Jump to content

User talk:Keith D/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 65

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2017

Delivered March 2017 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.

13:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

A quick look at a graph

If possible could you take a quick look at this graph discussed here [1]. Is this easy or complex to do? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am probably not the one to advise on this one though it looks feasible. May be you could ask at the village pump where there are probably more knowledgeable people on the graphing capabilities of the software. By the way the BOT producing the figures has been down since early February and have been unable to get response from those claiming to operate it. Keith D (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
That seems like the right way to go and I have put it on the Village pump. On a separate issue, three editors have agreed that the merge on the "Good" article and the "Evil" article from several months ago has not been working well for either article and not been helpful; it seems to require an un-merge to the original articles discussed at the end of the Talk page here [2]. We have allowed 30-days for the single hold-out editor to see if he could find any support for his position but he got no support at all. Could the three editors who are in agreement request for you to do the un-merge since the thirty day "wait" period seems to have been sufficient time to make a decision. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, it looks as though the Evil article is essentially back to what it was before the merge. Unsure what is best for the the Good and evil article. You could return it to this version of 11 June 2016 but that would loose all of the useful edits since then. The other way is for you to edit out the parts that came from the Evil article and just leave the relevant bits, the diff of the old version and current version is where to start. Unfortunately there is no way of undoing a merge without reverting to an earlier version. Keith D (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the three of us who are at consensus on that Talk page were in agreement with the revert of both articles to the previous original versions because we were accepting that the newly merged article could continue to exist as a "themes" article for related interest on the singled out theme of "Good and evil." User:Andrew had already done the revert for un-merging the article on Evil at the end of January without objection in order to restore it. We do not have roll-back to allow the un-merge of the "Good" article back to its original form. All three of us at the Talk discussion were in agreement that the original article for "Good" should be restored, and the new article for the themes version titled "Good and evil" can retain all of its accumulated edits without deleting them. That way the original article for "Good" is restored and the accumulated edits for the new themes article can just stay there. If you could do this, then all three of us at the Talk page there are in agreement for it to be done. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify you want this version of 11 June 2016 and earlier revisions split from Good and evil and placed somewhere else. The Good article has always been a dab page which had an entry for Good (religion) which is now just a redirect to it. Is that where you would want the above to go? Keith D (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back over the week-end. Yes that's the one, or even the one earlier on 3 June 2016 just before he started his edits here [3]. That would allow us to start looking to bring the article back into shape once its returned to its original form. While you are looking at it, I noticed that the main "Good" page itself is currently used not for the article itself but for the disambiguation page instead. This seems backwards and I would suggest this as a proper time to correctly call it the disambiguation page as "Good (disambiguation)" and move the real article from June 2016 into the simple page for "Good" as the main article without further qualification. We can then start in on the repair work once you decide which version is best for us to continue with page enhancements. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

New date in Use dmy template

I am curious to know the reason for changing the date in the Use dmy template at the top of Dachau concentration camp page. Thanks. Carlotm (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the date is reset once the dates are in alignment in the article, this is to flag when that article was last brought into compliance. People can then deal with articles with the oldest categories first as these articles are more likely to have misaligned dates. Regards. Keith D (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please check this one too if able. Thanks

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Myleene Klass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moving On. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice page move for article on 'Good"

That was a nice page move you did on "Good" and the article development there is going forward. I just noticed that another page titled "Negligence" just went through the same type of page redirects without consensus, with a lone editor moving it to his preferred title of "Law of Negligence" along with that editor's pointer to a non-existing disambiguation page. I left a message for that editor here [15] about normal edit practice, but when I went to do the actual reverts to undo his edits, I received an edit-error message saying that only sysops could do this. Any chance you could look at this and return it to the simple previous "Negligence" article title. It is a previous featured article and ought to remain with the title which readers and editors are accustomed to seeing over the years. Cheers. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted the page move, but cannot see why you could not do the move as it did not prompt me to delete the target redirect. Keith D (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hull and Barnsley Railway line template

I note that the closed railway stations on this template all show the incorrect icons for open stations. Since you were a recent editor on this template, I thought it a matter of courtesy to raise this matter with you to see if the required amendments could be made by your good self.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I can just about make minor edits to the route diagrams, usually by copying from existing ones, so not the right person to handle this. May be The joy of all things (talk · contribs) could be of assistance. Keith D (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Xenophon Philosopher I think the issue here is that the route diagram details the H & B between 1885 and 1923. If you look at the lines, none have the opacity lowered which indicates they are still all open, when in fact, only a fraction still exists (mostly that around Hull Docks) so technically all the stations and the track are displayed incorrectly. However, I assumed it was a snapshot of the line between the years given in the navbox. Whatever, as so much needs changing in the route box to align it with others (if that is what is actually needed), then a request detailing the changes proposed needs to be posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways as certain bold route box changes have been deemed controversial by the community recently. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Blight Irish Montreal

I'm just wondering why you're using the "{{Dead end|date=March 2017}}" issue template on Pre-Blight_Irish_Montreal. It seems to have sufficient links to other articles. Let me know if I'm wrong! —Formal Dude (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the tag was already on the page when I edited it. I should have removed it when I converted the external links to wikilinks. Keith D (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Collaborations of the month April 2017

Delivered April 2017 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.

22:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Population edits

You reverted one of my edits on Faldingworth. This is part of my work to restore some edits made by user:talk Bob Henshaw as detailed in the block log at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That user added many unreferenced and often misleading statements about population figures. In this case although the information is correct I do not feel it necessary to restate the figures with a comparison to 2001 in the introduction when the correct 2011 figures are already stated in the info box - whether we do revert these is probably something that is best discussed on the incidents article. Dsergeant (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I like both census figures as it gives you some comparison as to what happens between the census. I also have had to revert some of the AWB edits to these type of changes done by others as they are introducing contradictions into articles. Keith D (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Access date question

Hi, Keith D. I saw your edit summary here and thought I would give you an answer. I started the article in one of my sandboxes back in 2010, but I only put it up last evening after I saw that the subject recently passed away. I should have double checked the citations prior to posting. Thanks for cleaning it up! - Location (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please check refs. Thanks101.182.51.93 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have stuffed up a new ref - number 24 - please leave in quote and thanks as usual. Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.60.171 (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Change for page

Hi User:Keith D, just wondered can you make an edit to Maiorana page please? That the name is Norman French in origin, on page 326 of this source Della Calabria illustrata the book states that the fleur-de-lis in the coat of arms of the family also indicates a Norman origin. I just don't do edits on that scale, because more than likely no one will edit the page for many months, leaving my mistakes (that become Wikipedia's mistakes) on show. You'd just have to blank the page then change categories to Norman and "Maiorana is an Italian surname" to "Maiorana is a Norman French surname" (Good examples of Norman names are Banister (surname) and Molyneux). Hope you can help, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith could you please check Richard Monckton Milnes, 1st Baron Milnes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4F0A:F100:253D:8D25:6DA1:FC3A (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the article you mean that I have done. Keith D (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Keith

With your "Yorkshire" expertise, could you please make a comment on the TALK page RE "where the Lupton family page sits in the importance scale of Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Assessment". I believe it would now be of "mid-importance".

Cheers Ted

19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2017

Delivered May 2017 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.

21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
removed GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Archive 55Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 65