→Editing styles: reply |
Marc Lacoste (talk | contribs) →Editing styles: my bad.--~~~~ |
||
Line 313: | Line 313: | ||
: {{ping|YSSYguy}} And there isn't any requirements to keep a change when referenced info is deleted, even if useful additions are made. Just separate additions from deletions. But there is a requirement to stay [[WP:CIVIL]]--[[User:Marc Lacoste|Marc Lacoste]] ([[User talk:Marc Lacoste#top|talk]]) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
: {{ping|YSSYguy}} And there isn't any requirements to keep a change when referenced info is deleted, even if useful additions are made. Just separate additions from deletions. But there is a requirement to stay [[WP:CIVIL]]--[[User:Marc Lacoste|Marc Lacoste]] ([[User talk:Marc Lacoste#top|talk]]) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
::Please point out what referenced information was deleted. No need to ping me again. [[User:YSSYguy|YSSYguy]] ([[User talk:YSSYguy|talk]]) 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
::Please point out what referenced information was deleted. No need to ping me again. [[User:YSSYguy|YSSYguy]] ([[User talk:YSSYguy|talk]]) 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
:: I'm sorry, I thought "will be produced by a Cessna-[[Aviation Industry Corporation of China#Major affiliate companies|AVIC]] joint venture in China" was refernced. my bad.--[[User:Marc Lacoste|Marc Lacoste]] ([[User talk:Marc Lacoste#top|talk]]) 12:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:26, 23 May 2017
2005
|
---|
Welcome! Hello, Marc Lacoste, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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 Proper NounsProper nouns like September, Euros, Danish, and Italian, MUST always be capitalized.
GrammarIt is: "has acquired," NOT: "as acquired." & It is: "The agrement has to be validated," NOT: "The agrement have to be validated." WikiDon 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
|
2006
|
---|
Hi, please turn this gallery (or at least all the fair use images on it) into a list of links instead, or something like that, as soon as possible. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair use images to be displayed in userspace (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy), and acording to this report you have 43 of them on that page. I'm working pretty much at random off that list, so don't feel singled out if others on the list with more images have not yet been notified. Eventualy I'll get around to them all (though hopefully I'm not the only one working on it). Thanks in advance. --Sherool (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC) les 3 mousquetairesSalut, je ne suis pas sur de ce que vous voulez dire au sujet de ces 3 mousquetaires. Si je me rappelle bien, j'ai fait un "upload" de ce photo, puis j'ai realise qu'il y avait toujours le bla-bla francais en bas. Donc j'ai fait un upload d'un autre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3_Musketeers_cropped.jpg ou, les 3 camarades sont plus individuels. C'est ce dernier qu'on voit, par example, a l'article de Henri Cochet. Cheers, Hayford Peirce 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Sports Car RacingDue to your involvement in some Wiki pages that regard sports car racing of some sort, I would like to ask for you to look into the proposed WikiProject for Sports Car Racing. Any help you may have to offer to the project will be greatly appreciated. The359 03:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Broadband Internet access worldwideHi, You reverted Broadband Internet access worldwide. Can you give a reason for the revert please? Thanks. bobblewik 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thumb vs BorderlessHi Marc, I still think borderless is better for infoboxes. I answered on the info box's discussion page as you suggested. --Splette Talk 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Carlos Ghosn ImageHi Marc, I wanted to discuss Image:Carlos_Ghosn_(Dunod).jpg, because it may not be associated with the right article, and because of this may not be in fair use. The image is of the book <<Comment Carlos Ghosn a sauvé Nissan>>, but it is on the article for Carlos Ghosn. Fair use requires the image to be for an article about the book, not about the subject. I just wanted to let you know. --Guroadrunner 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you photograph these cameras yourself?Greetings. I'm curious about Image:Olympus Trip 35.jpg and Image:Lubitel 2.jpg. Did you photograph these cameras yourself? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Image uploadsHi. You seem to be uploading a lot of images which are being directly obtained from other online sources where the images are protected by copyright. Please be advised that this is not permissable as the Wikipedia projects are to provide free and open use and re-use of our articles and images and each time a non-free image is uploaded it becomes something we cannot make available. If you continue to upload non-free images you also risk being blocked. --AlisonW 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
|
2012
|
---|
Camera timeline templates missingI see you have been instrumental in creating a lot of templates. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#Camera_timeline_templates_missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Windows RT Edit War (sigh)Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Android.) Tuntable (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC) |
2014
|
---|
Aircraft fuel economyHello, Marc. I have moved our discussion on this topic from my personal talk page to Talk:Fuel economy in aircraft since I think other authors of that article should be aware of the discussion and participate. Best regards, Coastwise (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Airbus A350 prototype roll out.jpgNote that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Bicycle gearingThanks for tidying up the table of gear ranges etc. Murray Langton (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
