User talk:Echuck215/Archive/Archive October 2007

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with AWB edit
Greetings. You recently made an edit to Template:Cite video/doc using AWB that damaged the internal organization of the page. I've reverted the edit, fixing the problem, but I just wanted to ask that you be cautious of AWB's automatic functions in the future. Cheers! -- Huntster  T • @ • C 14:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, sorry about that! I didn't look closely enough, and thought I was editing a mainspace article, rather than a template.  I'll be more careful.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When doing general fixes with AWB, try using the filter button in the "Make list" column to filter out the template-space and other namespaces that really shouldn't be included. Makes for a bit of an easier time :) --  Huntster  T • @ • C 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I usually do that, but every once in a while I've noticed a template or talk page coming up even though I specifically filter them out: might be a bug in the newest version, I suppose. Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure ur AWB "pluralized" edit is correct?
Take for example: "The RMN Future Fleet programme is component of second batch of Lekiu Class frigates, Scorpene submarines, New Generation Patrol Vessels (NGPV) and maritime patrol aircrafts. The ultimate goal is to build a six vessels squadron of each class by year." Note that every asset in the paragraphs carries a “s”, however, in English wise, it is correct to do so. Please check your mass edit when using a tool. ChowHui 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually I am quite sure. I don't mean to sound flip, but the correctly pluralized form of "aircraft" is... "aircraft".  "Aircrafts" is not a word.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick respond. The quote above was from Royal Malaysia Navy article. I recently are too busy to read through every edit, but that was an example first struck me when it can up in my watchlist. Anyways, I found quite a number of the edit were correct, so, you may take your time to read it through and fix some of the unsuitable edit would be fine. ChowHui 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading you correctly here, you're asking me to take some time to fix the "unsuitable" edits. Which ones are unsuitable?  I haven't seen any mistakes I've made: keeping in mind that the correct pluralization is "aircraft", with no s.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  06:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not for all cases. Although myself don't have the qualification to ensure my argument, but I had seek counsel from a friend of mine whom are professional in writing, told me that the pluralization without a "s" is not always the case, which however tend to be a "s" in the example i shown you earlier. He also told me that aircraft is self is a general word which had no plural form but if the aircraft is part of a specific object then it can carry or not to carry a "s", depends on its position with combination of other words. ChowHui 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what I did! Some how I even misled my friend too. You were fine, sorry for the trouble. ChowHui 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! English has fairly arbitrary rules for things like this, and though I know which is correct, I couldn't exactly explain why.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  04:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Style conversion via AWB
Please don't arbitrarily convert between different styles of producing footnote sections (as, e.g. here); per WP:MOS, "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so."Thanks! Kirill 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I wasn't aware there was a policy about this. AWB automatically makes this change as part of "unicodifying" the page.  I don't think it's really a style issue, though: there isn't any reason I'm aware of that you can't produce the same result using the "unifcodified" template. However, I could be wrong about this.  I will suspend AWB editing until I read up on the different templates that produce reference sections.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In trying to figure out why the AWB editor makes this change, I came across this page: WP:FOOT. In the instructions on using references, it says this:

==How to use==
 * A simplified explanation is given at Help:Footnotes


 * 1) Place a &lt;ref> ... &lt;/ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
 * 2) Place the '''  should be converted to   (see WP:FOOT); but AWB apparently ignores the column setting.
 * (I probably wasn't clear; my concern was not for the change from raw tag to template, but rather that the change—through no fault of your own, as it turns out—altered the layout of the footnotes.) Kirill 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look closer at that from now on: I have seen it apply the template to many articles: apparently it just isn't perfectly consistent.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is an AWB mistake. Never substitute a reflist, as the documentation for that template clearly states.
 * I came here for another reason: You made an AWB edit to orthogonal matrix, replacing HTML character names like "&amp;amp;" and "&amp;alpha;" with UTF-8 characters. AWB is supposed to have a fix that prohibits it from doing this to mathematics articles. Beyond that, changing the ampersand ("&amp;") encoding produces malformed XML, which is a spectacularly bad idea on any web page. We'll get the AWB code sorted out (again); sorry you were burned. Please do not use AWB on any mathematics articles. Thanks. --KSmrqT 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the trouble! Ok, no more mathematics articles with AWB.   Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  09:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Scabies Outbreak
On the Riddlesdown High School page, a source was included (a letter) that gave details of the outbreak. This is why the edit made by BrutusCirrus was reverted. Thank you. 79.75.58.6 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * edit* Sorry, the source appears to have been removed from Wikipedia. It is archived here. 79.75.58.6 (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally aware of the legality of the situation, but the letter could certainly have been a fake: there was no way to determine authenticity. And, even if it was legitimate, I'm not sure about the legality of posting it anyway.  Charlie - talk to me - what I've done  23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)