIII of England]] first. MOS:NOPIPE says, "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". That looks like good advice to me.

N [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]]

Y [[Henry VIII]]

Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Seems good to me. (Fwiw, I think Wikipedia is absolutely right to lead with the real name, rather than the obscurantist 'title'.) 86.177.202.175 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for the note. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, [2]. Please feel free to edit the detail. Best wishes from a habitual 86er, 86.180.70.13 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been preoccupied with other matters. Looks fine to me, though I'm no expert, and I might rethink that odd pre-existing piped link [[Crossbencher|crossbench]] → [[crossbench]] per WP:NOPIPE. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It appears your edit to John Mason's page: 18:10, 9 January 2024‎ was libellous vandalism - for example, added 'Glasgow Anti-LGBTQ rights' to the education section 195.188.14.222 (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your message. The material you're referring to was added here. When I deleted the deprecated "ideologies" parameter from the infobox, I neglected to remove the second phrase, "Anti-LGBTQ+ rights", which then became visible in the infobox. I should have been more careful. Thanks for fixing my omission, but please take care when using language like "libellous vandalism". Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i see - apologies for the misuse of the phrase, I did not previously consider there could be any possible way you did not add that on purpose if it first appeared after your edit 195.188.14.222 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jean-de-Nivelle. Thank you for your work on Mrs Bennet. MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

would suggest that you convert this into a disambiguation page and include all the real-life Mrs. Bennets

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Thanks for your suggestion, and for all your work checking new redirects. At present, Mrs. Bennet, Mr Bennet, and Mr. Bennet, as well as Mr. Collins, Mr Darcy, Mr Wickham, Mr. Wickham, Mr Bingley, and Mr. Bingley all redirect to their respective characters in Pride and Prejudice, and I created Mrs Bennet to conform to that pattern. I'm fairly new to this sort of thing, and while I certainly wouldn't oppose listing any or all of these redirects at WP:RfD, I'm reluctant to take that step myself, given the number of pages affected. Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that you have a good eye for detail and context. If you are interested in reviewing this topic, it is a Featured Article Candidate here. Please comment there if you see any errors/omissions, etc. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll have a look. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scots is necessary because Kings of Scots does not refer to the same link.

Yes, I see the need for the pipe now, thanks. I hadn't realised that the King of Scots redirect went to the UK monarchy article instead of the list of Scottish kings. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

2001:18C0:61E:D100:B4DE:3C19:488B:3D59 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for the message, although I'd already seen it over here. As far as I'm aware, I haven't altered any links of that sort. If I have, it was inadvertent.

There may be a few things to think about here though. A link like [[List of Scottish monarchs|King of Scots]] is only "necessary" if, for some reason, you want to take readers to the page [[List of Scottish monarchs]] when they click on the text "King of Scots". I'm not sure that's always a good idea. For example, if we look at the changes you made at "Alexander II of Scotland", the two links are actually serving different functions. The first, succession = [[List of Scottish monarchs|King of Scotland]], makes sense because the context is the line of succession of Scottish kings. In the second case, I think the link [[King of Scotland]] ("King of Scotland") would make more sense as a link to the general section article about the Scottish monarchy. A list of monarchs isn't always the most relevant target.

Could I repeat my suggestion that it would be a good idea to open an account and edit while logged in. It's hard to communicate with you when you have a new IP address every day. Please use clearer edit summaries to explain your changes, and slow down!

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not being a pain here but the link I deleted and you replaced as "the original" is corrupt as crud and dangerous. Please delete it fully. 70.187.141.56 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the note. I've tagged the URL as "usurped" per the advice here. That means the original usurped link isn't clickable, but the archive is still visible. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]