|
2015
|
---|
Good workThanks for creating those new articles. Once you're finished with your initial work on each page, please add the new articles to Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) (WP:AIRNEW) within a day or so of creating them, as this will help to inform other aircraft editors about the new articles. If you need any assistance adding these to that pagex feel free to ask. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC) |
2016
|
---|
Hi, welcome to wikipedia: Aviation! Please feel free to use the resources at the wikipedia Aviation pages, in particular at Template:WPAVIATION creator to create/improve your articles. Well done and thank you.--Petebutt (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Length in Variants|The length is informative, but the numbers are included in the tables describing the variants. I kept the qualitative length change in the revision, along with the numbers of seat rows added. I also did some needed grammatical editing. Please discuss before reverting again. Scotteaton92 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Douglas DC-8Please dont edit war on the Douglas DC-8 article, your change was challenged and you were asked to use the talk page but you decided to add the information again, please dont without a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Why are you removing cited data from the article and replacing it with more out of date information?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Page move requestsMarc, I've answered your post on my talk page. Btw, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions isn't the correct place to post a non-controversial technical request. That is at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Howr, I will contest the move, so the best thing to do is post a move discussion on the article's talk page per WP:RM. I am actually a Page Mover now, so I can perform the move once there's a consensus to do so. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC) While I don't mind your moving the discussion from my talk page to the article's, I've learned the hard way to ask first. Some editors don't like that. Also, I realize we've had some disagreements, but I do believe that you're a good editor. You are doing good work on business aircraft and airliners, and the help with the workload is much appreciated. Please don't let any small disagreements discourage you from contributing. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Lead image changesI noticethat you only left three or four hours before you changed the main image at Britten-Norman Islander, you really need to leave it a lot longer to allow others to commment, seven days is the norm unless you get overwhelming support before that. I also removed your "interesting pictures" post from the Islander talk page, the talk page is not for dumping loads of images, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC) |
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Boeing 757 into Middle of the market. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: I've added template:copied to both talk pages, is it OK for you? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, thats perfect. Keep in mind though for the future that while the template is optional, the edit summary is mandatory. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: it was summarised as moved to Middle of the market --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, thats perfect. Keep in mind though for the future that while the template is optional, the edit summary is mandatory. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 27 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
- On the Airbus A330 page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )
- On the Airbus A340 page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )
Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Diamond Dart 450 first flight.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Diamond Dart 450 first flight.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The GA Nom-editor has only edited this article once - I am just trying to make sure that there are other editors/major contributors who are willing to work with me on this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Operators articles
Thanks for producing the List of Beechcraft King Air operators article but just one point it might be best if we point back to the original articles in the talk so the attribution of who contributed can be kept, they are a number of templates for the talk page have a look at Template:Copied. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Can you teach by example on this article?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can do but it may not be today. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations, it's a... | |
...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
A cupcake for you!
Thank you for stepping in and helping to promote Airbus A320 family to GA Status while I was busy over the last week. It is very much appreciated and this cake is for you to enjoy for your hardworking. After all, every one needs some cake after some hard work ;) Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
And while i'm at it, I might as well award you this too. Thanks again! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
Boeing 797
Boeing 797 has now been created by a new user. Too early? - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed it's just hudvar-hazy (logical) nickname. I'll propose a merge with MOM. Thanks for noticing! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
re:DABs
I have restored the dab again, per guidelines. Edit summaries do not allow for long drawn out conversations, so I could not get any more specific than the policies written specifically for DABS. WP:DDD explicitly says don't include references or external links, in bold letters with a big red X. MOS:DAB says Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page.
