User talk:AlanM1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:47, 9 October 2019

Archives

Re: Dwight D. Eisenhower - biography

Ciao AlanM1: Just a note to let you know that a request to include a link to the article cultural diplomacy has been made on the talk page for the biography of President Dwight D. Eisenhower which is included in the Wikipedia Biography Project. Perhaps if you have time you might like to assist in moving the suggested text shown on the talk page along with the reference citations into the main article since it is a "pending edit".(See talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower) Many thanks for your thoughtful help and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the future. With best regards LGC104.207.219.102 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cocker

Thank you for your detailed edit summary when restoring text I deleted from that article.

I believe I may have known this woman Eileen in the early seventies (probably 1976), when I stayed in Sheffield for a while. At any rate, she claimed to be Cocker's former girlfriend. The woman I knew was a blonde. I didn't know her well, and I can't say I recall whether her name was Eileen or not. She had a child, about 5 years old.

Is there any chance you could send me a scan of the picture you mention? MrDemeanour (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrDemeanour: I was referring to the Hale source here. Of course, hairstyles are changeable

. Note that pic caption said it was of them together in 1962. The exact dates in the Bean source are unclear without a more-than-snippet view. Sources might even disagree on something that happened when he was 19 or so. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm pretty sure that's not the girl I knew. My goodness, doesn't he look young! MrDemeanour (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UC Irvine edit-a-thon on May 17, 2019

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Friday in Orange County, focused on gender equity. The event is a collaboration between UCI and Women in Red.

Friday, May 17, 2019
10:00 am – 4:00 pm PDT (UTC-7)
Langson Library, Room 228, at University of California, Irvine

Points of contact:

Logistics: moderator, Prof. Adriana Briscoe
Schedule: facilitators, Roger Bamkin & Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight

For more details, including the registration link, please see the meetup page. Everyone is welcome! We hope to see you there.

--Rosiestep (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress

Re: this revert:

For this bot task I am using what en.wiki says about a thing to determine what template and periodical parameter to apply. The en.wiki article for Biographical Directory of the United States Congress calls it a biographical dictionary so {{cite dictionary}} and |dictionary=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought maybe your script/bot had gone awry. Seems like an uncommon usage of the word "dictionary", which most people (I think) would define as a book containing an alphabetical listing of words with their meanings, pronunciations, and etymologies. I'm not necessarily disputing its validity – it just seems unusual and prone to confusion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I'd rather make a set of rules for the bot and stick to them – it makes the coding easier and avoids exception-cases. I could, for example, have made a special case for Biographical Directory of the United States Congress that would have the bot replace the {{cite web}} with {{Biographical Directory of Congress}} or {{CongBio}}. But, had I done so, that would have just sent me skidding down the hill handling exception after exception after exception ... The purpose of this bot task is to fix the easy-to-fix. Using {{cite dictionary}} and |dictionary= because en.wiki says that CongBio is a dictionary is an easy fix.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I guess I would rather see {{Cite encyclopedia}} and |encyclopedia=, since I'd bet there are very few instances of refs to things that are "dictionaries" in the common sense of the word. I'll note that {{Cite dictionary}} is a redirect to {{Cite encyclopedia}}, |dictionary= and |encyclopedia= are synonyms (along with several others), and they both render the same HTML (as does {{Cite web}} with |work=, except that the opening tag is <cite class="citation web"> instead of <cite class="citation encyclopaedia">). Not a big deal to me one way or the other – I can just see nitpicky editors (like me

) stumbling over it, wasting time. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about {{cite encyclopedia}} but chose not to use that because the en.wiki article about Biographical Directory of the United States Congress does not use the term encyclopedia as a descriptor; the short description for the article reads 'American dictionary. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' (as I understand it that description is primarily visible to those who consume en.wiki via mobile devices). The bot will not re-edit Rumsfeld unless someone again improperly uses italic wiki markup in |publisher=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ten Year society logo

Hello Alan. I corrected the notch on the logo and I uploaded the .svg version Now, how can I suggest it as new logo? thanks for the help :)Bruce The Deus (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be taking issues too personal

