Jump to content

User talk:Keith D/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

Tech News: 2014-35

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

VisualEditor news

  • There was a error when you put your cursor directly after a reference list. It is now fixed. [1]
  • You can now add colors to links in the editor using gadgets. You can do this to see links to redirects or disambiguation pages. [2]
  • If you use Internet Explorer, you will soon be able to use VisualEditor. [3] [4] [5]

Future software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf18) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since August 21. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on August 26, and on all Wikipedias on August 28 (calendar).
  • After August 26, you will have a central JavaScript and CSS page. They will be on Meta-Wiki and will work on all wikis. Read more on the help page. [6]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

caluam jahraldo-martin

Why is he still listed? Why was I banned for removing him when he has no squad number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-36

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • You can now test a new Beta Feature to see links to other wikis in the sidebar. The links come from Wikidata. [7] [8]
  • You can now search pages that link to a page. Use the linksto: keyword in your search. [9] [10]
  • A redirect to a section now changes the URL in the address bar of your browser. If "Dog" redirects to "Animals#Dog", you now see "Animals#Dog" instead of "Dog#Dog". [11] [12]
  • If you are testing Flow, you now have a Flow tab in your Notifications. It is called "Messages". [13]

VisualEditor news

  • You can no longer delete required fields in templates. [14]
  • We fixed many Internet Explorer bugs. If you use Internet Explorer 11, you will get VisualEditor next week. Support for earlier versions is coming next. [15] [16] [17]
  • VisualEditor now looks better in Monobook. [18]
  • We fixed a bug where some of your typing could be undone when you used "cut" (Ctrl+X). [19]
  • You will no longer see empty or deleted categories among the suggestions when you add a category. [20]

Future software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf19) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since August 28. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 2, and on all Wikipedias on September 4 (calendar).
  • There is a proposal to build a database on Commons for file data. It will make it easier to see the author, license and topics. You can give feedback on this idea. You can also come to the IRC chat on September 3 at 18:00 (UTC) in #wikimedia-office at freenode. [21]
  • You can give feedback on Media Viewer until September 7. You can say what needs to be improved and ask other people to give feedback too. [22]
  • You can test a new version of the tool to show math. It uses MathML. Report bugs in bugzilla.
  • You will no longer be able to upload images from the mobile site. [23]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

I have restored your date-format edits - as the problem with the graphics seemed to have been corrected. I just thought that for the moment (while the graphics problem persisted) the largely invisible effects of this edit could well wait. Whatever - everything seems back to normal now. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2014

Delivered September 2014 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Advice please

I am asking this here as few people seem to pass by the Lincs Project Talk nowadays, and others reading your Talk might be able to help too.

I am proposing and article on Holbeach Marsh, a 'place' within, and associated to, a circle of villages, but an area in its own right. It is a large marsh 'settlement' with scattered buildings but no defined centre, so difficult call a village. It came about in first half of the 19th-century through land enclosure but has been successively depopulated (but not deserted) in the last 100 years. However it appears in directories with many farmers and some trades and was previously an ecclesiastical parish, had a Methodist chapel, and sent MPs to parliament. Today as an area its name is also associated with an RAF bombing range to its east at the Wash. My question is: how do I define such a place for the lede and article. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, may initial thought would be something like
Holbeach Marsh is an area of Lincolnshire that encompasses several dispersed buildings.
Then go on to give some details of where it is located and its size. The rest of the details you mention could go in the History section giving details of its former status and the depopulation.
Hope this helps. Keith D (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It does - I'll call it an 'area' rather than village/hamlet/settlement but presumably still using the 'Infobox UK place' - many thanks again. Acabashi (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-37

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

VisualEditor news

  • From Thursday, Internet Explorer 11 users will get VisualEditor. Support for earlier versions is coming next. [24] [25] [26]

Future software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf20) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 4. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 9, and on all Wikipedias on September 11 (calendar).
  • You will soon confirm a "Thanks" inline instead of in a dialog. [27]
  • You can read more about the plan to move to Phabricator, a tool that will help people develop the MediaWiki software and report bugs. [28]

