Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy, while the use of the hyphen in article titles has been a little controversial of late, the use of hyphens in article prose is not (at least not at the moment). WP:HYPHEN (use 3) explains about compound modifiers and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Ship_class_articles requires the use of a hyphen "when using the name of a class as an adjective". I've reverted the textual changes you made to a number of articles, and User:Sturmvogel 66 got there before me at Admiral class battlecruiser. Yours, Shem (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to edit war over this. However in the article on the Halifax class frigate my original edit not only got rid of the needless hyphens, but also corrected the capitalisation of some of the titles of citations. I have therefore reverted your revert on that article.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC) - see also my posting of 08:24[reply]

With Barracuda class submarine and Narwhal class submarine, since the articles linked to do not have hyphens in the article names, it is not appropriate to have hyphens in a list page. The list page functions in many ways as a disambiguation page (though it is not exactly the same).--Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the following article you reverted me on. Since the hyphen before the word "class" is used acceptably, I am content to let things stand. In my personal opinion, the hyphen is not necessary. But the hyphen is not wrong.

• Gato class submarine‎
• Pennsylvania class battleship
• Lexington class battlecruiser‎
• USCG Defender class boat
• French Barracuda class submarine
• Wickes class destroyer
• United States Porpoise class submarine
• USCG Bay class icebreaking tug
• Crater class cargo ship
• Indiana class battleship
• Passaic class monitor
• River class torpedo-boat destroyer‎

To be conciliatory and avoid edit wars that are of no value, I have gone through the article on the Halifax class frigate and restored hyphens in the places where Halifax-class was used as an adjective. There were many places where it was not, where no hyphen is correct. I have also inserted inverted commas in the many places that are missing.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Toddy. Regardless of your personal opinion, the guidelines are against you here. I personally do not agree that the titles should be hyphen-less, but unlike Kwami, I am not about to go moving articles without consensus, because the guidelines are against me, so I suppose we agree at least on the primacy of consensus! I have however restored the hyphens to Barracuda class submarine and Narwhal class submarine; they are not DAB pages, but set index pages, for which other rules apply, and this is precisely the use for which hyphens are required - is that a French-Narval class submarine, a French Narval-class submarine, or a French Narval class-submarine? It leads the reader's eye to interpret the relationship between adjacent adjectives. Shem (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was I who moved it, based on what appeared to be consensus to use the hyphen in that context. Where is this guideline of which you speak that suggests otherwise? Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding having a hyphen between "Halifax" and "class" in the name of the article, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Bot request. Another user asked for permission to do mass moves of articles from the existing XXXX class format to the XXXX-class format. There was no consensus for this, but he started making the moves anyway. He was asked to stop; agreed; but continued doing it anyway - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#User:Kwamikagami moving_ship class articles from XXXX class format to XXX-class format reported by Toddy1 .28Result:.29. It really would be in the interests of harmony if you reverted your move of the article back to Halifax class frigate. Please consider doing so--Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stay out of this mess. I thought that when you and the other guy both added hyphens in the article in appropriate-looking places the matter was settled, and the move was the next logical step, so I did it. I don't understand the alleged technical issues you pointed to, and I didn't do any mass or contentious moves; but if it needs to be fixed, go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have moved the article back, with an explanation.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with your "with agreement of Dicklyon"; it was your call to use the grammatically incorrect form as title. Dicklyon (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you wrote: "and I didn't do any mass or contentious moves; but if it needs to be fixed, go for it."--Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Какая причина удаления информации на странице "Днепропетровск"? Зачем добавили рекламные ссылки ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VASDU (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Comparison of versions of 08:50 28 April 2011 and 07:36 6 May 2011

• You will see that the data you added about the 2011 population is there - complete with a citation to a source that your provided, which contains the information
• Other than that, the page is pretty much the same as it was on 28 April 2011.

See Comparison of versions of 00:00 6 May 2011 and 07:36 6 May 2011

• You will see that I reverted your deletion of the citation for who was mayor. Wikipedia has a policy that citations for information are a good thing.
• As mentioned above the population figure has been changed to the 2011 value.
• Ah - I forgot to update the population density - my mistake - so I did it at 14:28 6 May 2011
• I preserved the original order of the Russian and Ukrainian language names for Yekaterinoslav. Petty changing them round causes nothing but annoyance. Please do not do it.
• I did not include your updated figure for the population of the Dnipropetrovsk Metropolitan area because the source did not quote that figure. If your contention is that by adding the numbers up, you arrived at your figure, then you need to explicitly state in the citation which data you added up to arrive at the figure.
• I added the 2011 city population figure mentioned above to the population table complete with citation.
• Your additions on railways, the "overstreet cableway" and trams were uncited. If you think that they belong in the article, by all means add them back - but do so citing sources. Incidentally, what you call an "overstreet cableway" is normally called in English "cable-cars"; what you wrote about them is misleading. We both know that Monastery Island is very close to the right bank of the Dnieper. People reading what you wrote would probably imagine that the cable-cars would take the across the Dnieper to the left bank.
• One of your preferred photos is of a road going through open countryside outside the city. It is not relevant to an article on the city.
• The other of your preferred photos is a composite photo - it lacks licensing information so will probably be deleted soon. The composite photo makes perfect sense to you and I, because we have both used the station. However two separate photos with different captions would be a lot easier to understand for the readers of English language Wikipedia.