Hi there.I noticed that there was some talks instigated by you about me in the recent pages. Now since i have been unblocked by a very unnecessary block, let me clarify some thoughts about this. Firstly, i understand that you had some issues about my punctuation, which i have just realized how annoying it could get. I would like to mention that I am not a frequent editor, and i try to make time to make the pages better. Hopefully, this does not continue as i do use my punctuations as far as possible in the best of ways. I noticed you linked some edits back from 2016 also, which i think it was unnecessary given it was quite a while ago. However, i do not appreciate that you use profanity against me in such a way, which i feel is not necessary, and i would like to mention that i was not as much aware that i made these punctuation errors (as i am relatively new to editing although my account is quite old). Nevertheless, we are all here to learn about each other, be it bad or good. Hence i learnt to not make punctuation errors again, and more about you. I hope you learn some Social etiquettes as well. Thank you. --Hari147 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hari147: Thanks for the response. First, I want to clarify that I did not profane you. If you read it carefully, what I said here was ... it's just not reasonable for someone to effectively tell us to f*** off and expect us to follow them around and fix everything they write. In other words, I believed, reasonably, that's what you were telling the rest of us by ignoring our requests to follow MOS:PUNCT, creating work for other editors. I believed this was the case because multiple people had mentioned it to you, and I gave examples that were easy to find, like this in 2016, the recent ANI case regarding edit-warring, and when I tried again to make you aware of the problem, which you removed without comment and subsequently ignored with your edits exhibiting the same problem. I've no doubt that there are many more comments about it buried in edit summaries and elsewhere.

I reviewed many edits to ensure that this was, indeed, a long-term issue, as did another experienced editor and two experienced admins who were involved. Experience has shown that a short block is an effective way of resolving situations like this where other forms of communications fail. I apologize that you felt it was personal. It's not. It's simply about actions. It's about making the encyclopedia a professionally curated, accessible, accumulation of knowledge, which is why we are all here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbreviated Test Language for All Systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HP BASIC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Hello, User:AlanM1 Thank you for taking a look at my draft: Milen Manoj Earath. Appreciate your help. There is a wee problem with the lead section that you had editted. Unfortunately these 8 grades do not refer to the Indian education system, but to the grading system of Trinity College, London. So, it has to be mentioned as '8 grades'. Also, in the place from where the subject is from, Earath, refers to a big family of people, and refering to the subject as 'Earath' introduces an element of ambiguity because it can refer to any member of that particular family. Kindly advice. Thanking you, Refluxdonut 😊

Hello User:AlanM1, I just forgot. Is the lead section good? Can the template be removed? If not, kindly advice. Thank you very much😊. Sincerely, Refluxdonut (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 18:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.[reply]

"Roberts Barracks" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Roberts Barracks. Since you had some involvement with the Roberts Barracks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdi

AlanM1,

Could you please tell me who you are?

What makes you think that I don’t personally know Prince Abdi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonjones213 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonjones213: I believe you have misunderstood the point. According to WP:VERIFYOR, Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. I am just another anonymous^[1] editor like you. Neither of us are suitable reliable sources for facts about Prince Abdi or anyone else unless they were published in a reliable source. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Technically, my identity has been confirmed by WMF, but it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. Even if you were to prove your identity and your relation to the subject (somehow), you have a conflict of interest and would still not be a suitable source.

El Salvador no longer country with highest homicide rate in the world. Need advice on sources.

When I suggested the edit to the El Salvador page, I did it based on Salvadoran Newspaper reports. The Wikipedia statistics seem based on UNODC statistics, collected via questionnaires sent to national institutions. According to the UN. Venezuela had a murder rate of 56.333 per 100,000 persons in 2016, the last year the government provided it provided official data. But independent institutions like Insight Crime and the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence reported a much higher number for that year, 90 per 100,000, which would've made it the country with the highest murder rate in 2016. The local newspapers I read must've used from those institutions and compared it to data from local police.

I'm not sure if contrasting the data from the UN with the one from independent institutions would be appropriate for Wikipedia, though.

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/insight-crime-2016-homicide-round-up/ https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/2017-homicide-round-up/ https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/insight-crime-2018-homicide-roundup/

--JFlord (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFlord: I can understand that different parties may come up with different numbers based on their own methodologies and, unfortunately, motivations. In the U.S., I think the FBI is considered the reliable source for such stats, but even those might be problematic because they still have to rely on locally-reported data. However, I have no significant experience in this field. In general, I think policy is to report the contrast between RSs when they disagree with each other, especially if you can find a third party source that discusses the differences. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: trout Truly, Kugihot (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Technically, my identity has been confirmed by WMF, but it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. Even if you were to prove your identity and your relation to the subject (somehow), you have a conflict of interest and would still not be a suitable source.

[1]

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 :{{Ping|JFlord}} I can understand that different parties may come up with different numbers based on their own methodologies and, unfortunately, motivations. In the U.S., I think the FBI is considered the reliable source for such stats, but even those might be problematic because they still have to rely on locally-reported data. However, I have no significant experience in this field. In general, I think policy is to report the contrast between [[WP:RS|RSs]] when they disagree with each other, especially if you can find a third party source that discusses the differences. <span style="color:red">—[</span>[[User:AlanM1|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">Alan</span><span style="color:blue">M</span><span style="color:purple">1</span>]]([[User talk:AlanM1#top|talk]])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 18:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
+== Trouted ==
+{{trout}}
+You have been trouted for: trout [[User:Kugihot|Truly, Kugihot]] ([[User talk:Kugihot|talk]]) 13:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)