Problems

  • There were problems with JavaScript and CSS on Friday, September 5 because of a code error.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons cat

FYI: With {{Commons category}}, there's generally no need to add a category target when the Commons category is named the same as article title, as was done with Nevada State Route 895. -- LJ ↗ 05:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not strictly necessary but better to have in case of page moves when it gets overlooked. The page then ends up in Category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata, that I am trying to clear, which is why I hit that article. In that case the problem was with wikidata, but adding the target prevents future problems. Keith D (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop following me

I am sick to death of you following every edit I make - your activities are not just confined to wikiproject yorkshire but it seems to every fucking edit I make , which you then make pointless edits to changing minor details, so my watchlist is constantly fucking spammed with your pointless fucking edits.

And don't forget about adding point pointless "accessdates" to references that already have dates - which I have to clean up.

In nearly 10 years I've have never seen you make a single useful contribution - isn't it about time you tried actually writing something instead of following other people around.

get your fucking nosey cunt face out of my contributions Drewry .Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-38

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • You can now change the style of links to disambiguation pages. This is done with the mw-disambig CSS class. [29] [30]
  • There was a problem on right-to-left wikis with Wikidata log entries. The text was messy in watchlists and recent changes. The problem is now fixed. The same problem will be fixed soon for user names. [31] [32] [33]
  • New users are randomly chosen for a test on 12 Wikipedias. They get messages with ideas of articles to edit. The ideas come from what they have already edited. [34]

Problems

  • There was a problem with loading images on September 10. [35]

VisualEditor news

  • If you don't select text when you add a link, the link now shows a number. [36]
  • The citation tool no longer offers to reuse a citation if there are none on the page yet. [37] [38]
  • You can now use help buttons in the "Page settings" menu to see what the options are for. [39]

Future software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf21) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 16, and on all Wikipedias on September 18 (calendar).
  • These changes are coming with the new version:
    • If you use Internet Explorer 7, JavaScript will no longer work. JavaScript tools and scripts will no longer work in that browser. You should update to a newer browser. [40] [41] [42]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation content

Hi Keith. I saw your changes and mostly concurred with them other than the removal of the 'publisher' field. 'Work' and 'publisher' are not synonyms even if they sometimes appear to be. For instance, "The Telegraph and Argus" is just one of the newspapers (works) published by Newsquest (Yorkshire & North East) Ltd., and "The Guardian" is just one of the newspapers (works) - although it may be the flagship newspaper - published by Guardian News and Media Limited. The fact that both fields contain "Guardian" doesn't make the 'publisher' field redundant as many appear to mistakenly believe. It is knowing the actual publisher that allows the reader to gauge potential editorial bias (e.g., political, religious, regional, etc.) in the source material cited. For instance, one might view a citation to the "Bradford Herald" (a hypothetical local newspaper I just made up) differently once one realized it is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Also, paper and pixelated versions of the same newspaper or book are considered to be different media. Which is why I entered "theguardian.com" (the actual news source website name that I accessed to determine my citation) in the 'work' field rather than "The Guardian" (the name of the paper version of the same news source for the published days in question, which I have never seen). Since "theguardian.com" makes up the first part of the URL this once again may seem redundant to some people, but it isn't once you appreciate that "The Guardian" website for any given day could contain a different version of the same news story that was published in the newspaper that hit the streets. There are only so many editions of a daily newspaper (usually two?), while a website version of the same newspaper can be updated an unlimited number of times, sometimes even days or weeks after it was initially published, so there is no guarantee that the paper and pixilated versions of the same news story are exact duplicates of each other, even if they both started life that way. Unless you have in your possession a paper or microfiche copy of the newspapers in question, which you referenced before making your edit to correct my citations, it is pure speculation on your part what the paper version of the article I cited actually states. OTOH we, and any other Wikipedia reader or editor, can at any time read the online version of the article I cited and agree, or possibly disagree, to its relevance and veracity. This shared common access to cited online sources goes to the very essence of how Wikipedia functions WRT ultimately achieving editorial consensus re the factual accuracy and objectivity of its content.

