User talk:Keith D/Archive 50

Archive 45 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 55

thanks/chuckle brothers

Thanks for looking at my attempt to remove vandalism and reverting further. This is my first day trying to remove vandalism, so I wasn't entirely sure what I was doing... Either way, someone has pointed out Twinkle to me, so once I am familiar with that, I should be doing a better job. Again, thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood and also Frances Lupton and Berney baronets

Hi Keith, if you can, please check my latest edits on the above pages. All the best and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.13.6 (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done sorry for the delay but have been away without internet access. I have now had a look at the 3 articles in question. Keith D (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Berney baronets

Thanks again for your help. Ref. number 4 on the Berney baronets page is still not quite right. Are you aboe to have a look at it please. Thanks again Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talkcontribs) 00:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I could not fix that one as I could not understand what was meant by the reference. It has two dates rather than just a single date, does that mean it is a reprint? Also the URL link just gives some search results rather than a single page of the newspaper that should give the details in the quote and enable the date to be pinned down. Keith D (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Berney baronets and also George Nevill, 1st Earl of Abergavenny

I have taken out one of the dates on the Berney page - is this OK? Also - are the edits on this page below OK?

George Nevill, 1st Earl of Abergavenny

Thanks again mikeSrbernadette (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have had a tidy of that one. Keith D (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent change

Hi Keith

I see you have changed the page for Middlesbrough, whilst I appreciate the editing you have done I am afraid what you have edited is incorrect as of today.

Middlesbrough WAS in the historic North Riding of Yorkshire, but it is only a part of North Yorkshire for ceremonial purposes today.

It is in the North East Region of England and the Tees Valley/ Teesside Urban Area. It is a unitary authority and apparently has no shire county.

It is still in the Ceremonial county but not the shire county of North Yorkshire, so this needs to be changed ha. I don't know how to edit myself but if you would it would be appreciated. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.169.175 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox to show unitary and ceremonial county rather than shire county. Keith D (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Keith;

First off apologies over the date issue. I have seen you have had to go in and improve the date format on a lot of my edited pages and I was wondering why.....

I was going off this on the MOS:DATEFORMAT which has a box with ACCEPTABLE DATE FORMATS, so I assumed that 2 August 2001 was correct. So just to be clear; it should be 2 Aug 2001? Because the DMY link is just plain confusing (I'm not dense, equally I'm not Stephen Hawking either....)

Sorry about all of this; new to Wikipedia you see. I have lots of info which I think (rather naively) is useful and interesting. As for the dates - serving military person, so not writing 20151029 for the date is messing with me anyway.

Here's to you not having to edit everything I do.

The Joy of all things (Jon R)

The joy of all things (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No. 2 August 2001 would be correct, 2 Aug 2001 would only be acceptable in tables where space is restricted. The ISO dates of the format yyyy-mm-dd are the ones I was talking about, articles should be consistent and use the same format for dates throughout though ISO is allowed in references if all are in that format. Personally I avoid them like the plague as they are confusing and ambiguous as could be yyyy-dd-mm, which is not allowed but often used. Keith D (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha - I figured out (by going through what you had changed) that it's the dates in the references. When I install a web-link, it automatically adds the date as 2015-11-02. Because it is automatic, I thought this was okay. I have added links today and gone in and changed the dates and I will continue to do so from now on. Also thanks for changing A169 to A169 road, the MOVE function was preventing me from doing so. Thanks Again. The joy of all things (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You could not move it because the page already existed and was not a simple redirect to the page you were moving from. What tool are you using for the reference addition as there appears to be a rash of new users coming up with similar reference styles?

I have been using the CITE button on the toolbar after clicking EDIT. Typing in the ref with arrows would also generate automatically, but either way gives a date of 2015-11-02. Even EDIT SOURCE does the same thing. No worries; now that I know what the issue is, I can resolve them. The joy of all things (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The joy of all things (talkcontribs) 23:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It fills it in in day first for me. Could be a skin difference or may be you are using visual editor or mobile version. Keith D (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The result is the same on my laptop at home and the two different systems at work (I've tried this morning). I don't use my mobile. I had to Wiki SKIN, and on balance, I assume that's what it is.... The joy of all things (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Berney baronets

Please check my latest edit on this page. Thanks again. Srbernadette (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Had a look and think it may be best to split the reference rather than effectively add a second source in to the quote. Do not have access to the source to get a URL for what would be the second reference. Keith D (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2015

Delivered November 2015 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.

09:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Lupton family

Please do the accent over Baroness von Schunck (née Lupton) in 20th century section on the above page. We cannot work out how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.46.214 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Lupton family

Me again! I can never remember how to do the accent over the nee word. Please help if you can. In the 20th century section - Baroness von Schunck, nee Lupton. Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.210.155 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)An easy way round a problem like this is: find it in another article and copy-and-paste. I use this for the dash which isn't a hyphen sometimes too. PamD 05:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do help me with the above problem. I cannot work it out. I am sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.46.214 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter O'Toole

Hi. I had to undo part of your last edit at Peter O'Toole. For further information please read this.Sampayu 01:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsure how the link was changed as it was not done by me intentionally. Keith D (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

827 Naval Air Squadron

Good Afternoon Keith D,

I came across 827 Naval Air Squadron this morning which has been expanded from a stub, I stupidly wikifyied it without checking the reference, and now having done so it's obvious it's a direct copy from the reference. Can I just delete the offending content and put a note on the user's talk page or do I have to mark it first? Gavbadger (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I would just revert it out as a copyvio and give user a note on this. Keith D (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

and

Martineau family

Hi there - could you please check latest edits we have done on the above 2 pages. Your eye for detail is fantastic! Thanks 101.182.250.204 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

and ==Lupton family== and also the articles ==Aspendale== and ==Safety Beach== Please can you do one of your check ups with the above 4 pages. We always appreciate it. Thanks so much from Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.171.41 (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

==Sorry Keith==. just to clarify, Safety Beach page and also the Aspendale pages are both Victorian, Australia. We know you are an expert in Yorkshire, but hope you can do these pages as well ( check up) as well as the Lupton family page - which IS a Yorkshire related article - if it needs a check up - you usually find something important to fix! Thanks again for your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talkcontribs) 12:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. have done these. I had to guess at the Aspendale one as the link was to a dab page. Keith D (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Martineau family

Many changes have been made to the above page - can you please find the time to check them. Thanks so much MER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.20.253.131 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 2 December 2015‎ (UTC)

  Done Keith D (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2015

Delivered December 2015 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.

00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Category renaming

Hello Keith. Has my response assuaged your concerns? I'm just trying to get all the categories consistently named. Cheers, Number 57 00:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really as I would have expected a split using the name at the time of the election rather than the name now or to use the more neutral name that does not link it with either the present name or previous names as per it current naming. Keith D (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would you expect to have different categories for elections to the same body if it's just a rename? "Sheffield Council" isn't neutral, it's just misnamed (the capitalisation implies it's a proper name, and as far and I'm aware, there's never been an organisation called Sheffield Council). Number 57 00:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Rather than rename the category it is probably better to restore the top level summary article back to where it was. Rather than mentioning the council type and just use the "<place> council elections" to avoid the problems which are confusing and clearly wrong for all of the articles in the set. This as was originally set up covers both City Council elections and Municipal Borough elections. Keith D (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

James Cook

Keith, The excellent In Our Time program about James Cook repeatedly mentioned Whitby and also referred readers to to the James Cook article. Sadly I don't think my edit on the talk page did what was intended. Could I ask you to look at it?
Regards JRPG (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Had a quick look and tweaked the templates - I think that is what it it supposed to be. Keith D (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, spot on ..as expected. Thanks JRPG (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

UK locations; Top level frame of reference

Hi, I notice you made this edit simplifying Huw Edwards' place of birth from Bridgend, Glamorgan, Wales, UK to Bridgend, Glamorgan, Wales. I agree with your edit summary: Wikilinking Wales is overlinking and including UK is unnecessary. I understand the format you changed it to is the generally accepted convention. I have been looking for something similar on MOS but have found only WP:UKNOWGOV: The top level frame of reference is the country within the UK. However, that is a naming convention and not relevant to infoboxes. Are you aware of a relevant MOS guideline, which would apply to infobox locations, saying UK is unnecessary? Daicaregos (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I do not think that there is a relevant MOS specifically stating this, it is just a logical extension of what you have linked to above. Most editors usually follow this and even go further missing out the country but I think that is probably too far to go. An IP editor insists on adding the links and UK to articles, but tend to get reverted by the regular editors. Will let you know if I come across any MOS guidance. Keith D (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OK Thanks. Please do. Though perhaps the time has come to include it as part of MOS. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That would be ideal but may not get far because of the arguments about Sovereign State needing to be included from some editors. Keith D (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, quite. So it really is just editor preference then. Daicaregos (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably. I would guess that a MOS change would get a no consensus result though if everyone who reverts the IP changes actually bothered to express a view it would be a clear consensus for a MOS change. Keith D (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Quite possibly. If only it were just IPs. Daicaregos (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Editting an edit summary Boulby Mine

Hi Keith D,

Can you help please? We made an edit to a web page - after we thought we had been inapprppriately hacked - and gave a summary suggesting it was someone when apparently is was not. The edit is on the 'Boulby Mine' Wiki page - and the edit and edit summary is the ones from Dec 5th. We do still want the edit - but would like the edit change reference to be the one above (Dec 7th). And have the Dec 5th one deleted.

We only put this description in because we originally deleted the offending section - but then it came back in (put back by you we think) - so we put in a strong reason why needed to make it stay.

Thanks if you can help.

143.167.207.251 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries cannot be changed once made, though they can be hidden from view. So do you want the edit summary for the removal on 5 December to be hidden from general view? Keith D (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

Yes please... Certainly remove the one on the 5th (or make hidden from general view). We don't need the explanation in the 7th Dec change to be seen either really - so that could go too. Again - I only put an explanation to explain why the change should stand. It's OK if you feel it needs to stay though.

Thanks very much.

130.246.132.177 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have hidden the one from 5 December and pointed to the 7 December change as the reason for the edit. Keith D (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 45 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 55