en.wikipedia.org

User talk:Keith-264 - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll reply to your message here.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 87.242.222.53 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered Keith-264 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you wondered, these ip posts are nothing to do with me. The only editor I have a problem with right now is an administrator who shoots from the hip. As far as I am aware, an admin can find out the ip address from which I normally edit when logged on. This doesn't appear to have been done in this case. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: Thanks for letting me know, I never expected you to disagree using underhand methods and I'm glad that the netstapo were wrong. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So explain to me why you like the template Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the scholarly apparatus is best when it's unobtrusive, further reading is there for the interested reader. I don't feel bound by a discussion that I wasn't part of. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a take that I've not seen before. Interesting that you prioritize unobtrusiveness over legibility for vision-impaired readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to set up a straw man? Perhaps you could list them? Keith-264 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List what? Of course you're not bound by any discussion that hasn't resulted in a formal policy. That goes without saying. That doesn't mean that you can't make a decision on that topic on your own. To me it seems obvious that usage of refbegin strictly to reduce text size is disadvantageous to vision-impaired readers, regardless of what other advantages that it might offer to the editor. Do you disagree?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assumption, how many people say it obstructs them? Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only have the one for sure, but surely the spirit of MOS:SMALLTEXT, broadly construed, applies regardless?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you broach the subject on the message board or rfc? Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Unruffled, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols during the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Unruffled. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Unruffled), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG Shouldn't we remove the flags in the infobox of this article? [1] I removed the flags but another user defended it. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbbanaz05: I don't like them but other people do, some agree that if there are two belligerents they aren't necessary and lots of other people do drive-by edits because they can. There's never going to be consensus I'm afraid. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah probably, thanks! Vbbanaz05 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Keith, I am puzzled as to why there are several books that are referenced in the article, and yet you have moved them from the reference list to the further reading list. Can you please explain your rationale behind this? Thanking you in advance. Keith H99 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: I didn't know that I had, I'll have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: I can't see any harv errors in Further reading. Could there be sources in FR using ref /ref rather than sfn? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grodzinski is the eleventh source, and has been cited as using ref /ref rather than sfn.

It is the same scenario regarding Abernethy, the one hundred and fifty seventh source.

From what I recall, only one of those books should have been moved to "further reading" and the others were being cited, even if sfn had not been used. Keith H99 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: I agree, I hadn't noticed that they had been cited. Keith-264 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: Changed Grodzinski to sfn in case someone else makes the same mistake. Can't find Abernethy though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those updates. Keith H99 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the books that I have returned to the reference section, they had been cited using the older "ref""ref/" style. Going forwards, can you please double-check that this does not occur, as the orphaning of citations is clearly not good. The books were authored by: Bassett x2, Greene, Groom, Ingersoll, Porter, Quimby, Ritchie, Smythies and Ward. Keith H99 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I haven't encountered this before or I wouldn't have done it this time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Keith-264

A very similar scenario has happened to me with the same article, with a seasoned editor like yourself, clearly using automative tools.

Although I am old school, and my edits are manual, I would like to know what tools you have been using. I presume there is some kind of bot and/or script that you use? Would you be able to elucidate further, please?

I used to work as a data analyst. In terms of what has happened, it is reminiscent of what I have seen where a raw script is applied to perform a data transformation. Not only does it fulfil the statement of work, but also it does some further changes which had not been foreseen, which is why the maxim of "measure twice, cut once" is highly appropriate to data transformation. Keith H99 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: Evening, I have a dupe wl scanner 'User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js'); and that's it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Keith, this will be a slow burner of a project for me to run with, the automation tools, and how to analyse content on existing articles. I now have this, and AutoEd on my list. Keith H99 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: All the best, if there's anything I can do to help please let me know. I didn't mention Auto ed but when I've repaired harv errors during the latest purge but I've done an auto ed first to tidy the edit page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]