User talk:Jay D. Easy/Archive 1

Bittaker and Norris

I don't use documentaries of any kind for references on articles, Jay D. Easy, but this is an extremely informative documentary. An image of the van can be seen at around 23:26. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll make sure to watch this. I found some pics of the actual van as well, which don't appear to be licensed. But they're really low res. Jay D'Easy (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, pal. The images of the van online (at least two or so years ago when I last looked) were on unreliable "Murderabilia" or suchlike sites. I myself ordered that documentary, but ended up posting it to a guy in Northern France who wanted it because it basically disgusted and infuriated me so much after I'd watched it three or four times. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

So what's this? Your potential last edit? I thought we made somewhat of a good team despite a couple of minor apparent disagreements. Jay D'Easy (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought so too. Tell your guild as such, mate, seriously. I said this is the only case psychologically-wise that I cannot wish to revert to to improve or even reflect on. I will do if you wish to, make no mistake. All the best. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at my previous comment, Jay D'Easy. I don't mind the fact I'm a recipient of humor here. I knew it would be the case with what I do on here. It is just the fact that, despite everything I have done and fully intend to continue to do regarding true crime on Wikipedia, this is the sole case which I cannot tolerate emotionally. It was a struggle to research and populate initially. I just don't like reverting my mindset to this case. Any other case worldwide, I'm game. This one just hurts me. All the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Signature

Could you fix your signature so it doesn't rely on a redirect please? Cabayi (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jay D. Easy (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Cabayi (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

It's been interesting seeing your changes to articles I watch, because you are amending thing I'm ignorant of, like the default sorts etc so thanks for the exhibition. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Not gallery - gallery

[1] Operation Aerial a little harsh I suggest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Partly as a reminder to myself to properly include the photos at a later date. No worries. Jay D. Easy (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

In or At Scapa Flow

I have mentioned your change of page title at WP:SHIPS. I think it is an improvement but I have doubts about your category changes. The sunken shipwrecks are in the body of water and not at a place Lyndaship (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: You might be right. I had some reservations and might have gone overboard with my boldness. My view is that a shipwrecking is an event, but I guess you could just as well argue that it is a term that refers to a ship's wreck. I don't know. Since you appear to frequent WP:SHIPS, you're more of an authority on this subject than I am. I am sorry if my changes caused any problems. If the consensus is to change the shipwreck categories back to what they were give me a heads up. I'll do part my in helping out. Jay D. Easy (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I involved Google. "In Scapa Flow" has 72,400 hits whereas "at Scapa Flow" has 111,000 hits. Taking into account that the "in" results also include such sentences as "an active interest in Scapa Flow," "at" is the clear winner here—for what it's worth, since this means nothing. Curiousity got the best of me. Jay D. Easy (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Like I said scuttling at is fine by me. On the shipwrecks though, google has 1730 Shipwrecks in Scapa Flow and 254 Shipwrecks at Scapa Flow. Similarly there are no other Categories shipwrecks at xxxx, there are lots of shipwrecks in xxxx and a lot of shipwrecks of xxxx. I do feel shipwrecks at Scapa Flow is wrong Lyndaship (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Say no more, I'll get to it. Jay D. Easy (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I reverted the changes. @Lyndaship: can you confirm whether this is satisfactory? Jay D. Easy (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fine by me Lyndaship (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

F1 driver infoboxes

Hi Jay. Please don't change "2019 Team" to "current_team" in any more F1 driver infoboxes. Past experience has shown that having a parameter called "current_team" introduces ambiguity/encourages edit warring between the end of one season and the start of the next. Where it's known that a driver will be changing teams between seasons, some editors want the infobox to display the new team as soon as the last race of the old season is complete, whereas others insist that the old team remain displayed until the end of the calendar year. To counter this, we replaced the "current team" parameter with "<old season> Team" and "<new season> Team" parameters a few years ago and the problem disappeared. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