Finally, I just don't get it. You obviously, and quite rightly, take some pride in this article, and yet you were quite happy to let it sit out there with outdated, erroneous and non-standard citations, and in most cases (since the Sutcliffe murders and arrest all occurred at least 15 years before the web and online news sources were available) no source citations at all. But as soon as I come along and add some properly formatted citations to more recent online news sources that address the murders retrospectively, thereby attempting to fix this glaring deficiency, you start nit-picking my new citations. I have no problem with my contributions being reviewed and/or corrected as this can only improve the final content of the article, but if you have the time, energy and inclination to correct these new citations, why on earth did you not apply it to the non-existent and erroneous citations that were there long before I ever edited the article, and which, for the most part, still exist (or don't exist in the case where there are still no citations to source material)? 66.16.144.18 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I pick up on article changes rather than existing content, if I spot there is a problem with existing references then I will adjust them, but as time is limited a quick scan is often all that happens. This is just 1 of over 20,000 articles that I keep an eye on. Keith D (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, appreciate that. However, there wasn't a problem with my new citations - other than that I used "cite web" instead of "cite news" (my bad) - as I have gone to some lengths to explain. May I suggest that you revert that portion of your recent edit indicating that you concur, or present a justification of your latest "tweaks" to me here. Thanks. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been waiting nearly 2 days for you to respond to my initial friendly comments here so that I would know how to proceed with my edits to the Peter Sutcliffe article and I have now just discovered that you've done over 30 edits elsewhere during the last 24 hours alone while completely ignoring my questions to you here. Such abject discourtesy to another editor beggars belief! How you became an admin. without having any understanding of WP:WQ I will never know. Since you are obviously unaware of the appropriate etiquette that should be followed by an editor on Wikipedia, the guidance that is specifically relevant is:
- Do not ignore reasonable questions.
- If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
- Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
Your recent conduct violates all of these guidelines. When I first saw your edit I saw little point to it and my first instinct was to simply revert it, because I perceived it to be mostly "an edit for editing sake" change which so many Wikipedia editors make just to let other editors know they are there; presumably to push their edit count up and thereby give the impression to others they are making more useful contributions to articles than they really are doing. I did agree with the change of "cite web" to "cite news" because "cite news" is what I intended for most of my new citations, but I didn't catch those errors because I was more focused on getting the field contents correct, plus when I made those particular edits I was pretty tired and just wanted to be done with my changes and get to bed (because I was doing the edits at around 2-3 a.m. my time). Besides, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter very much which "cite" template I used because the only difference between what they both generate is that "cite news" puts parentheses around the 'publisher' and "cite web" doesn't (so I usually just add those in manually), which is why I considered your edit to be somewhat pedantic.
However, pedantic I can handle; but disingenuity I cannot. To my mind, what you did with your 'edit summary' ("Tweak refs to fix cite errors") was yet another abuse of Wikipedia guidelines, namely WP:ES:
- Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important.
- Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict.
The "cite" templates I used only contained 6 parameters and you changed 3 of those parameters in each one, completely removing the publisher information in all cases; changing "The Guardian" website work to be a printed newspaper work; and removing the day name from the publication date (which is neither here nor there and I don't have any issue with that). But changing the number of fields that you modified or eliminated (i.e., 50% of them) and calling it a "tweak" is more than a bit disingenuous, isn't it? Rather, it's very misleading to others and designed to downplay what you were really doing, which was imposing your own personal style or viewpoint (re what you wanted the contents and format of the citation to be) over my own choice of same, and passing the whole thing off as a corrective edit. That is POV editing IMO, and to claim in your summary that I had made "cite errors" (when I hadn't, I had merely made a different set of parameter choices than perhaps you might have done) is inappropriately critical. In such a situation you should have either explained your edits more clearly and truthfully in the 'edit summary' field, or if not sufficient space there, opened a dialogue with me somewhere - either on the article 'Talk' page, my profile 'Talk' page, or even here, like I subsequently did. The fact that you are an administrator yet don't understand the basics of correct Wikipedia editing process and etiquette is extremely disconcerting to me.
Having reviewed your edit and realized that there was potential disagreement over exactly what information goes into a standard citation template and where, I immediately came here to discuss it with you, and started right in by presenting the rationale behind my own choice of template info. in the expectancy that you would do likewise in response, and from there we could reach a consensus. The fact that you only chose to respond defensively to my final paragraph and NOT constructively address anything I wrote in the first two paragraphs, which went to the heart of the issue created by your edit (my third paragraph was really just an afterthought), I find even more disconcerting. Your response was the response of a smart ass not a response worthy of an admin. The fact that you are now just editing away and giving the matter no further thought I find to be beyond uncivil - it is downright disrespectful of my time and exceedingly rude. Nobody volunteering their time and effort wants to have to deal with such arrogance and disrespect.
