User talk:Welsh/Archives/2009/December

Problem on Gurais page

Dear, why do you keep on deleting my name along side my photos. you had problem with copyright, i removed it. Now you even removed my name along with my photos. I dont think you should have any problem if i type my name along with my name. Actually you deletion work is a bit discouraging. I have posted my own work in Gurais article and you dont want to see my name along side my photos. I dont think their is any hard and fast rule that their should be no name of author alongside photos. Please clarify to aviod conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heman60 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no wish to demoralise you from making Wikipedia a success. My efforts as part of WP:Check wikipedia are to apply broadly agreed standards for formatting, and to mark articles so that they can be improved. When I edit an article in addition to these types of changes, I also have a general look aroujnd to see if there are other issues. In the case of Gurais there was the issue of copyrighted images and claiming copyright explicitly, which is not allowed on WP. The issue of claiming authorship is another principle of WP - all articles are fully open for anyone to edit, so it is not appropriate to claim authorship. Your contributiuon is recorded accurately and for ever in the History page.

The page WP:Ownership of articles states Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should never be signed. This is the policy that underpins my changes. If you have the pateience there are a lot of guidance pages on article style etc that may be helpful in understanding why various people have been changing your work. In the majority of cases this is done for the best of motives and is in no way a personal attack. Hope this helps, and I'm always willing to discuss issues in this way. welsh (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, update your AWB

Hi, your recent edit to History of citizenship in the United States added duplicate {{reflist}} which broke the article. This bug in AWB has already been fixed. Could you, please, update your AWB to the newest version, so that this doesn't happen again? Thanks. Svick (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx, wilco. welsh (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

SS Seniority

The categories World War II merchant ships of the United Kingdom and Merchant Ships of the United Kingdom are not the same. The former covers all UK registered Merchant ships in service during the Second World War. In the case of Seniority the latter covers her service after 1945. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The category Category:Merchant ships of the United Kingdom appears in the article twice. I removed one of them, but did not alter the other category mentioned. On that basis I have reinstated my edit. welsh (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Well spotted! Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. welsh (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bertalan Szemere

Hi Welsh,

Thanks for doing a bit of "clean up" at Bertalan Szemere, moving the bottom sections. These Hungarian bios are usually so awful for Wikipedia style before we get hold of an article and add to it with translation, wikify it etc, that it takes many steps to get it how it should be without totally losing a trace of the change, considering the deficiency that the built-in editing tool has trouble when a section (or para) is just moved but not changed.

Which happened here, and I momentarily paused on the purpose of the edit, which checking the diff I see is helpful. May I suggest that you amend the edit summery from "cleaned up ... under AWB" to "moved section ... under AWB" or something like that, to make it clear that the intended action was to move it? I have a lot of problems with AWB if this is an automated summary, those of us who are just manual editors try to make our edits helpful to others, ideally so they can trust the change without needing to look at it.

I do appreciate your good faith here, and the edit is helpful.

My sincere best wishes for a happy Christmas. Monkap (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have reviewed the edit that AWB made in this case. The reason the article was flagged in WP:Check wikipedia was that the various elements at the tail of the article were not in a helpful order, and so it rearranged them. This was the intended behaviour. It is really only a matter of style and organisation rather than affecting the content. I will try to make the edit summary reflect the purpose of the edit in future, though they are bulk edits (not automated) that fix multiple issues, and I am trying to avoid writing a specific reason for each one. Best wishes for the Christmas season. welsh (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My dear Welsh, I should also apologise, in that I made the above remarks under my girlfriend, Monkap's username. She is native Hungarian, I native English, and together we can make I think a good job of these together. Frankly I think we do a good job together on these, better than we could do separately. In theory I suppose it is impersonation or something, but in good faith I responded without realising it was under her name, I am sure you understand when we both edit the same articles together.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Help, Project AWB

Can you use that Project AWB you used before again of the Muhammad and assassinations article to make sure that the references are fixed and they dont repeat. please do it if you an when u have time

AWB run on the article as requested. welsh (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

you ran AWB but not many references were fixed can u ix the references and make ones which repeat in letters like abcdef e.t.c--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

hi,can u run project awb again and fix the references which repeat. and make it more simple.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

hi the article has been updated. can u use project AWB again and fix the references that are repeated--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

question: last time u made the reference like "abcdefgh", how did u do this. i tried doing this but i couldnt. if u have time can u do this for every single reference in the article that repeats