. The entire idea behind a DAB is to disambiguate Wikipedia. Entries that are not on Wikipedia and not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia should not be included on a DAB. If the magazine is indeed listed elsewhere, it should be a redlink followed by a wikilink to the article that discusses it. DABs should not have references as the content in the DAB should be covered in the linked article. Think of it as a navigation page. As far as placing the {{dab}}, the bottom appears to be the most widely accepted place and is generally where the template should go. I haven objections to the addition of the magazine provided it is discussed in another article (not a list) on Wikipedia and is appropriately Wikilinked to that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- To help other to correct their edits, it's best to copy the specific, relevant policy (here : "Don't include references or external links, see WP:DDD"). Thanks for the explanation though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Marc Lacoste It's a reasonable expectation that users (particularly experienced ones) will read the specific policy given. DDD outlines in 5 short, simple and direct explanations. I see you've amended the DAB yet again, turning it into an article. Can you please stop and ask on the talk and reach a consensus before removing it as a DAB? Thanks. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 09:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- but your edit summary wasn't specifying which one of the 5, so how could I corrected that? Sorry I mangled the { { dab } } in my edit, I replaced it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Comac C919
Was your comment at WP:ITNC in support of it being posted. This should be clearly indicated. Before the article is linked from the main page, that orange maintenance tag will need to go. This means that the issues indicated need to be resolved. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm working on it--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Comac C919
On 6 May 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Comac C919, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Middle of the market, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Leahy (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) 10:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Comac C919 archive links
I have made several hundred of these edits, you are the only individual that has reverted the changes, and I have had literally dozens of people thanking me for doing it. The problem with waiting for a link to go dead is that it may never be recoverable. It's very sad that you think that's a good way of dealing with linkrot. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's also odd, since (for example) current ref 40 has been "archived" yet the original URL is just fine. Perhaps you should delete the archiveurl for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I added the ref 40 "archive" (just a copy) since the original is behind a paywall.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm very sensitive over link rot, but they are already in archive.org, not lost, having a comment don't help. Perhaps one day archive.org will disappear as the alexandria library. I'm working hard on those articles to have easy to read references to facilitate verifiability, and having huge refs isn't helping.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well like I say, you're the only person to make a fuss over this, please see guidance at WP:LINKROT as well, you may be curating the article right now, but you may not be doing so in the future. My solution (and the one recommended by LINKROT) makes the need for you or anyone to go looking. I urge you to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Archive-urls are great when the original ref is dead, but what is the added value of polluting a live ref? The bot archiving a page does a great job, but you're just adding an url, not archiving pages yourself?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Archive URLs are helpful full stop. If a link goes dead, there is a chance that it may never be recovered, so the IABot gets archives of the pages and adds the archiveurl. I don't understand why you would think that's a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- They aren't useful before the original url is dead. I don't understand why it would be better than putting the archive-url when it's dead while before that it adds noise. (I'm interested in understanding your POV. I'm sure we are both intelligent individuals, and are only restrained by the backfire effect).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see it as adding noise, and I see it as extremely convenient, particularly in articles with possibly hundreds of links, it saves the effort of going to archive.org and locating a suitably live archive. You are unique, in that you have twice reverted the addition of useful encyclopedic information because you perceive it inconveniences you personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not personal, avoiding noise is useful. It could be useful when the links will be dead, but not yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well it clearly is personal as not one other editor has reverted my edits, moreover dozens have thanked me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's not personal, avoiding noise is useful. It could be useful when the links will be dead, but not yet.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see it as adding noise, and I see it as extremely convenient, particularly in articles with possibly hundreds of links, it saves the effort of going to archive.org and locating a suitably live archive. You are unique, in that you have twice reverted the addition of useful encyclopedic information because you perceive it inconveniences you personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- They aren't useful before the original url is dead. I don't understand why it would be better than putting the archive-url when it's dead while before that it adds noise. (I'm interested in understanding your POV. I'm sure we are both intelligent individuals, and are only restrained by the backfire effect).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Archive URLs are helpful full stop. If a link goes dead, there is a chance that it may never be recovered, so the IABot gets archives of the pages and adds the archiveurl. I don't understand why you would think that's a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Archive-urls are great when the original ref is dead, but what is the added value of polluting a live ref? The bot archiving a page does a great job, but you're just adding an url, not archiving pages yourself?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well like I say, you're the only person to make a fuss over this, please see guidance at WP:LINKROT as well, you may be curating the article right now, but you may not be doing so in the future. My solution (and the one recommended by LINKROT) makes the need for you or anyone to go looking. I urge you to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I do understand your will to avoid link rot. Do you understand my will to lower noise in articles?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, that doesn't make any sense, because that's giving consideration to editors only, not our readers who would be glad to have linkrot-protected pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- not only the editor (which should also be considered), but also the reader, for each ref, passing from
- [url article] publisher/author, date
- to
- [url article] publisher/author, date. [archive-url Archived] from the original on date.