I was quite prepared to listen to any justification you offered here for your citation content and format choices and, going forward, align my own method of citing references to it once I understood the criteria behind those choices and concurred with them. However, despite my request, you have chosen not to present any such explanation here. I wasn't seeking conflict, merely discussion and edification so that I could proceed to include the additional citations I wished to add to the unsourced text I had recently inserted into the article. In addition to being extremely rude, your lack of response in this matter also creates a problem for me because, going forward, I now have no idea how to cite my new text in a way that you (and possibly others) will find acceptable and not immediately revert. Clearly you don't like the way I'm currently doing it, and your way appears inconsistent, incomplete (no publisher info.) and somewhat arbitrary to me. Since I'm not willing to add such arbitrarily constructed citations to the article, at this point it is just simpler for me to remove my new uncited text instead, which I have already done. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I had not realised that you had made a further comment. The URL entry shows that an online source has been consulted rather than the physical copy of the item. Where the name of the work is know then that is used in preference to the web site name, and for newspaper type sources the publisher is not normally shown. There are some scripts working round converting the URLs to names where they are known and removing the unnecessary publishers.
On the dates the presence of a day name in a date field causes a cite error to be displayed in red, which I have that turned on, and placing it in Category:CS1 errors: dates, once we get these under control and the errors down to a reasonable number the red error message will be displayed to everyone. The date fields in cites should only contain a date in one of the formats - dd mmm yyyy, mmm dd, yyyy or yyyy-mm-dd, as per MOS:DATES. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain clearly to me exactly how you were able to "realise" that I made my first and third comments here yet were unable to similarly "realise" that I had made my second comment?
Once again you have chosen to avoid the main issue at hand and have instead provided a "smoke and mirrors" response. Your short response to me took you 3 separate edits, 2 of which were concerned with explaining why you removed day names, with this explanation accounting for 50% of your whole response. But that was all an irrelevance - which part of "which is neither here nor there and I don't have any issue with that" did you not understand?
Turning finally to what little you wrote that had any pertinence to the issue(s) at hand: I can accept the fact that the presence of an URL address in the "cite" template parameters indicates that an online source was used, so I agree with you that there is indeed some redundancy when the website URL is also used as the work source name - and you would have realized that I said as much in my first comment here if you had bothered to show me the courtesy of actually reading it. However, your statement, "Where the name of the work is know (sic) then that is used in preference to the web site name," has absolutely no justification except in your own head. If that was indeed a hard and fast rule then it would be enforced by the "cite" templates (see also my next comment below).
Furthermore, if we both agree (as we do) that the ".com" of the website name is somewhat redundant here, then the "known name of the work" that should take precedence is theguardian as clearly displayed at the top of every webpage article published by that newspaper around the world. You will only ever see The Guardian logo on the paper version of this newspaper. If your argument has any validity (and I'm not disagreeing with it) then for the vast majority of the contemporary worldwide readers of this online news source who have never seen a paper version of the newspaper, the "known name of the work" is theguardian, and to refer to it as The Guardian is just as wrong as to refer to it as The Manchester Guardian (which is what the newspaper used to be called when I first started reading it). Using your own stated rationale, all you did was replace one error (by me) with your own error. Alternatively, your stated rationale was simply a desperate attempt to justify your edit and there was nothing essentially wrong with my using the website name as the work source. Consequently, your edit with regard to the 'work' field content of my citations was (at best) just as erroneous as mine, or (at worst) not even required, yet you are not being honest enough to admit it.
With regard to your statement, "for newspaper type sources the publisher is not normally shown," this is purely your own personal POV. The "cite" templates provide a number of parameter fields to be filled in, and if it was indeed erroneous to select any particular combination of those parameters then the "cite" templates would prevent you from saving and entering any such erroneous parameter combinations in the final constructed text string that results from filling in the template, and would effectively request that one or more of them be removed in order to proceed. So if there was any truth in your statement that reflected actual Wikipedia policy regarding what constitutes a correct citation, then the template would not have let me fill both of those fields in. The reason for providing the 'publisher' information in addition to the source newspaper name was clearly explained to you in my first comment here (cf. my Rupert Murdoch example) but you have completely avoided addressing it. You have provided nothing in your reply that justifies your labeling my citations as being in error and requiring modification. What you did was simply a POV edit with regard to the style and content of citations as you personally wish to see them displayed, but you are neither man enough nor honest enough to concede that fact. Being an administrator does not give you the right to impose your own viewpoint or style preferences on other contributors.
