User talk:Strugglehouse

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dragons' Den, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presenter. 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) 09:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Change it 👍👍 Strugglehouse (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Changed Strugglehouse (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Lovejoy (band) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lovejoy (band). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Jarvis Johnson YouTube Profile Picture.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Jarvis Johnson YouTube Profile Picture.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Please familiarize yourself with the BRD process. It's BOLD-Revert-Discuss, not BOLD-Revert-Revert-Discuss. My edit (diff) was a revert of a BOLD edit (diff) which upended a guideline-based consensus that dates back to February (talk page) to not include every channel on Ludwig Ahgren. Kindly self-revert to the status quo ante, which was my revert. Thanks. Pilaz (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lovejoy (band) (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Doric Loon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lovejoy (band) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Doric Loon (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Strugglehouse! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Doric Loon (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Middle name

Thank you so much for putting Charli D’Amelio’s middle name because every time I put her middle name in, they keep undoing my edit. Abal126 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Abal126 no problem lol Strugglehouse (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Pilaz (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pilaz Apologies. I have made a new edit to the Wilbur Soot article, with an edit summary. Hopefully this solves the problems with my previous edit. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Amanda's last name

Hi, I watched the video but I can't see the part at 29:02 where he shows Amanda's last name. I just see a picture of them together. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vortex3427 Hi. I linked that part as a reference as the entire section of that video talks about how the two met. Her last name appears at 31:50. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lovejoy (band) (January 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Raydann was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lovejoy (band) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 12:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lovejoy (band) (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lovejoy (band) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF I've followed what you said and have stated a split discussion at the Wilbur Soot talk page. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool. When that concludes then we can clear the redirect link for the new article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF 👍 Strugglehouse (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF Hi. It has been seven days since I originally posted the split discussion. Do you know how many people need to say their opinion before it can close, and how long these things usually last? Thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF Hi again. It has been a month since I stated the split discussion. Everyone who has replied seems in favour of the split. How do I go about getting the discussion closed and the article actually created? Should I resubmit the draft? Strugglehouse (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not based on number of people, see WP:POLL. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lovejoy (band) (February 17)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Blaze Wolf was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: NOTE: I'm rejecting solely to prevent re-submission while the split discussion is still ongoing. Once the discussion is closed and the outcome is decided any user or AFC reviewer is free to resubmit this. Accepting this article while the split discussion is still ongoing would be inappropriate.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm only rejecting it since the split discussion still seems to be ongoing and the article should not be accepted while it's still ongoing. You are free to continue working on it and once the discussion is closed you are welcome to resubmit it and remove/disregard the rejection. The latest comment is fairly recent so once it's close go ahead and resubmit. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Okay, thank you. Everyone who has replied seems to be in favour of the split. Is there any way I can go about getting the discussion closed, or do I just have to wait until someone reviews and closes it? Strugglehouse (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You just have to wait unfortunately. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Okay. Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:CLOSE#Closure procedure say that "any uninvolved editor may close most [discussions]". Would you fall into this category? Could you, as someone who has not yet put their opinion into the discussion, be considered an "uninvolved editor" and be able to close the discussion? Or have I misinterpreted the guidance? Strugglehouse (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I am technically an uninvolved editor in the discussion, however I'm fairly sure I've become involved by rejecting the draft. And also I would much rather not close the discussion regardless. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Okay. It appears to have been moved to the article space anyway. See Lovejoy (band). Strugglehouse (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I tried to stay out of the actual discussion (i.e. arguing pro or con) and wanted to make sure there was indeed a consensus. If that's too involved then my apologies. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sentence-by-sentence referencing

Hi Strugglehouse! I noticed at Alan Davies that you seem to be under the impression (e.g. here) that references are needed after every sentence, or perhaps needed every sentence for certain types of content, like when BLP applies. This isn't a requirement at any level. For instance, WP:CITETYPE suggests that a reference at the end of a sentence or paragraph is generally clear. In some cases, a single citation at the end of a section might even be enough.

