User talk:Keystone18/Archive 2

discussion at ANI

Hi Keystone18! I made a post to Administrator's Noticeboard about the automated edits that User:DemocraticLuntz has been performing. I saw you had similar concerns which you shared on their talk page, so I thought you might want to be aware of the discussion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I just shared my concern there, which--based on what I read--is now greater than when I presented my initial question on the link error. I initially thought that link error was something that slipped through an otherwise broadly vetted automated process. That doesn't appear to be the case. Obviously the populations should be updated, but the process behind that should involve Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities or some other grouping of editors who can assess the automated process for technical and editorial suitability and accuracy. It's already proven inaccurate in one way--and, even after we called attention to that, the problem was compounded by human error with no effort to take corrective steps or even respond to us, as your correctly noted. Keystone18 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see so many unaddressed comments on that user's talk page. Had there been just a few errors, I would've pursued a bit more on the talk page. But since there's active automation and a very large number of edits, plus an attitude that isn't for cleaning things up, I felt escalation was necessary. I'm glad you're of like mind! -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there is not a more formalized project or process for updating and maintaining the accuracy of city populations, given how core that data is to every city page and to the site generally. I think what we all learned today is that it is a function that somehow ended up being managed/monopolized by this one editor with an automated process (including all the input data, I presume, that was developed by this one user alone). I always try not to discourage a user's entrepreneurship, but automated processes really need to be more broadly assessed before they are implemented given the potential for all the tech and content-related errors that are possible across such large numbers of pages. By the way, this same user made the same error on the census link with inputting the 2010 census data too, so this is not new. Many of those 2010 census links were corrected by me and others over the years, and still others remain as redirects 12 years later. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, which I'm sure would have had interest in helping/assessing it. I don't believe any members there knew of it in 2010 or in this more recent 2020 update. In addition to getting the links and formatting correct, the accuracy of the population data itself really needs to be validated before being placed on hundreds of pages. Good job in the handling of this. Hope it all works out satisfactorily. Let me know if I can be helpful in any further way. Keystone18 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor (Mississippi judge)

I find your conduct with respect to this article puzzling. The sources are quoted, and you are attempting to change the text so that it says something different than what the sources say. If you have evidence that this subject was ever a lawyer while in Pennsylvania, please provide the source. Otherwise, do not incorrectly categorize the subject as a Pennsylvania lawyer. Also, you changed the text say that the subject "relocated to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, where he was a member of the territorial legislature"; how does one relocate to a Supreme Court? How does one become a member of a legislature of a court? Courts have justices, not legislatures. BD2412 T 03:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just left you a message on your page. There are quotes that are presumably referencing some source. The quotes should be removed, or they need to be left in and attributed to the source. Nothing in my edits said he was an attorney in Pennsylvania. I merely added the category, which is appropriate for an attorney from a location. I sense he relocated to Mississippi early in life. Let me take a close look at it, make the changes I think are warranted--and revert anything you have an issue with. It is very poorly written and unclear. Keystone18 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the Giving circle article

Hi, @Keystone18:, I noticed you're part of WP:Organizations and thought an article I'm trying to improve might interest you. Many of the giving circles and networks are located in the Mid-Atlanic region. I recently submitted a edit request for the Giving circle article was curious if you'd be open to review the request. The Giving circle article has a flag, lacks secondary sources, and has too many external links and further reading entries. I drafted a new proposed sandbox to address those issues, and others have integrated their suggestions too. I won't edit the article myself due to my COI. Would you be open to review the sandbox/publish the content if you agree with the improvements? Appreciate any feedback or collaboration in advance.--Chefmikesf (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 2020 census data justified by a purported graph

Regarding this (and other similar edits), what and where is the graph that summarizes this data? As I've stated, I'd be happy to discuss removing the 2000 census data once 2020 details are added, yet they have not yet been included in the article. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The population data is in a population graph by decade. The other details are dated, and the purpose is not to summarize by decade all those details. Keystone18 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In previous clusters of edits, you've deleted references to 1990 census data in the lede. Now, in this edit, you're removing mentions of 2020 census data in the lede and in the rest of the article. I support the removal of 1990 census data in the lede and some of the other edits you've made. But I think that there is consensus to keep the 2000 census data details until corresponding data for the 2020 census is added. In articles where there is some semblance of detailed 2020 census data, I have agreed that 2000 census be removed. It's incredibly unclear what you're trying to accomplish here and why you refuse to get consensus for removal of extensive sourced content that you call "minor edits". Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 2000 data; that's what I removed. Yes, a 22-year-old population number that doesn't even deviate substantially from the current one has no place in the introduction when two population numbers of roughly the same size are already mentioned and the entire population history is later referenced in a graph. Please also remove 2000 and 1990 references from any introductions when you encounter them. Keystone18 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support data for 2020 and comparisons to 2010 and 2000 in the lede, with removal of data there for 1990. In the Demography section, I support having two sets of data, which will be 2010 census and 2000 census in most cases. Once comprehensive data for the 2020 census is added, I support removal of 2000 census data. Alansohn (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey's congressional district maps

Please, if you think they're oversized, you should also adjust the size for the other map in the article, because you didn't. Also, you should reduce the zoom parameter to zoom out because having otherwise would look out-of-place for the viewer. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 06:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure to have adjusted each of them. Which are you saying I missed? Keystone18 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "From 2023" maps still have the original size. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'll take care of those too. Thanks for the heads up. Keystone18 (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough but this isn't what I'm talking about. I was referring to the other interactive map ({{maplink}}) in the infobox that you haven't adjusted. It may seem hidden to you because {{switcher}} obscures it but you should be able to clearly see that interactive map while editing the article. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 07:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Adam Pritzker article

Hello. I saw your participation in Wikipedia projects including biographies, business, and organizations, so I am hoping you'll be willing to help make some changes to the Adam Pritzker article. As my pending edit request explains, there are two professional roles--one in business and one in an organization-- I would like to add, but my COI prevents me from editing the page directly. I would appreciate your help and involvement to make these updates. Thank you DCBPI (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the New Year

I want to extend my best wishes to you for the upcoming New Year. I know that you do a lot of editing and I hope that we can find a way to work together productively to update the substantial number of articles where our interests overlap. I offer a hearty "you're welcome" to the "thank you" that you offered regarding my edit to the article for Elizabeth, New Jersey and I hope that we can reach mutual agreement on which elements of articles should be changed and which should be retained. Detailed data should be systematically added to articles from the 2020 census (note the lower case), at which point I would be in full agreement that the corresponding data from the 2000 census should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you too! And, yes, I definitely look forward to that. You have done a great job on many of those pages, and that vastly surpasses the minor census format differences that brought us into contact. Very much looking forward to working with you as we strive to make these pages even better, and I'm sure we'll find agreement on any formatting differences that exist or emerge. Thanks for reaching out and for the kind words! Keystone18 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]