User talk:Belbury

This is Belbury's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 2 months

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 3.

Happy New Year, Belbury!

Happy New Year!

Belbury,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion?

Hey bud, seen you reverted a few edits by ~2026-95674. I was looking throught their history a lot of them seem problematic to me, but before I go reverting them all I wouldn't mind a second opinion? Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 18:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! Someone else felt the same and has reverted them all!!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 18:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate Your Name Week

Hello, why did you revert to the old logo? It certainly seems reasonable to show the current logo. The one moved lower on page was 18 years old and though not the original, kept for historic reasons. NamelyU (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NamelyU: Hi, the 2026 logo you'd uploaded to Commons - I think you'd uploaded it saying it was public domain? - was deleted from Commons because it was a copyright violation. The logo at File:Celebrate Your Name Week.jpg is considered to be copyrighted to Wikipedia.

If there is a current official logo, we should replace File:Celebrate Your Name Week.jpg with it.

What was the story with your update, though? You'd asked an AI to change the date from 2008 to 2026 and to add more "primary colors" in whatever way it saw fit, is that right? That wouldn't give us an official logo. Belbury (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Belbury, Names Alliance has taken over restoration and management of the celebration and is responsible for creating the official logo. The logo first uploaded was produced by Names Alliance to honor the historic logo and appeared on the Celebrate Your Name Week webpage. When another editor here suggested that it might be in violation of copyright, Names Alliance created and posted a new, copyright-free 2026 logo for public use on their website that was then uploaded here. That second logo has now been removed without cause. The Jerry Hill Presents Names citation has also been removed in error as it is germane to the history of and the rationale behind the event. Third, in regards to notability, a Google search of "Celebrate Your Name Week" returns 4170 results including multiple curricula, media mentions and articles citing it as the inspiration, from thousands of disparate sources and geographic locations, spanning 27 years, all referencing the same celebration, dates and structure. Will linking some of those remove your notability caution? NamelyU (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@NamelyU: The orange box template explains the notability standard, you can read more at WP:N.

Where have Names Alliance released the logo under a copyright-free licence?

And which citation has been removed in error? I didn't intend to remove any citations related to the Jerry Hill website. Belbury (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is at https://www.celebrateyournameweek.org/about. There is express permission in the page footer. Thanks for the notability link, I read it. In many of the links, the authors explicitly describe the week and/or give it credit it for their own explorations into names: see for example https://hilite.org/78405/feature/students-with-mispronounced-names-share-experiences-in-light-of-celebrate-your-name-week/, https://sharonledwith.com/celebrate-your-name-even-if-you-change-it-by-sweet-romance-author-catherine-castle/, https://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/story/news/local/2017/03/04/name-matter-anyway/98603870/. The original webpage, last updated in 2014, lists over 50 countries where the week has been celebrated. Furthermore the notability page states "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" . The sum of these should be sufficient to remove the warning. NamelyU (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you may need to refresh your screen. NamelyU (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Zanesville Times article as a source. The Hilite one doesn't really mention the Week and it seems like they could just be mentioning it as context for running a story about an unrelated "My Name, My Identity" project. Sharon Ledwick's website doesn't seem usable under WP:BLOGS. Belbury (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the Hilite article is "Students with mispronounced names share experiences in light of Celebrate Your Name Week". This infers CYNW as a direct cause. NamelyU (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Page not being touched

Belbury,

the page List of The Curse of Oak Island episodes was previously only edited by its viewers, who don't usually make accounts. IP edits. But with protection settings it will never be updated again. MarvinUser (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Machynlleth Comedy Festival has been accepted

Machynlleth Comedy Festival, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Dear Belbury, I made a mistake with my edit. I didn't mean to restore it. Thank you. Resthighinthosemountains (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spam and AIV

Hi! Lots of AIV admins only look at reports through the lens of vandalism. Feel free to bring link spammers to WT:WPSPAM if they're not obvious enough for AIV. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. I put it through the Account is a promotion-only account tickbox on Twinkle, and I've found that admins have acted on that kind of report in the past, where the user has just added a spammy link, been warned, and then added the same link again, with no other edits. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Reliability of Vice

While Vice is generally reliable for pop culture, the claim being made here is a significant one. Per WP:RS, we should prioritize high-quality, independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking in this specific field. I suggest we replace this citation with a more reliable source to maintain the article's encyclopedic weight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotsOats (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury Thanks - you've made the page much better. One other suggestion, if you look at the current chai app - the pink is no longer what the app looks like. This outdated image may cause confusion. I updated it with something that is more accurate. ScotsOats (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biryani

Hi, thanks for warning the new editor about edit warring. They have just repeated their edits despite having been reverted by 2 editors, and having been asked to discuss. I don’t mind their additions, but the deletions are grievous and could easily be partisan, i.e. all origins are claimed to be Indian. Basically they need to be got to the table to discuss, if that can be done; otherwise a block will be needed. Perhaps you could undo the deletions? All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was already considering undoing those deletions, as "either retracted or no longer exists" doesn't seem a useful conclusion about a source, and makes no sense for the book, I just didn't want to appear to endorse the additions, by stepping in. I'll do that now. Belbury (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you beat me to it. Belbury (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, it seemed to be quite clear that I could put it back; their reasoning is barking mad and simply not supported by the facts, not least that nearly all the scholars cited make a connection with Persia. So I've added another citation to the image caption, and started a thread on the talk page. If you could keep an eye for the next few days, that'd be very welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Belbury

Thanks for your edits on Paris sewers. Very much appreciated! Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sangita_Myska

The edit war on the Sangita_Myska page seems to originate in a recent 'Sargon of Akkad' youtube comment section for a video promoting nativism. The top comment, by @MassRemigrationNowUK, says the following: "Wikipedia says Sanjita is English and then states her place of birth is Tanzania". The video streamed 8 hours ago so the timing seems to match up. I personally feel that 'English' doesn't automatically refer to 'ethnically English' or 'native English'. British is accurate, but if she can be called British because of her nationality - she can also be called English, even if England isn't a nation-state with a passport. Gremblarp (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an edit war, from the page history someone just changed "British" to "English" in December saying it was "to her own declared nationality", and someone else removed the nationality yesterday.

Looking for sources English is her declared nationality, though, so I'll add it back. Belbury (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]