DH85868993 hey. Thanks for informing me, I wasn't aware. I still think 2019 Car is silly and something ought to be done about it. I set the label accompanying current_team to {{CURRENTYEAR}}, as you may have seen. This way the team label remains visibly unchanged while hopefully still leaving little room for interpretation. What's your take? Jay D. Easy (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you set the label accompanying "current_team" to {{CURRENTYEAR}}; thanks for that. But given that we'll need to reintroduce "2019 Team" and "2020 Team" at the end of the 2019 season (to cater for drivers who are changing teams, as described above), I think it's simpler/preferable to just avoid the "current_team" parameter altogether, so that all infoboxes use the same parameters. With respect to "2019 Car Number" parameter (I assume that's what you meant), we used to have the same issue with car numbers as with teams; as soon as the last race of the old season was complete, some editors would change the "car number" parameter for the new World Champion to "1", then others would change it back to their old number, saying it should stay as the old number until the end of the calendar year. Having "<old season> car number" and "<new season> car number" parameters solved the issue, noting that these parameters are only used for driver whose number is changing; most infoboxes use the "car number" parameter. DH85868993 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I meant 2019 Team. That's what I get for editing while tired. Anyways, I'll look into a solution later today. Thanks. Jay D. Easy (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The "20yy Team" system has worked pretty well for the past 9 years. Also noting that it's consistent with how the inter-season period is handled in {{Infobox F1 team}}. DH85868993 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

James Fitzjames

Howdy, There should not be a comma before an "and" which is why I removed it. At least that is what I was taught.

The other comma that I inserted is needed as otherwise the sentence does'nt sound right.

I may be wrong and I don't want an argument. Marbraja (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, I agree with your changes. Marbraja (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

{{flagd}} vs. {{flagicon}} use

Your edit summary "that's the idea" isn't much use in explaining your thinking. Could you expand a little? Thanks. Pyrope 22:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reaching out. I'd say it's basically summed up by MOS:OVERLINK. Jay D. Easy (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but the links created by flagicon are not the intrusive bluelink style that OVERLINK is referring to. There is nothing about the links created this way that would confuse or confound a reader (i.e. they do not add to the sea of blue) and so the provisions of OVERLINK are not applicable. Pyrope 02:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You raise a valid point—I have no rebuttal. I apologize for my reversal. Jay D. Easy (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY

Regarding this edit to Ron Stallworth, please review WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Personal details of living people should not be included unless they have already been widely reported by reliable sources, or widely disseminated by the subject. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Animalparty. Wew, thanks for your awareness. The silly thing is, I know this a big thing on Wikipedia, and understandably so. You start looking up a person and enter a kind of rabit hole trying to dig up information. In Ron Stallworth's case it's because I was so focused on finding his full name I didn't stop to think that when I found it and added it, it was—in hindsight—probably missing for this very reason in the first place. So yeah, thank you and please forgive the slip-up. Jay D. Easy (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries! The other main thing we want to avoid (besides potentially encroaching on privacy) is making Wikipedia the place where information is first publicized: when unquestioning readers, or even hasty journalists, repeat or republish info publicized without scrutiny, the risk of perpetuating false data increases. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Niemen or Grodno

You changed 2nd Niemen to 2nd Grodno here Template:Campaignbox Polish–Soviet War for Battle of the Niemen River. I am not sure what 1st Niemen would be, but the correct term for the battle should be just Niemen River battle, I think? Not 2nd Grodno, which is not stressed in the article as a possible alt name? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Piotr. I changed it back. I saw it referred to as the 2nd Grodno somewhere. I was mostly bothered by the lack of a 2nd Grodno to balance the 1st Grodno, haha. Jay D. Easy (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked, but in all honesty I cannot find any English or Polish source that actually use the '2nd Grodno' or variation. All I see is wiki (Battle of Grodno, and I've just added this to the Battle of the Niemen River, but it would be nice to have a source). The thing is, Battle of the Niemen River of course included Grodno in its theater of operations, so it is possible some writers who would focus on a part of it could call it that, but, well, sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)