Overall, you come across as a disingenuous wiseacre and your conduct in your communication with me here (or lack thereof) has completely soured any interest I may have had of contributing to Wikipedia articles in the future. 66.16.144.18 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem with me not realising the second edit by you is that is is soon after my edit and with the time off set of 1-hour it did not inform me of the change.
The last comment by you apears to be a personal attack which should be avoided as per WP:NPA
The cite templates provide a whole host of fields for the different situations that may arise, especially since they are being brought together with the re-write. The information on publisher to quote from the documentation is "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). Displays after title."
Which says "Not normally used for periodicals" and also "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work" which is what I did with the changes that I made to the cites. Keith D (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
1 hr time offsets have nothing to do with this issue - that is simply more "smoke and mirrors" from you. Any new postings to your Talk page appear at the bottom of the page and are extremely easy to spot. If you haven't received one for awhile - hardly likely for someone with 44 archived Talk pages and who claims to edit 20,000 articles! - then I might possibly have accepted that you may have missed my first posting on your Talk page (because you were not expecting it). But you didn't miss it. You made your modification to my last edit of the article in the morning and then you caught my response to your edit (which was to create this discussion topic here with my first message to you) the next time you were online later that same day. Your response to it was the first edit you posted that evening. At which point you knew full well you were in the middle of an ongoing conversation and that you now had a responsibility to check for updates to it from the other party, just like I did as soon as I had made my first post here. I have way more excuse than you do for missing any messages in this conversation because the posts are all on your Talk page, not mine, so I don't get notified of any new posts like you do. But I didn't miss any, did I?
I can understand that having responded to my first message you then went off editing and may have missed my response to you an hour or so later that same night, but you still had a responsibility to check for a response before you logged off again (in the early hours of the 18th); or after you logged on again the next morning; or before you logged off again the next morning; or after you logged on again in the evening (of the 18th); and so on. You had at least 4 logon/logoff opportunities go see my message that you appear instead to have chosen to ignore. To claim that you were incapable of seeing my reply at the bottom of your page only beggars belief; to claim that you didn't see it because you didn't even bother looking for it is even worse! Ignorance of the law is no excuse for anyone; for a judge, lawyer or policeman to claim ignorance of their responsibilities under the law as an excuse is simply laughable. Likewise, you are a seasoned editor and administrator, and for you to expect to be relinquished of any accountability for your actions by claiming you are not able to detect new messages at the bottom of your screen, or that you didn't have a responsibility to go looking for them, is equally lame and pathetic. Why on earth do you expect to be exempted from the same minimal standard of technical competence and/or responsibility to which you or any other administrator would hold even a Wikipedia newbie?
I'm fully aware of what constitutes abuse under WP:NPA so I suggest that you don't try and intimidate me with that. If, for the sake of argument, you were Peter Sutcliffe (and you could well be for all I know; it's quite feasible he has web access where he is in Broadmoor) and I called you a psychopathic murderer, that wouldn't sound very nice and might look quite abusive at first glance. But it wouldn't be abusive at all; it would simply be an accurate description of you; and to describe someone accurately is not abuse. Considering all the games you have played with the truth in your interactions with me on this page I probably could call you a pathological liar and it wouldn't be considered abuse by anyone else reading it, so you should consider disingenuous wiseacre a compliment!
The last paragraph of your message was exactly what you should have responded with over 3 days and umpteen message exchanges back, and if you had acted responsibly and with good faith then we would not be where we are now. It's too little too late, I'm afraid. As far as I am concerned, the issue is now completely moot. I no longer give a fig what justification you have for omitting the 'publisher' field from citations because after this experience with you I almost certainly won't be spending any more time on Wikipedia, thus I won't be making any new citations. Plus I've been making citations in Wikipedia articles the same way I made them in the Sutcliffe article for quite a few years now and they have never been a problem until you decided to nit-pick them. Considering that virtually none of the 46 references extant in that article when I started editing it meet the criteria you are applying to mine (for instance, some of them contain deadlink URLs, others contain URLs of web pages that offer absolutely no support for the information for which they have been cited, while others are missing one or other of the dates) - and yet you have done nothing about correcting any of those, ONLY mine! - makes your whole pedantic stand on this issue look absolutely ludicrous! 66.16.144.18 (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-39