What matters is that a reader can identify which source(s) verify which content, such as a single citation placed after three sentences that verifies all of the content. As long as it's relatively clear, it's up to editor preference and there's no need to switch from one variant to another. Let me know if you have any questions! — Bilorv (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv Okay, thank you! Apologies for not knowing this before. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologise! Of all the things not to know, this is quite a minor one. — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Mrwhosetheboss YouTube Profile Picture.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mrwhosetheboss YouTube Profile Picture.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:"Wake Up & It's Over" album cover, by Lovejoy.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:"Wake Up & It's Over" album cover, by Lovejoy.jpg. 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. 185.172.241.184 (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Can't Catch Harry.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Can't Catch Harry.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Oddballs Book.jpg
• File:The Odd 1s Out Doodle Book.jpg
• File:The Odd 1s Out - How to be Cool and Other Things I Definitely Learned from Growing Up.jpg
• File:The Odd 1s Out Journal.jpeg
• File:Finger on the App Logo.png
• File:TheOdd1sOut First "Marshmallow People" Comic.jpg
• File:The Odd 1s Out - The First Sequel.jpg
• File:TheOdd1sOut Let's Bounce Logo.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lovejoy (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dork.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:JackSucksAtLife has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:JackSucksAtLife. Thanks! ASUKITE 20:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Asukite Hi, I've just read your comment, and I agree with what you said about subscriber counts. He has so many channels and they don't all need to be listed on there. However, I believe that YouTube reference are okay for basic claims, such as the existence of his girlfriend. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I might say yes to that (the basic claims part) but the issue is that if Youtube is the only source, we have to question if it's relevant enough to be included in the article in the first place. It's your choice, but I wouldn't be surprised if any article heavily relying on Youtube got rejected for publication, ultimately, I just want to give it the best chance of being approved. (and subsequently surviving a deletion discussion if one occurs) ASUKITE 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Asukite Okay, thank you. I think I'll leave it for now since the only things referenced to YouTube are his school and girlfriend, which are basic things and not exceptional claims. It can be changed in the future if better references are found. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:JackSucksAtLife has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:JackSucksAtLife. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dan arndt Hi, I just read your comment, however I am not sure what to name the article. I believe that JackSucksAtLife is more commonly used by sources, so it should probably stay as that, with "Jack Massey Welsh" as a redirect, per WP:COMMONNAME. Strugglehouse (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:JackSucksAtLife has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:JackSucksAtLife. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: JackSucksAtLife (May 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:JackSucksAtLife and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@S0091 Hello, thank you for your message. I will attempt to work on and improve the draft. In the meantime, is there anyway you could review Draft:Max Fosh? I didn't create this draft, but I have worked on it and I believe it is ready to be moved to the articlespace. Thanks! Strugglehouse (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert on YouTuber

Apologies for the revert, I must've hit rollback by accident. Yeeno (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yeeno No worries! Strugglehouse (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nihachu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nihachu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nihachu

The article Nihachu you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Nihachu for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Einstein

@Strugglehouse:Dear Strugglehouse, please forgive me for undoing your cropping of the photo at the top of our article about Einstein! That particular photo happens to be one that the Wikipedia community as a whole regards as one of the best that we have, and I think that we owe it to the photographer who created it to publish it in the way that he would have wished. I apologize if my reverting your edit has hurt your feelings. If you still think that your cropped version is better than the photographer's original, by all means revert my reversion—I won't undo your contribution a second time. Best wishes. Niggle1892 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Niggle1892 If it is generally agreed that the uncropped version is better, that is fine. We can leave it how it is. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	For your amazing work on Ricky Montgomery. Thank you! SWinxy (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@SWinxy Didn't know these were a thing. Thanks! Strugglehouse (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dream SMP, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Insider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@DPL bot Thank you Dee pee ell bot Strugglehouse (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ballinger

Thanks for the cropped version, but the point of the picture is to show the sword and the "magic" apparatus that went on Miranda's neck for the sword through the neck bit. The projection behind shows that Miranda is talking about how this boosts her "self isteam". Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Respect.

Hey man, I just wanna commend you and say keep up the fantastic work! I enjoy the way we've been discussing things on Twitter, and I like your persistence. I simply want to say that even though we have different opinions, you have gained my respect 👍🏼. The Man Without Fear ^🦇 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Man Without Fear Ha, ha! No problem. Thanks! Strugglehouse (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

FDM

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". Many publications use capital letters, including Companies House, but we strive for consistency and have therefore adopted this wikipedia guideline. Dormskirk (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dormskirk Okay, thanks. I'll keep this in mind in the future. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. It is not a big issue one way or the other. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

M&S plc

Please stop. As I have just shown with my last edit summary, the Government website specifically states "Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed" (gov.uk.). But what is even more conclusive it that the M&S source you provided as "evidence" actually, contrary to what you claim, states "plc". Technopat (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Technopat Okay, but companies write their name differently all the time. I think we should go by the company's documents. See their certificate of re-registration from private to public limited company. This is an actual scanned document which says the company's name. I think we should change it to "Marks and Spencer p.l.c.". Also see references like this. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Strugglehouse. Thank you for your response. Re your "companies write their name differently all the time", of course. Totally agree. No question... there are legal texts, marketing texts, etc., with little coordination between the corresponding departments. However, most, if not all the M&S documents/webpages you provide

Regarding the pdf you provide, it's from 1981, and since then, as tends to happen with language, things get "simplifed", so the "normal", as in standard for is "plc", which is what the M&S website consistently uses. Furthermore, as per said document, we should always write MARKS AND SPENCER (all caps). I'm sure you'll agree with me that that just ain't gonna happen...

Regarding the Bloomberg reference, that's a US source. In the US, the tendency seems to be to use periods/full stops for abbreviations; in the UK the tendency is to eliminate them: Mr. vs Mr; Dr. vs Dr, etc. As far as I know, plc is a British term with no equivalent in the US.

Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Technopat Okay, I'm fine with keeping it how it is for now. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Technopat I contacted M&S about this, and they confirmed that "Marks and Spencer plc" can be written in any way, whether with capitals and/or punctuation, or without. However, "Marks and Spencer Group P.L.C." (which is the holding company which owns Marks and Spencer plc, which I have just added to the article) is written exactly like that - when capitals and punctuation. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, Strugglehouse. I've just seen that the previous user, @Dormskirk, also pointed out that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". At the risk of repeating myself, the document you provided, the certificate of re-registration as a P.L.C. (the version in the document) is from 1981, the very year the public limited company concept was introduced. As per the orthography conventions of the day, abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms were written in caps and separated by those pesky full stops (dots). Typical examples were B.B.C., R.S.P.C.A., R.N.L.I., U.S.S.R. The list is endless. That is no longer the case, at least in British usage.

Likewise, as I pointed out in my previous message, that same document stylises the "official" name of the company as MARKS AND SPENCER P.L.C. (all caps plus the dots) and even you draw the line at that. The Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, which refers to 'trademarks' as all the "words and short phrases used by legal entities to identify themselves and their products and services. Often, these names are written in several ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and formatting"...

BTW, I have just removed the duplicated reference you added to the infobox and modified your "AND" to read "and".

And, finally, as your previous correspondent commented, this "is not a big issue one way or the other". Let's just leave it at that. There are plenty o' more serious things that need to be fixed here at Wikipedia, orthography-wise, and I'm done with this one. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Technopat Okay. Thanks for the copy edit, we can leave the page how it is now. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP editing

Please have a look at WP:BLP and WP:RSP, where you can get a better understanding of sources that should and should not be used in BLPs. See this edit where you introduced three poor sources to the BLP of a child. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Laurence Fox image

What do you mean here that the image was used in the article "for a year before this"? If it was previously removed, could you point me to that edit? My reason for removing the image was WP:BLPIMAGE: you need to re-read the sentence, This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. I quoted the part that applied, situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed, as the photo is obviously not a mugshot, and obviously taken without Fox's knowledge at an unflattering moment. — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean it was used in the article for a year before this. I meant that it the image itself uploaded to Wikipedia a year before it was moved over to Commons. There's also no proof that this was taken without consent. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Laurence Fox image to solicit more opinions. You might like to give your point of view in further detail if you feel it's unclear. — Bilorv (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Therichest.com as a source

Hi Strugglehouse. I noticed that you used therichest.com as a reference for biographical information in Jamie Oliver. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's no problem. I always like to put multiple sources for claims, but since that one is unreliable and the information is already sourced and remains on the article, that's fine. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Nihachu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nihachu 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihachu 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.

Sparkl^talk 13:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME on Kurtis Conner

Per WP:BLPNAME, there's no good reason to identify non-notable family members by name. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Prudential plc

You are experienced enough here that I am sure you would not appreciate me dropping a template on your page, but all the same, I am just drawing your attention to WP:3RR and your edits at Prudential plc. You have made an edit and 3 reverts now in 24 hours. The talk page would be the best option. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for making too many reverts.

It was simply the fact that there was no reason given for the removal of correctly sourced information. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not too many yet. I was just warning that one more would have crossed the line. Thanks for opening on talk. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whitbread. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverting you twice is hardly edit warring.

I can post on talk if you'd like, but I don't really understand why I need to prove myself when there is clear Wikipedia guidance that I am following.

Including the full company name is what we are supposed to do. See the guidelines I referenced. Strugglehouse (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

See point 2. in that template warning. But what is frustrating here is that despite the fact you are being reverted by multiple editors, you are still making the same changes, without discussion, over many new pages. When you are reverted your first resort is to revert back. Perhaps you could take this to a wikiproject. I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies as the appropriate venue. In fact, I'll open something there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP on Wilbur Soot

Adding content like this to articles requires multiple strong reliable sources. Please discuss on the talk page before attempting to add again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

www

Why don't you make some useful contributions rather than making pointless edits to URLs? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49 There's no reason to be rude. I'd consider the contributions useful. They're improving articles by making the infoboxes cleaner. Some infoboxes, such as Template:Infobox company and Template:Infobox station say specifically to "not include the leading www. unless the URL will not resolve without it". The ones for counties and settlements don't say specifically, but most of the examples given on there do not include "www.". There is no reason to include it if the site works completely fine without it. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to change all the many thousands of articles involved? It is something of a pointless endeavour and has no practical benefit. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Uh, this is needlessly hostile (especially to many underappreciated Wikipedia:GNOMES who do work exactly like this. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Amendments to infobox websites - good work!

Hi Strugglehouse - noticed your edits to the infobox website links as some are on my watchlist. Just wanted to drop by and thank you for your work in making what's shown neater and tidier. Revised a couple myself recently. Do think it's worthwhile and an improvement. Note also that where need be you've added a link to the official website e.g. Oxfordshire. Good work. Commend your zeal! All the best. Rupples (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples Hey, thanks for the thanks! I'll continue to add them as I get through them! Strugglehouse (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME on Max Fosh

Per our WP:BLPNAME policy, there needs to be a good reason to include personal details of non-notable family members. In this case, there's no compelling reason to discuss Fosh's sister's professional life with sources that don't even mention Max Fosh. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie Okay, thank you. Could we add back just her name, as it is mentioned in the referenced video uploaded by Fosh? Strugglehouse (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A single WP:PRIMARY source that mentions her name isn't sufficient per that policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)