Please write in English on English language Wikipedia. Spasibo.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corvette - Hello
I see you deleted the Summary sections; just to let you know I’ve added an explanation of the summary deletion, here, to keep it above board. Keep smiling, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This

This - Don't. pablo 20:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard knows ...

Toddy
If Hansard "know" all about the hyphen, how come they use both "Trafalgar class submarine" and "Trafalgar-class submarine" in the same adjacent paragraphs?

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the final Trafalgar-class submarine will go out of service. [235625]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth: On present plans, which are routinely updated as required, the last Trafalgar class submarine to be withdrawn from service will be HMS Triumph in 2022.

Shem (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The title is not hyphenated in the source - so when referencing by the title it is incorrect to reference a 'corrected' version of the title.
• There is a very simple explanation for the apparently inconsistent use of hyphens in the text. These are written answers (this is revealed by [1]). Presumably Dr Lewis wrote his question with a hyphen, and the staff at MoD wrote an answer without one.

--Toddy1 (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly - you can't rely on sources for style, since they get it wrong all the time. In any case, rather than disagree about this, I'd rather concentrate on keeping Born2Cycle from damaging the encyclopaedia. Any thoughts? Shem (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The other day I made a well-intentioned suggestion to him [2]. As a result I got warned not to make personal attacks [3]. Perhaps it was stupid to write what I did - but I meant well.
• Today Ykraps made what I thought were quite reasonable comments on Talk:Corvette, and been forced to make retractions and apologies. (There were some trivial inaccuracies, and a big issue was made out of them.)
• You need to be very careful what you write - one way to win on Wikipedia is to bait a mousetrap - I have seen users like Ludvikus get permanently blocked because they rushed into mousetraps.

--Toddy1 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about mousetraps. What is the item between 'logs' and 'upload file'? I assume it's turned on in preferences, but beyond that I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Shem (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US spelling

Hi,

Please can you give an example? Lightmouse (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comment, I've looked very hard to an examples where Lightbot added US spelling that wasn't there before. Do you have any examples? Lightmouse (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two I found were: [4], [5]. Once I realised what was happening, I contacted you. You are right that it would have been better for me to have deleted the "sp=us" - I am fallible too.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We all make mistakes. Please could you remove or negate the comment and picture on the Lightbot talk page? I could remove or contradict them myself but it's more believable in an audit if the allegation of error is withdrawn by the accuser, rather than the accused. Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to think about what to say here. Has your bot been instructed to remove the presumption of US spelling that was made?--Toddy1 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no. The long answer involves a conditional 'sometimes'. My focus is units and spelling is a troublesome secondary issue. The issue only arose when User:Ezhiki told me that the old template defaults to US spelling and the new template defaults to non-US spelling. It's ironic that you reverted articles edited by him, but you and he had mutually incompatible complaints. As he correctly implied, I'm obliged to add 'sp=us' to make the edit spelling neutral. I go to considerable effort to identify articles with British English and sometimes withhold 'sp=us' by exception. Invalid criticism is always frustrating but doubly so when I'm already doing as much as I can. If you look at the User:Lightbot, User:Ezhiki and my talk pages, you'll see plenty of discussion and some other false accusations on the same topic. Let me know if you need more clarification. Lightmouse (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Are you still thinking about what to say? I can think of a variety of short neutral phrases suitable for reversal of a complaint but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a suggestion, please email it to me. --Toddy1 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people follow up on false accusations with something conventional like: "Sorry. I was wrong." Please consider writing something like that.Lightmouse (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that it was a false accusation? It wasn't. However the reality was more complicated than I realised when I posted the comments. Your attitude is not particularly helpful - basically if I don't like what you have done I can go through and check as many of the thousands of articles you have altered and manually change parameters on a template on them. You say it is not appropriate to simply revert. I think it would be better if bot-editors were banned.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Toddy, could you send the e-mail again? I've just enabled the e-mail function - especially for you. Shem (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Never-Ending Story

Fair comment, I’ve replied here. As far as FP's page goes, I’m not sure what is best. It seems a bit left-handed to take it back; what do you reckon, post an apology? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot take the award back. You apologised to B2C. I think that is all that you can do. What B2C chooses to do concerning the barnstar is up to him. As you do not have clean hands concerning the barnstar, you should just let him.

I thought your responses explaining why the adjudication went the way it did (and why it could have been more harsh on B2C's position) were excellent.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; Xyl 54 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I noticed your comments about mousetraps, above; an interesting point, and something to consider, but there is maybe another side to it. Have you read this? I think in the two we have the difference between entrapment and a sting operation (or, giving them enough rope with which to hang themselves). Xyl 54 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]