User:Tivedshambo/Archives/2008d

Start by taking it to WP:AFD, and suggest a transwiki move there. If consensus is to move it, then it can be copied into the relevant project before deletion from Wikipedia. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c)

Will do thanks for the swift reply.BigDunc (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've change it to a redirect from misspelling. The risk of removing it is that if someone who believes it is spelt with an "a" comes along, firstly they won't find it, and secondly, they may create an article with the wrong name, leading to having two articles running in parallel. Another reason for keeping it is that the article was around for some time with the wrong name, so there may be external websites and search engines that point to the redirect. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Bazj (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes, but most of your changes seem ok. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking things, I appreciate your input. Regards Lepidus Magnus (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left it in, as anyone who doesn't know the subject may well expect the plural to be 'ndrinas. This is a reasonable assumption to make, so it doesn't pass the criteria for speedy deletion. I'll tag it as a redirect from misspelling. If you want to delete it, take it to WP:RFD. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 10:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

An easy fix for me - it just meant scaling up the co-ordinates of the imagemap. I'll need to do some tweaks, as it doesn't quite match up, but I'll look at that later. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it! —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best way is to "disprove" what appears to be a valid ref. My best advice is leave the article as it is for the time being, and I'll raise it at the UK railway project WP:UKT for advice. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have just found a reference though: http://www.nbr.org.uk/aboutus.html to say who operates the line from the official mouth. Will update the NBR page with this reference. Thanks Peterbrynt (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK_Railways#Scarborough North Bay Railway. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've altered the NBR Page for now with the reference, as although I can see that you are hesitant because it was in the railway press, it is on our official website, and direct from the companies mouth.... Will however see what they say on the railway group. Peterbrynt (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I would question whether these edits are "insignificant". Removal of whitespace - yes, and I was skipping pages with just those changes. I must admit I wasn't aware that moving stubs/categories counts as insignificant, and I am forced to wonder why AWB insists on making these changes if it's own rules say they shouldn't be made. I'll raise this on the AWB talk page. I've just finished anyway, but will bear it in mind next time. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 19:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the claim of "using up capacity and server space" - see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Those five edits in particular are insignificant, as are many of the other edits you have made, as they only have removed whitespace or underscores from behind pipes links or other very minor changes which provide no benefit to readers, and very little for editors. Moving stubs and categories is slightly less insignificant, but they don't really provide that much benefit to warrant an edit just making those changes.

The rules state that these changes shouldn't be made on their own, as there are other, much more beneficial changes you can spend your time in making , helping to improve the encyclopaedia for all. Two of these include typo fixing and fixing links to disambiguation pages, both of which AWB can assist you greatly in performing and help improve the encyclopaedia for readers, as well as making these small changes. AWB makes these changes, along with many other useful changes, as they help to tidy up the raw text of a page a bit when made in conjunction with other, more beneficial changes. The real benefit comes when the changes are made over many, many hundreds and thousands of pages, but there are many more other changes you could make at the same time which provide a real benefit to the particular article you have just edited.

I am aware of WP:DWAP, but AWB is a powerful tool that can help you make many edits in a very short period of time. If everybody who used AWB did this making very minor edits, then this would start to cause an issue. This is the reason why you have to be approved to use AWB, so that users have a grasp of Wikipedia policies and can make better use of the tool, in a responsible manner and not bring the whole site down.

Please let me know if you would like any help in getting the best out of AWB, or any pointers to the things you can do to help out. Thanks, mattbr 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, most of the time I find AWB to be so bug-ridden as to be virtually unusable. This is the first time for some time that I've got it working properly, basically by stripping it out of my system completely and reinstalling from scratch. I suspect this will last until the next time they try to update it, as it never seems to auto update itself properly. This is why I tried to make the most of it today, firstly with articles in my watch-list, followed by links from one specific article. As you will see from my edit history, I only use AWB on rare occasions (for the above reason), so I don't think you'll have much to worry about. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What sort of bugs make it virtually unusable for you? Have you reported them to the bugs page? The devs do try and help where they can and it would help with the tool development if you could let them know what they are. There may be others out there with the same problem and the devs are more likely to fix them if you let them know they exist. Thanks, mattbr 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so have other people, [6], [7], and yet the bugs, and the pointless necessity of having to update, still remain. To be honest, with respect to the "minor" edits, I think you are making a mountain out of a rather small molehill. AWB is merely a tool, as is Twinkle and various other editing add-ons. It does not give users any additional powers that they do not have anyway, other than speed, and I was extremely careful not to exceed "a few" (which I take rather strictly as three) edits per minute. I think the only necessity for vetting is to prevent it being used for vandalism. Whilst the edits I made were minor improvements, they are after all improvements, and Wikipedia is slightly better as a result. This is, after all, what we are here for. Incidentally, an indirect consequence of using AWB this afternoon was that I found several instances of vandalism in the articles, which I reverted manually (eg [8]). Had I not been using AWB, these would have been missed. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is for obvious vandalism only. If the content being added is a content dispute, you can try one of the various forms of mediation. Alternatively, if it is hoax material being added, try raising the matter at the administrators noticeboard for further advice. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 12:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)