- The reader would be glad to have linkrot-protected urls when the original is rotten, before it gives nothing but noise (and with much slower loading times) .--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Load times are barely affected, the reader will be happier to learn that links of this nature are preserved, and not disappointed when he discovers dead links. This way we're minimising the likelihood of dead links being exposed to our readers. Not all editors check the status of all links on all articles every day to see if they've gone dead, after a:::: Load times on archive.org are very long, and a casual reader will click it almost everytime. Links aren't preserved by adding comments in a wikipedia ref template, they are preserved by the archive.org bot. If nobody notifies a dead link, the url will never be corrected. Don't underestimate the reader willingness to become a contributor, it's the strong point of wikipedia.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)ll. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I thought you meant load times of Wikipedia pages. In any case, this is belt and braces. If you don't like it on your article, that's fine, but it's being rolled out across the encyclopedia via a bot, I'm manually updating all the items that appear on the mainpage. Your article is and appears that it will remain to be the only one that has not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's certainly not my article. Rolling a bot across wikipedia without addressing remarks can be a source of frictions. I understood your will. You never tried to understand my concern.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I understood your concern, I just didn't agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's certainly not my article. Rolling a bot across wikipedia without addressing remarks can be a source of frictions. I understood your will. You never tried to understand my concern.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I thought you meant load times of Wikipedia pages. In any case, this is belt and braces. If you don't like it on your article, that's fine, but it's being rolled out across the encyclopedia via a bot, I'm manually updating all the items that appear on the mainpage. Your article is and appears that it will remain to be the only one that has not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You disagree lowering noise have any interest?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- But it isn't noise to the reader, and it's of benefit should any of the billions of links go dead and you not be there to manually fix them up with an archive link. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is noise for the reader : refs are longer and there is another link to confuse. If a link goes dead, the good thing to do is to retrieve the linked text, getting to archive.org is a worst case scenario. I would have nothing but praise for your bot if it was only updating refs when the link was 404, but before that it's presumptuous.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- We shouldn't expect our readers to trawl archive.org or any other historical records to find where a dead link has gone, you can't update billions of links a day which may have gone dead since you last looked. It's a huge stretch to think a "longer ref" means "noise" for the readers, you should credit them with a reasonable level of intelligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Noise is unnecessary reading and time to select a correct link or to wait loading times, nothing to do with their intelligence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think the objective benefits far outweigh your perceived cost. Don't be surprised to have to have this conversation many more times as many more of the articles you curate are treated similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree there are benefits to provide archive-urls before they are needed. But if you continue to say "your perceived cost", you maintain that you don't understand noise is detrimental for the reader. Threatening a commentator isn't a good way for you to convince others of your goodwill.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to convince you of anything any longer. Your opinion does not outweigh the objective benefit. As I said, don't be surprised to see this happening all over the articles you curate. You'll have plenty of opportunity to convince other editors of your analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Your opinion" again. You're not even trying to understand.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you're reading my responses. As I sid above "I understood your concerns, I just didn't agree with it". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- You never acknowledged noise is a problem for the reader--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- More detailed references does not equal "noise". That is why I don't agree with you. I've said that a couple of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not explicitly, thanks for clarifying you don't think details can be noise. Do you agree noise can be detrimental?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It depends what you mean by "noise" of course. I don't consider enhanced reference formats to be "noisy". If you added a bunch of random characters, yes, that's noisy and not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- random is useless, superfluous is noisy--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's an unusual definition of "noise". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- random is useless, superfluous is noisy--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It depends what you mean by "noise" of course. I don't consider enhanced reference formats to be "noisy". If you added a bunch of random characters, yes, that's noisy and not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not explicitly, thanks for clarifying you don't think details can be noise. Do you agree noise can be detrimental?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- More detailed references does not equal "noise". That is why I don't agree with you. I've said that a couple of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- You never acknowledged noise is a problem for the reader--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you're reading my responses. As I sid above "I understood your concerns, I just didn't agree with it". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Your opinion" again. You're not even trying to understand.