User talk:JackkBrown/Archive 1

Archive 1

November 2022

Hello, I'm TheSpiciestNugget. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it here. Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. Thank you. TheSpiciestNugget (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Álvaro Morata, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: I just wrote on your discussion page. JackkBrown (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: I have already replied on your discussion page, but since my reply may not have been read, I'm also writing here: the user before me had changed Álvaro Morata's place of birth for no reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1127617645 (almost certainly vandalism); I, noticing this, had cancelled his change, obviously without adding the source, since it was already there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1127747316. It's not my fault, it was a misunderstanding (although I did nothing wrong, I lost out). JackkBrown (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Fernando Torres. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:CAPTION. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ricardo Quaresma - Reply

Good afternoon, from Portugal,

just curious over this. If you except the infobox, could you please enlighten me regarding the difference(s) between picture #4 and the others? They all look the same...

Continue the good work, sorry for any inconvenience RevampedEditor (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC

@RevampedEditor: if you are referring to this caption: "Quaresma performs a bicycle kick against France at Euro 2016.", the difference with the other captions is as follows: this caption is a complete sentence (for more information, see: MOS:CAPTION), whereas all the others are incomplete sentences, so it is incorrect to insert the full stop at the end for these. Good work to you too!

I see. Thanks a lot for the info, will pay more attention to that "department" in the future! --RevampedEditor (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Dashes

Be careful: what you're calling fixes aren't always fixes. Take this as an example. The result may look slightly better, but once one reads it one sees that it says "during 1235 to 1237", which is actually ungrammatical. What was intended may have been either (A) "from 1235 to 1237" or (B) "between 1235 and 1237"; note that (A) and (B) have different meanings, and that in (A) an en dash is an inappropriate substitute for "to" (look carefully in MOS:RANGE for guidance about this). The source makes it clear that (A) is right; I have fixed it accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CAPTIONS

Here's my hierarchy of preferences:

1. Rewrite so no full stop is needed: "Orestes at Delphi": painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC
2. Rewrite with full sentence(s) and full stop(s): The painting "Orestes at Delphi", which depicts two naked males, was created ca. 330 BC.
3. Violate the spirit of MOS:CAPTION, where doing otherwise is maybe impossible or awkward: "Orestes at Delphi". Painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC.
4. Violate both the spirit and the letter of MOS:CAPTION (note the lack of a final full stop): "Orestes at Delphi". Painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC

I don't think #3 is a disaster, but it's better than #4. If you get to a point where you have to end some sentence fragments with full stops, better to go all in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, @JackkBrown: If a change is being made, note the recommendation of MOS:CIRCA to use {{circa}}: so c. 330 BC Bazza (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiple minor edits

Hi, JackkBrown. I'm JohnFromPinckney, and I noticed your (fine) work at Belarus, wherein you fixed several captions. I'm quite happy that you are doing this kind of work, and happy with the results (at least at Belarus), except for one little thing: your 12 edits, changing 12 bits of punctuation and removing one wikilink, caused 12 entries in my watchlist. Could I persuade you to use the preview button so you can do more than one change before publishing? Also, for little things like this, the minor edit flag is absolutely appropriate. Thanks again, and happy editing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: thank you very much for the appreciation! Yes, I could make a single change per paragraph, but, operating from mobile (I'm more comfortable from mobile), several times when I make changes, I'm taken back to another part of the page and thus risk losing the point where I stopped. JackkBrown (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing on mobile: Eeww! Ick! Yuck! (I've done it, too, on occasion, but would never call it "comfortable".) Cheers— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Antonio da Correggio c.

Please don't remove "c." from dates unless you have a reason, and ideally a reference. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Belated welcome!

Hi JackkBrown! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! TSventon (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Purpose of edit?

Hello again Jack, what's the purpose of this edit here? On first glance it looks like a WP:COSMETIC edit because it seems to generate the same image regardless of capitalization in the file. Am I missing something? TylerBurden (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: exactly, aesthetic edit; to be honest, I capitalised the word 'Gothia' because it's the name of the ancient region, although for readers in visual mode it makes absolutely no difference. JackkBrown (talk) 12:11, 20 Apr 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I know you mean well, but cosmetic edits like that generally aren't worth doing as it isn't considered worth it if it's the only change. I used to make some similar edits myself until I was told off about it and realized it's not worth making such purely source code cosmetically altering edits, even if it's tempting. It is more likely to annoy people with articles on their watchlist than do any good, I've seen people be blocked over it. I'm not threatening you or anything, but you should at least be aware of how editors feel about such edits in case you weren't. Me personally when I was informed about it I just put whatever time I was wasting on cosmetic stuff into making more productive edits and I think that was the right decision. Sometimes they might be worth doing if source code templates etc are completely mangled making it difficult for people to edit, but yea edits like the one above probably aren't. This essay has some more information on it. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: thank you very much for your help and advice. This below, [1], was the only change to the source code that I made voluntarily. I would like to ask how to avoid editing the source code automatically; let me explain briefly: I always work from a mobile device, because I can see errors much faster, since from a mobile device Wikipedia pages are displayed zoomed in. It often happens (always...) that when I want to correct an error in a caption, the mobile device automatically corrects all the lowercase initial letters; how can I avoid this? JackkBrown (talk) 13:37, 20 Apr 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like it might have to do with the settings on your phone (autocorrect type stuff) but I'm not sure, I don't generally edit on mobile. It might be worth looking over your settings but other than that I'm not sure sorry, maybe someone else can help you who is more experienced with mobile. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oxford commas

