This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Keith D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for User:Keith D:
  • Yorkshire sort out & remove modern references
  • Yorkshire sub-articles need references/changes made to Yorkshire transferring down
  • KC Stadium - check out stand names & references when stadium web site is back on air
  • Commons East Riding of Yorkshire image sorting - done Civil parishes Airmyn to Mappleton on third pass
  • Keep an eye on bug

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Keith D, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Alex (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2017[edit]

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)

Lupton family[edit]

Hi Keith - sorry - another editor did a lot of great stuff recently - but please check that all is OK - can the pic of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge be made a very tiny bit smaller please? Thanks so much - Mike Edward

It is set to the default to allow for user preferences to size the image. Keith D (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A quick look at a graph[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Lupton family[edit]

Please check again. Another editor has been very difficult. Thanks. Mike

Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale[edit]

Sorry again. But please check all the new edits that other editors have made. Thanks as usual.

Potternewton[edit]

Please check this one too if able. Thanks

Tech News: 2017-10[edit]

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)

Tech News: 2017-11[edit]

15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice page move for article on 'Good"[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge[edit]

Please check - after more edits from a number of editors ! - that this page - formats, files etc - is all OK.. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-12[edit]

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)