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to convince you of anything any longer. Your opinion does not outweigh the objective benefit. As I said, don't be surprised to see this happening all over the articles you curate. You'll have plenty of opportunity to convince other editors of your analysis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree there are benefits to provide archive-urls before they are needed. But if you continue to say "your perceived cost", you maintain that you don't understand noise is detrimental for the reader. Threatening a commentator isn't a good way for you to convince others of your goodwill.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think the objective benefits far outweigh your perceived cost. Don't be surprised to have to have this conversation many more times as many more of the articles you curate are treated similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Noise is unnecessary reading and time to select a correct link or to wait loading times, nothing to do with their intelligence.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- We shouldn't expect our readers to trawl archive.org or any other historical records to find where a dead link has gone, you can't update billions of links a day which may have gone dead since you last looked. It's a huge stretch to think a "longer ref" means "noise" for the readers, you should credit them with a reasonable level of intelligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is noise for the reader : refs are longer and there is another link to confuse. If a link goes dead, the good thing to do is to retrieve the linked text, getting to archive.org is a worst case scenario. I would have nothing but praise for your bot if it was only updating refs when the link was 404, but before that it's presumptuous.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand you think about Noise (signal processing) while I was talking about Communication noise--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- That doesn't talk about additional useful information being "noise". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am talking about excessive information obfuscating the original message.Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- But it doesn't, it's not excessive, it's saying different things, our readers can usually speak English and understand how to read these things. It's not "noise" at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- when the link is live, it has no utility whatsoever until the link is down--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think we're done here, we're going round in circles. I'm saying that it's better to be safe than sorry, you're suggesting that dead links only need to be addressed once they go dead, and there are billions of links over Wikipedia which could do this each and every day. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything more in this regard, it's clearly a waste of time, you will see these archived links added across Wikipedia in due course, and even this article which you seem to be particularly custodial of, will be fixed again. And you can have this same conversation with the bot or whoever else runs the legitimate and article-improving script over it. Bon chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- there was any discussion over this bot? could you point me towards? note that in the french wikipedia, there is an automatic tiny [archive] with every new ref link, with instant archiving on wikiwix at the time of the link addition (without excessive "archived from the original on DD-MM-YYYY"), kinda neat. This would render this bot a bit useless.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't know, you can find that out for yourself I guess. If you have a better solution, propose it, but your continual claims of "noise" and "excessive" text is now too much for me. Take it up with someone else. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- so you've never talk about this bot with anyone?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's hosted by WMF, it's recommended for use. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- And it's linked from the history page of around 5.402 million articles. If that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- so you've never talk about this bot with anyone?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't know, you can find that out for yourself I guess. If you have a better solution, propose it, but your continual claims of "noise" and "excessive" text is now too much for me. Take it up with someone else. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- there was any discussion over this bot? could you point me towards? note that in the french wikipedia, there is an automatic tiny [archive] with every new ref link, with instant archiving on wikiwix at the time of the link addition (without excessive "archived from the original on DD-MM-YYYY"), kinda neat. This would render this bot a bit useless.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think we're done here, we're going round in circles. I'm saying that it's better to be safe than sorry, you're suggesting that dead links only need to be addressed once they go dead, and there are billions of links over Wikipedia which could do this each and every day. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything more in this regard, it's clearly a waste of time, you will see these archived links added across Wikipedia in due course, and even this article which you seem to be particularly custodial of, will be fixed again. And you can have this same conversation with the bot or whoever else runs the legitimate and article-improving script over it. Bon chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- when the link is live, it has no utility whatsoever until the link is down--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- But it doesn't, it's not excessive, it's saying different things, our readers can usually speak English and understand how to read these things. It's not "noise" at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am talking about excessive information obfuscating the original message.Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Editing styles
There is no requirement whatsoever to make a whole heap of pissant little changes when editing a Wikipedia article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @YSSYguy: And there isn't any requirements to keep a change when referenced info is deleted, even if useful additions are made. Just separate additions from deletions. But there is a requirement to stay WP:CIVIL--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please point out what referenced information was deleted. No need to ping me again. YSSYguy (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I thought "will be produced by a Cessna-AVIC joint venture in China" was refernced. my bad.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)