The explanation about the Electric Brae in Scotland is incorrect. The road is clearly steep downhill and this can be checked by a view of the sea. For the Electric Brae to work you must park opposite the RAC box and release the handbrake. The vehicle rolls the wrong way ie. Uphill because at this point the road actually slopes the other way. Because the hill is clearly steeply downhill you have to look carefully to see that,at this precise point there is a slight downward slope. Obviously nothing to do with electricity or magnetism or even a trick of the eye - you just have to look carefully as I did.
Giuliano Maiorana
Hi Peter, would you be able to correct the nationality and background of Giuliano Maiorana in the article, please? Because there's been a lot of confusion over this, at one time an IP made an unsourced claim that Maiorana's parents were from Avellino but I've found this interview where Maiorana himself confirms this and his nationality. Other IPs have since removed information and categories relating to this and I'm still unsure about were FIFA eligibility rules and him being born in Cambridge come in and how to phrase it. Let me know what you think, cheers. Theo Mandela (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Next time, communicate with us...
Peter, although our Wiki might be small in your (English Wiki eyes) it is still nice manners to communicate with the Afrikaans Community, good manners. I will remove the ban. Regards! Oesjaar (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
TLC Travel
There is a discussion going on at Talk:West Yorkshire Metro#TLC Travel about TLC Travel, currently a redirect to West Yorkshire Metro following a merger in which you took part. If you are interested, please consider taking part.--YTRK (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Dan Peña
Regarding your comment at ANI [1]: I'm not surprised. Do you want to fix it yourself, or identify it so others can? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I removed Seapower4 (the vandal account) from the list. Most of the others look like SPAs whether promotional or not; unsure about Andersonman - in some ways similar to the promotional SPAs but also BLP violation. Peter James (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikiprofessionals
At User talk:Belmop, you stated that Wikiprofessionals said Belmop wasn't one of their accounts. (Also that Cyberpower678 isn't, but that's not terribly relevant; I don't think anyone's ever suspected he is), and that they had falsified their list of created articles. I'm not seeing where it is they said that; would you be able to point that out? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Diffs for usernames (also mentioning HappyKatsu): [2][3]. List of articles [4] - the list originally included many created by established editors including at least one (Hornblower & Marshall) where they are unlikely to have been involved. Peter James (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Yeah, that's part of the general difficulty in tracking down paid sock/spammer rings. Belmop hasn't edited since 2018, so it's possible whoever was spoken to didn't even have a record of them doing paid editing. HappyKatsu is more recent. And yes, I suspect given their pattern of unethical behavior in general, they may have claimed to have written some articles they didn't, but in at least several cases the articles they claimed were written by known socks. It's something we'll have to carefully consider as we go through the cleanup. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- The only "evidence" was from a list of articles, many created by established users (Hornblower & Marshall wasn't the only one) - at COI/N editors just removed those from the list and copied the remaining list to WP:AN. The reply about Belmop was misread and that account was mistakenly identified as the main editor involved - in reality the two accounts blocked were selected randomly from a list that would have initially included many editors who were clearly not involved in this, so it's likely that many of the less active accounts were also not involved (although looking at their edits it's likely that some have a conflict of interest). Because of the lack of certainty the articles should have been taken to AFD if not promotional enough for CSD. Peter James (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- You were free to argue that at the community discussion. However, consensus there was that those likely to be paid spamming ought to be deleted. I understand your point, but I just closed the discussion based on its result. I did not choose what consensus the community came to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The only "evidence" was from a list of articles, many created by established users (Hornblower & Marshall wasn't the only one) - at COI/N editors just removed those from the list and copied the remaining list to WP:AN. The reply about Belmop was misread and that account was mistakenly identified as the main editor involved - in reality the two accounts blocked were selected randomly from a list that would have initially included many editors who were clearly not involved in this, so it's likely that many of the less active accounts were also not involved (although looking at their edits it's likely that some have a conflict of interest). Because of the lack of certainty the articles should have been taken to AFD if not promotional enough for CSD. Peter James (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Yeah, that's part of the general difficulty in tracking down paid sock/spammer rings. Belmop hasn't edited since 2018, so it's possible whoever was spoken to didn't even have a record of them doing paid editing. HappyKatsu is more recent. And yes, I suspect given their pattern of unethical behavior in general, they may have claimed to have written some articles they didn't, but in at least several cases the articles they claimed were written by known socks. It's something we'll have to carefully consider as we go through the cleanup. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Roxy the dog
Hi Peter sorry if this isn't your thing. Who can I report this user to as they have made snide remarks to my editing and reverting edits made without reason while claiming they are good at something but look down on me as not being able to edit. He keeps RV OWNING the Teeside pages RailwayJG (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Bigrigg
Note that Bigrigg has now been created which you started at User:Peter James/sandbox1 and I also contributed to. Maybe content should be moved and possibly a history merge should be done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Civil parish bot
Hi. You seem to have been left off an original ping list for this one. Your involvement in place articles could suggest you might interested in this topic. Thanks. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England/Parishes_RfC Acabashi (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
"Knighthood Village, Indiana" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Knighthood Village, Indiana. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6#Knighthood Village, Indiana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 06:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tunnels in Suffolk
A tag has been placed on Category:Tunnels in Suffolk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) you twat you removed me from wikipedia
Manor (feudal Europe)
Thanks. I had intended to do something more meaningful with the contributions history, and then forgot about it. Your solution works. SilkTork (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for revert my clients information
I had added some information which my client Shruti Das told me to add. But TryingToDo removed my clients information. Thank you Peter James for reverting my clients information. I'll add more information when my client Shruti Das will give me the rest payment to me. Thank you so much. I will add please save my added information if anyone remove those information. Jroynoplan (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Everybody knows what a singer is
Restoring this link was entirely unnecessary. Everybody knows what a singer is. If you want to link to a part of the MOS that says contextual links are sometimes and not always beneficial, great, but that part of the MOS also doesn't say anything about linking to terms that are universally understood. Nobody is going to be clicking on a link from Poarch's article to singer, wondering what it is. WP:OVERLINK clearly states that everyday words and common occupations should generally not be linked. Insisting on such links is of no benefit to anybody. Ss112 12:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- They are when defining, and "wondering what it is" isn't the only reason to click. If everybody knows what singing is, should the article about it be orphaned or even deleted? Peter James (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that because an article exists that means we should link to it? You sound like a proponent for a sea of blue. You know as well as I do that encyclopedias define common terms. Those articles are there for further information if somebody wants to directly search for them. If a reader has searched for Poarch, they presumably want to know about her, not click through to learn more about singers. Ss112 12:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Links in the lead section that define the topic can be useful there. That's why the overlink guideline includes the words "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article". Peter James (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- These sorts of disagreements always come down to some line an editor can point to in a guideline as justifying their actions. You'll find singers who have a far more substantial career than Poarch don't have the term linked on their articles (and before I have WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cited at me, it's relevant because it shows precedent that most editors don't consider it worthwhile to link to across Wikipedia), so I disagree that it's "particularly relevant" here at all. If Poarch's career goes on and grows in stature, you're going to find more editors disagree with you about linking such a widely understood term. Later. Ss112 14:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Links in the lead section that define the topic can be useful there. That's why the overlink guideline includes the words "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article". Peter James (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that because an article exists that means we should link to it? You sound like a proponent for a sea of blue. You know as well as I do that encyclopedias define common terms. Those articles are there for further information if somebody wants to directly search for them. If a reader has searched for Poarch, they presumably want to know about her, not click through to learn more about singers. Ss112 12:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Merry Christmas!
Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)