Jump to content

User talk:Keith-264

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiCat.
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 (~~~~)
Who you looking at?

Useful template for the convoy articles?

[edit]

Perhaps {{Cite Arnold Hague Convoy Database}} may be of some use, perhaps not to replace your existing sources, but as a readily accessible one for readers who won't have the relevant books? Example:

  • "Convoy PQ.18". Arnold Hague Convoy Database. ConvoyWeb. Retrieved 2024-07-06.

(Hohum @) 16:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: I use that site where the book version lacks detail but it won't hurt. With the Goldene Zange attacks, watching columns disappear might be enlightening. Just a thought. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feldflieger-Abteilungen

[edit]

Hey Keith! You reverted my edit on Feldflieger Abteilung saying "No OR". Where I beg you did I insert any OR? I just copy-edited, esp. using English rather than German. Wegesrand (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping German terms for translations instead of keeping both. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not OR. The English terms are verifiable; they are not likely to be challenged; ergo the German does not have to be present. Read WP:NOR carefully. Wegesrand (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet they have been challenged. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they haven't. What is the challenge? Are you referring to your removal? Just saying "this is OR" is not a challenge. If you were to say, "I looked in appropriate sources, <here> and <here>, and was unable to verify these translations," that would be the very minimum level of a challenge. Wegesrand (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not: that's exactly what you're missing in your reading of WP:NOR.
In addition, WP:NOR says, "Faithfully translating sourced material into English ... is not considered original research."
That's clear enough. I'll revert your reversion. Wegesrand (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start an edit war. Keith-264 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean, please don't continue the edit war you started? Shall we invoke mediation then? Wegesrand (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this, you can have the last word.Keith-264 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Keith-264! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Raid on Grand Harbour, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://docer.tips/grub-street-cull-b-hurricanes-over-malta-june-1940-april-194.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Raid on Grand Harbour saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: You will note that I have already mentioned my reservations about Cull et al. because the book is structured as quotes with linking passages. I would have reverted it yesterday but was distracted by a flood from the cold water tank. Keith-264 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic edits

[edit]

FYI that this edit would be considered "cosmetic" and likely shouldn't be done on its own. See WP:COSMETICBOT, Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Cosmetic edit, and Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#editor-friendly wikitext. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: Why? Keith-264 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make the rules, but the first link there says "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I read that and remain puzzled, I was copy-editing the article with a view to remedy its lack of citations. I found the unpipe edits facility recently and I've used it to save space, which seems eminently reasonable. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is auto ed frowned upon too? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AED's second paragraph is devoted to cosmetic edits. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Beams

[edit]

In this edit to Battle of the Beams you added a number of references to page 533 of 

{{sfn|Hinsley|1979|p=533}}

I can't see any mention on that page of line of sight or the earth's curvature. Could you verify your source please? Cabayi (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: OK. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: Ahem! it was page 553. I have amended two citations and removed one as i think that passage is taken from Jones. Apologies Keith-264 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

[edit]

Are there any specific articles you'd like me to take a run through? Primergrey (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not offhand but I'll bear it in mind. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemisms

[edit]

Please don't add euphemisms to Wikipedia, as you did in this edit. MOS:EUPHEMISM is the relevant guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: In English English it's a synonym ("A synonym is a word, morpheme, or phrase that means precisely or nearly the same as another word, morpheme, or phrase in a given language"). Dead, deceased and late are synonymous. see here [1]. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's kind of the point of a euphemism. It's a synonym that sounds less harsh. Just use "dead", as the guideline says. If you're having trouble identifying euphemism (one trick is to ask yourself why you're replacing a perfectly good word with a synonym), you can check Wiktionary. Or you could check Google: [2]. First hit. In the future, when you feel an urge to replace a harsh word with something that sounds more comfortable to you, please resist it. Or if you consider it helpful to go around replacing random words with synonyms, replace "deceased" and "late" with "dead", which is actually kind of helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: No "A euphemism is an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that is deemed offensive or suggests something unpleasant." This is the opposite of a synonym which is used to avoid repetition, did you read the definition?. Dead, deceased and late are synonymous not euphemistic. Do not assume my intentions as you have done above it is facile, a failure to AGF and smacks of WP:OWN. Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Right. Completely ignore that a reliable source says that it's a euphemism. Good luck with ignoring sources and violating the MOS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Keith, but I'm only a native. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Your reply should have read 'on reflection I realise that I jumped to conclusions, made a mistaken inference about your motives, confused synonym with euphemism and failed to make due allowance for the difference between English English and American English'. That said, I grant you the last word. Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I need to keep this link handy for people who have a shaky understanding of their native language: the Dictionary of Euphemisms by the Oxford University Press, a peer-reviewed British academic publication. Now, if you still want to argue it, please do it with someone else. I'll no longer receive your pings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: I gave you a chance to back away graciously and you funked it. Good riddance.Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keith-264&oldid=1246402363"