User talk:82.13.47.210

Nottingham311

Hi There,

Please can you advise me what I’m doing wrong? Is it that the images in the montage are the same as in the body of the body of the text?

thank you 2A02:C7C:56C5:2600:1467:C932:95B4:24AA (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, my computer keyboard has been corrupted (crashed 3 times after an overnight update, and I don't want to risk recovering the previous operating system version unless it goes completely - £700 Dell). I am laboriously trying to paste-in letters and other characers, so I will provide a more-detailed answer later.

Second, this discussion should be at your talk page, or the talk page of the Mansfield article, so I will try in time to duplicate it to there from here. I haven't even looked at the photo-montage, so I can't comment, but no, there should be no repeated images without good reason. thank you.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello, I'm Voorts. I noticed that in this edit to Supersport World Championship, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Voorts- I did not remove material, contrary to your uw-delete1 warning via Huggle, I ADDED IT from the existing source at inline box #10: "...it effectively replaced the European Supersport Cup from previous years.", para-phrased in my own words, also with a paragraph break. I am a named editor starting my 12th year...unlike yourself starting 19 March 2022??? Please be more careful using quick-fire utilities like Huggle.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. Happy editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent changes to Rory Skinner

Hello, I'm Timefordindins. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rory Skinner have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Timefordindins (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Timefordindins - I am an 11 year veteran - you are too quick with the inappropriate warnings - as a new user you should be more careful. Please see the section above and desist from throwing your weight about - you could easily deter a new user.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, your claims of being an "11 year veteran" are meaningless if you can't be bothered to login. As I mentioned on my own page, the edits are more easily flagged as vandalism if they are from an anon. Would you care to disclose your account and the reason you are choosing to not login? Timefordindins (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No Timefordindins, I don't have to declare to a new user with 500 edits wikipolicing with no apparent past-experience. I am concerned you yourself are masking your March 2024-only editing background (for anyone else reading this, see User talk:Timefordindins#Your edits); I've already declared to a checkuser in February 2023, and two others (admin, admin+) are aware of me.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed - smells like lta to me.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi

I think someone ought to apologise to you for how you've been treated. Unfortunately it isn't just one LTA or even just trolls who consider IP edits to be inherently suspicious. I'm glad you stuck with and continue to stick with the project.

I thought I saw a punctuation error in Bradley Ray, but I was wrong; however, the way his career / changing team affiliations was set out in reverse seemed weird, so I changed it, and also separated it from the intro, taking the full name of his current team from the infobox. I don't know anything about the conventions for motorbike racing articles, or for that matter about the sport, and as an IP editor you don't have a watchlist, so letting you know in case I mucked it up. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gooday Yngvadottir - thanks for the message and apologies for the delay in responding, as I have time-sensitive business pressures preventing my editing and a resurgence of nerve-damage symptoms meaning I can only use one hand (slowly!). I am only just now catching up superficially with the attacks against my edits on 9 March , lots and lots of laughs, but I'll look more intensively when I can. I sowed a lot of ground bait and it revealled sleeper accounts.

I am a registered user now in my 12th year, so I vaguely recognise your name. I have decided to abandon (retire) my account, unused since Nov 2022; after the last attack I had to 'walk away' to cool down, but probably will establish a new linked name for Commons-only. This IP address has been stable, so in the absence of a watchlist, I can whizz down my worklist.

Concerning this previous version of Brad Ray when last edited by myself, mostly/often where there's a short article/prose (ie. distinct from, and overwhelmed by, lower-positioned tables), there's no need for a separate headed section (unless when trying to achieve a better layout) as it puts non-current events too-prominently and consigns recent (international) events having television coverage to the very bottom, leaving, arguably, too-short a lede. Brad's schoolboy racing is not covered, but if it was, a decision would be needed where to display. Presently it seems he erupted on to the scene.

Brad has become well-known in UK over the past five years, and is trying to break into the world arena via his team which enters European events only, due to commercially-prohibitive long-haul fly away costs (eg., Australia).

Wikipedia, as an abstract-entity, seems to conclude that readers religiously read-through sequentially and comprehensively, eventually arriving at the most recent, buried way down. I disagree, and a balance has to be achieved for eas readability.