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

Problems

  • There was a problem on the English Wikipedia on September 19. It was due to edits on a template used on many pages.
  • Sites were down for users in the Pacific area around 7:00 UTC on September 20. It was due to a problem in the San Francisco data center.
  • There were two bad bugs messing up articles in some browsers in VisualEditor. We fixed the bugs and updated the sites. [44] [45]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf22) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 18. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 23, and on all Wikipedias on September 25 (calendar).
  • If you have more than 2000 notifications, the oldest ones will be removed.[46] [47]
  • In the "Vector" skin, the icon used for users will show a neutral gender. [48] [49]
  • The VisualEditor template tool now tells you if a required field is missing. [50]
  • The "Cancel" button of the VisualEditor save window is now called "Resume editing". This shows that you can still edit and you won't lose your changes. [51]
  • There are new keyboard shortcuts in VisualEditor. Use Ctrl+Shift+6 for code and Ctrl+Shift+5 for strikethrough. [52] [53]
  • In VisualEditor, you can now see that you are switching to the source editing mode. Before, it was not clear it was happening. [54]

Future site changes

  • You can see a plan for the move to Phabricator. It's the new tool to track bugs. A guided tour will be done via video on September 24. [55]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian Prowse

Hi. Would be appreciated if you could have a look at Ian Prowse, where an editor using different IPs and usernames, firstly started removing referenced birth details and is now changing to incorrect unreferenced content. As a prior edit summary I left, Merseyside didn't even exist in 1974 and neither Chester, nor Ellesmere Port are in what is now Merseyside.

