User talk:Beland

Feel free to leave a note on this page in the usual manner; I'll probably ping you back with a reply. Just to keep things tidy, I generally only keep stuff on this page if it requires further action from me or you haven't read my reply yet, so check the page history for older conversations if you need to refer back.

I created the spelling and grammar checking project at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss. If you are responding to an edit related to special characters, language tags, or manual of style compliance, HTML cleanup or markup issues, it might have been motivated by some report generated by that project. -- Beland (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Idea to improve project moss

I think that typos like this [1] where this isn't a space at the end of the ref> tag, could be useful. Clovermoss (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Hmm, interesting. Most of those missing spaces do show up, but in this case, there is also incorrectly a space before the opening ref tag. I'll do a database scan and see what the numbers look like on that. That's probably easier to fix with an AWB/JWB run. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason that was not detected as a typo was because there was an extra space before the ref tag. If there had properly been no space before the ref tag, along with no space after the ref tag, the typo report would presumably have reported it as a typo of the form "2021.He". AWB fixes spaces before ref tags, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I see at least 1,160,192 instances of space-before-ref-open-tag in the 2022-01-20 database dump, so this would need to be addressed systemically by either a bot or a massive manual review process. -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Typeface/Font/Computer font

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have decided not to pursue this merge. I did a lot of work to reduce keyboard layout/keyboard technology/computer keyboard triplication, ending with clearing out the last of these to make it a redirect. It has all been undone and I don't have the inclination to pursue it to the bitter end, I just don't care that much. I can't see why the RTM that we have discussed would have any different result. If you want to go ahead anyway, feel free. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Coherent style for formulas

In Nilpotent Lie algebra, you introduced recently the awful formula {{math|''n'' ∈ <math>\mathbb{N}</math>}}. I have changed it into <math>n\in\mathbb{N}</math>. Please, avoid mixing latex and html rendering in the same formula.

Happy new year. D.Lazard (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: Yeah, it's definitely more readable when it's all in LaTeX. I've just been going through making articles compliant with MOS:BBB, which only requires changing over the blackboard bold characters. I had been converting relatively simple formulas to LaTeX completely, but it got a bit time consuming, and some longer formulas were quite daunting. MOS:MATH doesn't say anything about not mixing the two, so my thinking was that the mixed style was at least MOS-compliant, and we could go back and convert the rest of the markup later. I was hoping some other editors skilled in LaTeX would be able to help with that. Would you be able to help with some conversions? I see 88 articles with mixed markup (not all of which are from my edits) and several hundred articles with ℝ, ℤ, or ℂ. We could also add a note to MOS:MATH saying not to mix LaTeX and HTML, and resolve to do blackboard-bold-motivated conversions in one step rather than two? -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Can changing file names be prevented when removing special characters

Hi @Beland. In this edit Special:Diff/1072561704/1072883820 to Graphene the ² character was removed from the file name. IDK if you're using a script or doing it manually, but maybe something can be done to prevent this from happening in other articles... or this one if you ever re-visit. Best wishes, Ponor (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ponor: Ah, sorry, I failed to catch that upon manual review. I've left it as a manual step because it's possible to automate not doing that, since it's difficult to determine the context reliably given the complexity of the syntax. -- Beland (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ranma 1/2

Hello, Beland. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Editing the Phonics article

I appreciate the edits you have done to make this article more readable and encyclopedic. Thank you very much. I do, however, feel this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phonics&oldid=1049464041) did not work as you had planned. I would like to revise that paragraph myself to accomplish your objectives (trimming, removing how-to stuff, etc). The easiest way for me to do this would be to revert your edit and work from there. Naturally, I don't want to offend you. Are you OK with this approach? Of course, you can then edit my new submission. John NH (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jnhmunro: Sure, whatever is easiest for you. I guess just be careful not to undo all the edits from other editors that have also happened in the meantime? It looks like the "Undo" button for that specific edit will keep those other changes in place. -- Beland (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Beland. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)