You can see a recent fan-love 2023 article, Max Cook, banner-templated and commented by myself at Talk as wp:toosoon (just remembered I didn't wikilink it). This is how stubs are created, without sufficient reliably-sourced prose, and subsequently drive-bys may add more (minimal, incremental) detail, so the more-recent info becomes prominent, naturally establishing a timeline which could be perceived as reversed. rgds, Steve.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for getting back to me! As usual there's a push-and-pull between various kinds of editors, indeed different kinds of "wikignomes". And between those looking at their phones and those with full-sized screens. Personally as a reader (on a desktop) I do read articles from top to bottom—often stopping somewhere in "Personal life" and almost always skipping "In popular culture". As a reader and an editor, I like to see a separate intro if the article has an infobox, so I don't have to try to derive my own executive summary from the infobox (and to feed Google a summary to come up on search that isn't distilled from the infobox). Infoboxes are targets for vandals and POV pushing. And as an editor, I find that backwards account of someone's career looks as if it was indeed assembled by accretion, and that and the lack of a separate intro suggest either that it's a new article still under initial development or that nobody has cared enough to take stock of the person's career—an impression of lack of gravitas, if you will. I take the point about readers not reading down to international achievements, so I generally try to put the biggest achievements in the intro after the sentence on "when was this person born, what country are they from, and what do they do". (There's a bias on Wikipedia towards that organisation; I've found articles with that type of intro and separate section(s) are safer at AfD, and sectioning is baked into article assessment in the WikiProjects along with the fooking infobox.) So I may well be wrong here and won't add his schoolboy racing using that ref—I wondered whether there was one—at least not for a while, if no one else does. I appear to have mucked it up enough. Thanks, again, for not giving up on the project in what time (and lack of pain!) you do have.

I don't know how you feel about the WMF's plan to anonymise IPs so that only selected users will be able to see them; indeed, I don't know whether the current version involves hiding part of the URL (obscuring that the edits were made from the same IP address) or assigning a dorky alias (presumably the same for each edit by the same IP and thereby making it clearer that it was the same IP but removing the option to look up location). Just in case you do have strong feelings and weren't aware there are plans afoot. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Fackley question

I saw your reverted dispute regards whether this should be classed as within Sutton-in-Ashfield. The List of settlements in Nottinghamshire by population article regards the location and how it falls is not OR, but based on a built up area definition by the ONS. The shape can be seen here and the methodology takes into account some green separation, but the continuous development can be from very narrow strips in sometimes less obvious places. I see DragonOfBatley has been generically adding those to the Sutton town article, he is not incorrect considering that there are no legal boundaries which define the town and village (unless wards are used which isn't strictly a great definition), however but I feel is not giving enough context into the areas listed. He did the same to Newark-on-Trent and some others in Notts which I ended up tidying up, however those did have formal limits so look at that one, see if it is in a format that gives clarity and adjust it accordingly. The Equalizer (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note The Equalizer - I haven't forgotten, but don't have the time to get into the minutiae presently (being spring/summer = no time). My objection was the redlinking of what is - simply put - a physical descriptive/location, a throwback from a pastoral, pre industrial revolution society without any real/economical postal system. This happens in the Isle of Man - the foreigners think a place is significant, whereas it's just a name, a rural postal address (eg., Gob-ny-Geay).

I surmised Crouch, Swale might respond with OS settlement; by way of that thought, I learned admin WTT had departed a few months previously (as such, I wont ping him). I had firstly actually looked on a 1975 OS map; the scale/detail is too-low, but it shows very few buildings, far fewer than the modern application you are reliant upon.

I was surprised to learn through social media that two substantial, contiguous areas of Mansfield were now in Ashfield parliamentary constituency. Another area has been carved-out, but that, a new development, has defining green space. I will explore the ONS site when I can.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

OS settlement refers to if something is a settlement or not for example Wangford in East Suffolk (TM4679) is shown as "[Other Settlement]" while Wangford, West Suffolk (TL7483) is "[other features]"[1]. The OS doesn't really show settlement boundaries and at least using the OS may well be OR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My definitive tools of choice for notability of a locality is a recent OS Landranger/Explorer map and the Index of Place Names compiled by the ONS. Fackley does appear in all three. Even up to 150 years back, it was a hamlet with a public house. To @Crouch, Swale, maps can be cited so unless a conclusion is written which isn't supported by the map, then I don't see why it would be OR. The Equalizer (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

---