User talk:DavidBrooks-AWB/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates

I see you used AWB to add Category:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates to a large number of articles. But you also created that category as a dated maintenance category, which means that AnomieBOT is complaining to me that it doesn't know which template to date to remove the pages from the category.

Since there's no template for this category, I've gone ahead and removed the template and categories that make it be marked as dated. If you really do want it dated, please create an appropriate maintenance template for it (following the instructions) and replace the direct categorization with the template. Anomie⚔ 01:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anomie:: Thanks. I agree that's the right solution, and I was about to fix it myself. I only made it a dated category because the older Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates, which is mainly used by {{Update-EB}}, was made dated at some time in its history. Actually I think the categorization by date is arbitrary and unnecessary in that case too. David Brooks (talk) 07:07, 19 September 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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The references were from a section that comes after the Notes section, which is a little obscure. Fixed by my main alter ego. David Brooks (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed DavidBrooks-AWB (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. DavidBrooks-AWB (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dudley Costello

I think you're almost right about the en rule usage, but here is a bit more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Other_date_ranges. To put it another way, it's an en rule between numerals, but an en rule with spaces between numbers or other information of more than a single number, such as "3 July 1901 – 9 November 1902". Usage in the wide world varies, but Wikipedia seems to have come down in favour of this solution, and of the "1 January 1901" no-punctuation format for dates, regardless of whether US or UK usage applies to the page. (Here it's UK.) Best wishes and thanks for your sharp eyes! Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bmcln1: Thanks for your comments. After reviewing the MOS's date-range rules I'm going over articles (especially for born-died) that my AWB alternate has edited in the past. I use {{snd}} because that also includes the nbsp detail for the first space. While I'm there, I have some AWB-assisted edits that catch a few more cases in the article, although I leave alone those I'm not sure of. Care is needed not to change hyphens in wikilinks (mostly image filenames)! Anyway, thanks again for the affirmation. David Brooks (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)...adding - I understand what you say about date formats, but I'm limiting this pass to the separators. Ensuring consistent formats within an article is a little too labor-intensive this time round. There are other specialists focusing on that! David Brooks (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DavidBrooks-AWB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, if a little crudely. David Brooks (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops... forgot about WP:NOTBROKE

In case you came here to point this out, I know I've recently made a few edits that gratuitously relinked redirects. I'd forgotten WP:NOTBROKE. I'll stop doing that. David Brooks (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DavidBrooks-AWB. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing links to Wikisource for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi David, I see you've been removing links to the Wikisource version of EB1911 e.g. [1]. I've spent a few years doing the exact opposite. The "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" had over 1300 articles early in 2015, I've been able to get that down under 200 recently. But a few articles I converted to Wikisource refs have been reverted by you. I'm trying to understand the reason for your reversions. The advantage of the Wikisource version is that it has searchable text and links to other articles. Another article you've reverted from Wikisource refs. is Claude de Mesmes, comte d'Avaux. DivermanAU (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@DivermanAU: For an explanation, refer to the relevant section of User talk:Johannes Schade, who has recently been inserting links to the page images on archive.org etc. He initially replied at User talk:DavidBrooks. I was changing them to Wikisource references (in general I agree with you) then realized I was destroying his identification of line number and the quote, a scholarly exercise that I am neutral on and don't intend to copy. So I reverted my "improvement" to give me time to sit back and think about it, which is what I guess you noticed. I don't think I've ever changed a Wikisource reference to an archive.org reference independently (although it's tempting when the WS article is full of scan errors!). David Brooks (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks: thanks for the reply and explanation, much appreciated. I can see why the scanned version of EB1911 is being used for reference if someone is using line numbers — but the Wikisource page could be linked instead. This has the advantage of having the text version alongside the scanned image e.g. Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/74 for the Earl of Abercorn. Any objections if I do that? I'd also like to use the "cite encyclopedia" rather than the the "Cite EB911" template so the "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference" doesn't get populated unnecessarily. What do you think?
(I also don't like linking to the Wikisource version if there are scan errors.) DivermanAU (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. It hadn't occurred to me to use the Page space as a compromise. But I don't see the problem with adding the category; it's actually correct. Might also run the suggestion past Johannes. I think I found a dozen articles where he had done the same. David Brooks (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

please fix your script

See this edit. |inline=y not |inlinr=y

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Not script-driven but fat fingers. I'll try to be more critical in preview. Thanks. David Brooks (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Script edits

Please ensure that you review any AWB edits. This edit broke the image link by changing the dashes. Woody (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Woody: Thanks, and apologies. I thought my C# module's cloaking code handled that now, but no excuse for not catching it in diff and preview. I'll debug the code. David Brooks (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:DavidBrooks-AWB/Archive_4"