User talk:Tpbradbury

User talk:Tpbradbury/Archive 1

Surface air temperature for global warming

After backing out your climate change edit I changed the chart description to make it clear that surface air temperature is what is being measured by NASA. Whether the article needs to be edited as well I'll leave up to you, just keep in mind the lead is already very long. For the facts see here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature/ Efbrazil (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential state car (United States)

Hi, which article did this material come from? It needs proper attribution, and also the sources called by the references need to be copied over to resolve the Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i've put a tag on the talkpage and resolved the ref errors Tom B (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Timeline of the John F. Kennedy assassination

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/criticalmoments/titles/9780415895576/timeline.php, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i added similar content from other articles with proper attribution Tom B (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

Hello Tpbradbury - I see you recently moved the image of Robert E. Lee to the right side on the American Civil War. I agree with your change but for a different reason. You cite the MOS "It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text." I prefer, no matter what way the image is "looking" the beginning of the MOS that says "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement." What are your thoughts on the MOS "However, avoid sandwiching text between two images...." and the portraits in the Eastern theater Battles section? TwoScars (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hiya, i agree with the inwards rule, it looks a lot better. I think severe sandwiching looks bad, but the images in the battles section aren't massive so it doesn't look too bad. the McClellan one is the most boring so it may look better if that was removed to avoid image overload and increase the impact of the Stonewall one, thanks Tom B (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor of Castile

Just a note to say I'm working on the citations but it's an awful mess right now, so I'd rather keep the notice until I've completed this work! Jim Killock (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Tom B (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

I think in the Vietnam war infobox, we can change communist’s casualties from “1,100,000” to “1,081,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead” (more accurate and more details). Can you help me?2001:EE0:4A62:1A70:922:8255:16B2:8061 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. we actually need to remove details, as the article is overly long. Also, switching to 4 significant figures from 2 is likely spurious precision, i.e. it's not credible that we'd know how many died to the nearest thousand, over a long, large, complex war with limited record-keeping. More likely we'd know to the nearest ten thousand, or perhaps even only hundred thousand. Writing it to the nearest 100,000 is being clear that we don't know exactly, Tom B (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so, you can change from “1,100,000” to “680,000 - 1,100,000 (of which, 30-40% were non-combat dead” (because we don’t know how many died, thus we need the range of estimate, and 30-40% is signification rate)2001:EE0:4A62:1A70:59DB:E991:C3CC:B4DB (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

Nice copyediting on the Disney page — it's rare to see editors with such a strong sense of what doesn't need to be in prose. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, happy editing! Tom B (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tpbradbury (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 147.161.237.16, Tom B (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed proxy/VPN running the squid proxy service and running services on open ports 10250, 8080, 21, 10134, 10909, 10911, 11300, 11434, 19000, 12345, 10554, 443, 12000, 11211, 10443, 80, 3128, 8800, 10000, 9443, 11371, 11000. This IP address is associated with the domain, zscloud.net. Disable your proxy/vpn and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

RFC Close

For what it is worth, just wanted to say I really like your closure of The Dorchester Review. Covered the topic extremely well. Kudos! Lulfas (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, this is the opposite of what i was expecting on my talkpage! Tom B (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus split

On Aug 5, you flagged the Erasmus article as too long and needing splitting, and moved the content rating from B to C. (It had already had a large chunk split out into Works of Erasmus. I have now split out over a third of the Erasmus article into new Legacy and Evaluations of Erasmus and removed the too-long tag. However, I did not move the content rating back to B yet, as I thought you (Tom) might like verify. (Is it strange for an article that was B one week to became two smaller articles that are C the following week?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick, i didn't add the long tag, i added the word count to it on 4 Aug. Nikkimaria added the tag in June [1]. it's not strange for articles to get reassessed in that way; it should have already been C as it was too long, then ideally becomes at least two, higher quality B articles. I've standardised some of the layout and formatting. Some sources are assessed as unreliable by wikipedia, if you look at the perennial sources page. i put it up to B. well on all your hard work! Tom B (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your "expert text removal" on George Santos Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: This barnstar is no small feat for you, coming from me, as I had researched and written a fair amount of what you took out over last year and a half as the story developed. In situations like this I often grit my teeth when I see that an editor previously uninvolved with the article has taken it upon themselves to trim an admittedly overstuffed section, since often enough those editors cut too blindly, removing material whose relevance they didn't appreciate, and/or leave a mess to clean up in terms of orphaned refs and dangling inline second references now lacking a first, or butchered formatting.

But looking over your edits, I saw that you largely took out details which don't really have much lasting relevance, while preserving the important stuff and at the same time avoiding any of those issues mentioned above. Bravo! Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
1,873	2024 Summer Olympics opening ceremony (talk)	Add sources
410	Chicha (talk)	Add sources
218	Iraqis (talk)	Add sources
2,036	Great Leap Forward (talk)	Add sources
154	Iran–Iraq relations (talk)	Add sources
906	Hu Yaobang (talk)	Add sources
549	Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (talk)	Cleanup
24	Robert P. Ashley Jr. (talk)	Cleanup
86	Timeline of African-American history (talk)	Cleanup
34	Military history of Iraq (talk)	Expand
2,239	Prime Minister of Bangladesh (talk)	Expand
3,607	Chinese Communist Party (talk)	Expand
20	Deng Liqun (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
405	We (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
80	I've Gotta Get a Message to You (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,181	Superpower (talk)	Merge
2,789	UR Cristiano (talk)	Merge
4,337	Leon Trotsky (talk)	Merge
42	Minorities in Iraq (talk)	Wikify
359	Iguala mass kidnapping (talk)	Wikify
100	Assyrians in Iraq (talk)	Wikify
7	Timothy L. Jenkins (talk)	Orphan
2	Theory Conference, January-April 1979 (talk)	Orphan
5	General Directorate of Political and Social Investigations (talk)	Orphan
14	Sisterhood (2021 film) (talk)	Stub
5	Luxembourg Socialist Youths (talk)	Stub
134	EDNS Client Subnet (talk)	Stub
3	Zalim Tera Jawab Nahin (talk)	Stub
5	Lucky (von Ziegesar novel) (talk)	Stub
53	Sack of Aquileia (talk)	Stub

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]