Hello Jack,

I see that at Italian diaspora you have been adding Oxford commas to some but not all of the lists in the text. Please see MOS:OXFORD. Adding Oxford commas to all the lists in the text would be acceptable (but probably a waste of time); adding them to just some of the lists is against policy. Maproom (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom: as soon as I have an hour, or so, completely free, I'll check all the text and add the missing commas. JackkBrown (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:REFLINK "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Image caption links can be useful for readers even if they exist within the body since some readers are more drawn to images than reading the entire article. TylerBurden (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: on the "Norway" page, the link you restored is really very close to the link in the text; in this case, it's obviously a repetition. JackkBrown (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That is you assuming people are reading the body of the article, also you are creating inconsistencies not only with oxford commas as mentioned above, but also with removing commas from numbers in one instance when they are used in the rest of the article. These things are subjective and there is no right and wrong, so it should just be kept consistent rather than changed based on personal preference. Making it inconsistent is not an improvement. You are showing up so much on my watchlist I am starting to wonder if you are following me. TylerBurden (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: I don't follow anyone; the reason I appear so often in your watchlist is because I make changes to so many pages. JackkBrown (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

...with multiple tiny edits on each page... — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: I'm not the only one here making multiple minor edits; there are also other people, more experienced than me in this encyclopedia, who work in a very similar way to how I work (that's not an excuse, let's be clear). JackkBrown (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I still think there is a pretty strange overlap, yes, you make a lot of edits, but statistically you seem to be showing up on some pretty obscure stuff on my watchlist. Then again, maybe we have similar article interest. How do you find these articles then? For examples: Vanir, Saab AB. You showed up on both of them very shortly after I had made edits there yesterday, which seems like pretty weird coincidence.

And you're indeed not the only one making large amounts of small edits, but usually with that type of editing it is solely uncontroversial minor objective improvements, not personal preferences like oxford commas etc which is what can cause issues since the edits can be either unnecessary or at worst create inconsistencies. TylerBurden (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

More re Oxford commas

Note that MOS:OXFORD says, "Editors may use either convention [i.e., Oxford commas or no Oxford commas] so long as each article is internally consistent." In edits such as this and this at Dortmund, you added Oxford commas in an article that appears to have consistently eschewed them. Please don't change the established style of articles in this regard just because you happen to favor Oxford commas yourself; mess with comma usage in series only when an article has mixed usage, and then only to make the usage consistent with the style that preponderates in the article. (You also didn't make the article consistent. There is still at least one series in the article without an Oxford comma.) Deor (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Deor: today I added all the missing Oxford commas and, in the meantime, took the opportunity to correct other errors and improve some sentences on the page. JackkBrown (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Then, Jackk, you have woefully misunderstood (or ignored) what Deor was trying to tell you. Changing the comma styling in an article is disruptive and will quickly lead people to throw templated warnings at your Talk page. What you should have done, in light of Deor's advice, is revert your (Oxford) comma additions on Dortmund, and then correct other errors and improve some sentences on the page (for which I am sure Deor, like myself, is grateful). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR

Stop tag-bombing every Italy-related topic with "Expand Italian" tags just because the articles are "short". That tag should be only "used to mark articles that have counterparts in Italian Wikipedia that are better than in English Wikipedia", not for Italian articles full of RO, unreliable or primary sources (something de facto accepted in it.wiki but unacceptable here), like your recent tagging of Alberto Salerno (which has reputable sources here, while the Italian page is based on Facebook, a bunch of primary sources, an internal link of a song and a gossip article). You were already reverted multiple times, with edit summaries which explained why you were wrong, and ignored the suggestions. This kind of behaviour is what it led you to be banned from it.wikipedia (or better, what let your master account to be banned, while your current account together with dozens of others is banned for socking). In a few weeks your talk page is already full of warnings, I don't want to start an ANI thread to have you blocked/banned here (at least for now) but stop your disruptive behaviour. Cavarrone 06:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I might add that adding "Expand Italian" tags is generally a pretty useless busywork thing to do - the small minority of our readers who can read Italian will already know the Italian article is likely to be longer (though often not better). Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

Thank you for your interest in today's featured article, British logistics in the Normandy campaign. I have a sequel up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1. If you could drop by with a few comments, this would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm also looking at today's featured article: Tropical Storm Vicente (2018). JackkBrown (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want me to do some work on an article, do not tag bomb; post a request on the talk or review page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I never tagged you. JackkBrown (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OOps. Sorry. My mistake. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello JackkBrown!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Punctuation error

Please do not do this. When a full sentence is quoted, the terminal punctuation remains inside the quotation marks. See MOS:LQ. If you've made a bunch of other bad edits like this, you need to go back and fix them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please, no italics for the English word 'libretto'

'Libretto' is an English word found in most English dictionaries, including in Wiktionary. It does not need to be italicized, as you did in the article Doctor Atomic. The IP who added {{lang|it|libretto}} to the "Libretto" article misused the template, which is intended for foreign words only. It is true, the English word is derived from the similar Italian word, but it is not the same, and has somewhat different meaning in English. I have edited the Libretto article to try to fix the problem. Robert.Allen (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)