Colinwhereareyou (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep an eye out on the article and will protect it if the vandalism gets too much. Keith D (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Football statistics Talk page message

Hello Keith, I copied your Talk page message to CB-MFC 16 (talk · contribs) to the Talk page of Jord21avfc123 (talk · contribs), who is doing the same thing. Just wanted to let you know that I used your exact words. I hope you don't mind :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No I do not mind hopefully will help to get them all doing it the same way. Keith D (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-40

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf1) is on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since September 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis on September 30, and on all Wikipedias on October 2 (calendar).
  • Errors from Scribunto (Lua) are now shown on the page. Before, you had to click on "Script error" to see them. [59] [60]
  • You can add an "autovalue" for a field in TemplateData. When users add the template to a page, the value will be added automatically. An example is when a clean-up template shows the date it was added. [61]
  • If you change a user preference but don't save it, it now asks if you want to save it. [62] [63]
  • The PDF export tool has changed. The new one has better language support but it doesn't offer ZIM and EPUB formats. [64]

Future changes

  • You can watch a video showing Phabricator, the new tool to track bugs. You can also read more about the move from Bugzilla.
  • JavaScript authors: Many old methods will be removed soon. Please check your scripts and gadgets and replace the old methods by the new ones if needed. [65]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

John Wesley edit Foundry Church

Hello Keith. This is Al DeFilippo. Question, what was the copyright infringement with my addition about the John Wesley Foundry Church added to the John Wesley Wiki site? I thought I cited the proper sources. Looking forward to your reply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.254.10.56 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The text was copied from the website http://www.francisasburytriptych.com/john-wesleys-foundry-church/ which indicates that the information is copyright of "The Asbury Triptych" thus cannot be used directly on Wikipedia see WP:COPYOTHERS for further details. You must rewrite the information in your own words or get permission from the copyright owner to enable it to be included. Keith D (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Keith for your reply. I am the writer of that website. How would you like me to reference? Do you want me to cite my name along with the link to the site? Let me know, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al DeFilippo (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for that information. There are 2 ways to achieve this the first is the easiest and that is to change to copyright status of the website to one of CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence or equivalent free usage licence. The second is to release the text of the page under such a licence by sending an appropriate e-mail from an account associated with the website giving such permissions. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and specifically the section Granting us permission to copy material already online. Keith D (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith, I chose to rewrite the article. I put the book references in. Hopefully I did it correctly. Thank you for your help and patience. Hope all works out. Where in England do you reside? I hope to visit someday. Researching Wesley and his ministers gave me a deep appreciation for England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al DeFilippo (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made an initial tidy of this, wikilinks, date formatting and UK spellings. I am in Coventry at the moment. Keith D (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2014

Delivered October 2014 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf2) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since 2 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from 7 October, and on all Wikipedias from 9 October (calendar).
  • If you make a code mistake when editing a Lua script, you won't be able to save your edit. [73] [74]
  • We fixed some more Internet Explorer bugs. If you use Internet Explorer 10, you will be able to use VisualEditor next week. Support for earlier versions is coming next. [75]
  • On Thursday, the tool to edit TemplateData will come to 30 more wikis. [76] [77]
  • You can help sort bugs in the Book and PDF export tool on October 8. [78]
  • 1% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. [79]

Future changes

  • You can look at the plan of the Mobile team for their future work. [80]
  • More changes to Media Viewer are coming. It will be easier to disable it, and you will see the caption below the image. [81] [82]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Calum Jahraldo-Martin

jahraldo-martin not a member of the Hull City squad, nor is he listed as being as such anywhere on any official club listings. previous tenuous reasons given such as he "he will get a squad no for league cup games" no longer relevant. he should not be on there end of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

can you answer the question of why you and others keep adding Caluam Jahraldo-Martin to the Hull City squad list when he isn't in the squad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
We keep adding him as he has not left the club. There is no evidence of him leaving the club so is still part of the squad even if not listed with a squad number on the Club website. Keith D (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Why if Caluam Jahraldo-Martin is listed are all other members of the development squad not listed? You either list none or them all. Can I also ask when Wikipedia became about opinions; in this case yours, rather than facts, in other words what is listed on the official site. Also when Wikipedia became a forum for bullies who when someone challenges what they think with the truth, they resort to threats; as you and others have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The reason is because he the only one to have actually played for the first team and also at international level. Keith D (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No answer then re Caluam Jahraldo-Martin? and you also delete my comments Is that because I am right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No I did not delete your comments I moved them to keep them together. Keith D (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Jahraldo-Martin has never played in a league game and has represented a national side which is one of the lowest ranked in world football. the fact remains if he had previously played 1000 games for Hull City and Brazil he has no squad number this season and should not be on the list and your continual addition of him is pedantic, wrong and a case of you making you the rules as you go along. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No answers or proof yet re Jahraldo-Martin... when is the proof coming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Caluam jahraldo-martin is not in the Hull City squad so will you please stop adding him to a list on which he does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

still waiting for the proof re caluam jahraldo-martin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As we as supposed to be using third-party references you could try http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/hull-city which lists him as part of the squad. Keith D (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The bbc page is incorrect the official club page is the definitive voice, so why not listen to it? http://www.hullcitytigers.com/team/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 October 2014‎ (UTC) still waiting for an answer re Jahraldo-martin. A source - namely the official club website has been provided. Instead you ignore that and ignore me as well. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

still waiting for an answer re Jahraldo-martin. A source - namely the official club website has been provided. Instead you ignore that and ignore me as well. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

still waiting for answers re jahraldo-martin...ignoring me will not resolve this by the way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Windmills in North Yorkshire

Category:Windmills in North Yorkshire, which you created, has been nominated for dual upmerging into Category:Buildings and structures in North Yorkshire and Category:Windmills in Yorkshire. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's actually a dozen articles in the nomination but you only created one of them. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

Problems

  • 10% of Tool Labs was down on October 7. [85]
  • Tool Labs was also broken on October 11. [86]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf3) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since 9 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from 14 October, and on all Wikipedias from 16 October (calendar).
  • 5% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [87]

Meetings

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Portals

Hi. As you have very probably noticed I have been merrily adding the County/England/UK portal bar to articles. I am wondering if there is contention that might arise here. The various Yorkshire nav boxes already have a 'Yorkshire' portal link, and the Lincs nav box already has an 'England' portal link. I have been collapsing the nav boxes so these duplicate links are not immediately apparent, but this might cause duplication concern for some editors. Do you have a point of view on this? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No real feeling on this one, I think I would prefer to have the duplicate links. May be the separate bar could be dispensed with if the England/UK were added to the individual county templates. Though some would complain that the county template is not appropriate to some articles as the article is not mentioned in the template. May need to have a wider discussion to see what others think. May be at WP:UKGEO or at one of the project talk pages. Keith D (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I could be poking a hornet's nest here, and you have described the differing opinions and complications that might arise. I might take it to UKGEO if there if there becomes strong adverse opinion. I have added portals and other stuff (and now doing portal bars) to all Lincs articles to get a consistency across all Lincs Project place articles, which I think is a reasonable thing. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. You can read translations.

Recent changes

  • You can test a new system to see math using MathML. Go to your display options and choose "⧼mw math mathml⧽".
  • You can add badges in Wikidata for quality articles and featured lists. [91] [92]

File information cleanup

Problems

  • Developers fixed a security problem. If you use Internet Explorer 6, you won't be able to log in any more. You should use a newer browser. [94]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf4) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 21, and on all Wikipedias from October 23 (calendar).
  • 10% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [95]
  • If you add the same parameter twice in a template, it now puts the page in a tracking category. [96] [97]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for answers as to why you refuse to acknowledge the official website re Jahraldo-Martin... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.248.212 (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wayback

Are you finding that access to Archive.org has been blocked ? With or without my firewall on I'm getting Unsafe Website and prohibited content messages. Acabashi (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am having no problem here at the moment and no reports of problems that I can see. Keith D (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for giving it a try. Peculiar - perhaps it's my ISP (Virgin are getting pretty protective), or I'll try another browser. Acabashi (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It still seems to be working with Chrome - it must be a Firefox thing. Acabashi (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keith_D/Archive_45&oldid=1190269249"