User talk:Blueboar

Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... I am away from my computer right now, and can not respond to you. Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....

(Please note that I regularly delete messages after I have read them. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on the page, it means I have seen it. I do not archive old messages. If you need to retrieve something posted on this user page, you can find it in the page's history.)

BEEEEEP....

Note about citations

I was just reading what you wrote here about citations.

I learned only a few months ago about the automated citation-creator that is in the plain wikitext editor. If you already know about this, I apologize, but if you didn't, you will find it a revelation.

It lets you create a fully formatted citation in a few seconds - with all those pesky parameters/fields filled out.

When you are in an edit window, up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a fully-formatted citation.

As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

Again, sorry if you already knew about it. For me, it was one of those "How in the world did I not know about this years ago??" kind of things. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks Jytdog... Yes, I did know about it... but I appreciate the gesture of making sure. I actually find these automated formatting tools more confusing to use than the old fashioned hand formatted versions. (And I find they make articles much harder to edit when someone else uses them)... but that's just me. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

AfC

There are four broad types of AfC pages.

1. Tagged AfC (by the editor who started the page or anyone else) but not submitted for review. Many never get submitted and go G13 stale.
2. Submitted - if anyone hits a Submit button they go in the AfC backlog until they are accepted and published or rejected for some reason which leads to:
3. Rejected pages which can be resubmitted or sit in the rejected categoried until they fall stale amd become subject to G13. By far most AfC submissions are rejected and eventually fall stale but quite a few are never submitted at all - often short stubs and bits of text or even otherwise blank pages. You can see a good cross section at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report
4. Accepted - at AfC so moved to mainspace.

From a G13 poimt of view submitted vs unsubmitted has never mattered and still does not matter. Only the existence of the AfC tag on any page in Draft or userspace. The recent G13 expansion removed the existence of an AfC tag completely as a factor for Draft space. Hope that helps you out. Legacypac (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It's number 1 that I don't understand... doesn't tagging for AFC automatically submit the page for review? If not, what is the point of an AFC tag? Blueboar (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It provides a button to push to submit the page. Some human needs to decide when to submit for review right? Legacypac (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah... so the tag does not mean that the material has actually been submitted... it is merely a pointer to the submission process... the mechanism by which a submission is made? Blueboar (talk) 10

42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and it is inserted automatically when you start a draft in the AfC process. The AfC tag also has a date in it that bots and humans can read to see how long ago the tag was applied. If someone reviews the draft (even comments) it moves the date forward. Examples here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OK... I am obviously still confused by how the AFC process works in conjunction with userspace and draftspace... to my mind, drafts "started in the AfC process" should start in Draftspace. (ie if you start a draft using AFC, that draft should be located in Draftspace... not userspace.) Drafts started in userspace should not be part of the AfC process at all. That's what Draftspace is for. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] I think you are over analysing this. Editors could start on their own harddrive, in their sandbox(es), a user subpage, Draft namespace, or mainspace. It all depends on how comfortable they are with editing and what spaces they know about or which guide they follow. If vandalism or spam or link building they may go to userspace as it's likely to be quickly deleted.

AfC process drafts can start in Draft or Userspace. We often move them from Userspace to Draft space because the AfC tool encourages and facilitates that. Legacypac (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You might find working through a batch of pages in this backlog [2] following the instructions will be better to really understand the issues rather than asking other editors to explain things to you in the abstract. Legacypac (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:United Grand Lodge of England

Hi, for some reason, the edit you made to this template split up the code and caused it to display an error on the articles it is connected to. Can you fix the error before reinserting? Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Best to ask someone else... I am not good with code and would probably make things worse if I tried to fix it. Sorry Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Blueboar. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Blueboar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

reconsidering Category:Masonic Lodges

This attracted my attention due to an AFD that came up today for a lodge— not a lodge building. The problem I see at in the category is that a lot of the membership is actually for lodge buildings, generally because they are listed on the NRHP. So (a) should they be split, and (b) are there actually a substantial number of lodges that are notable in their own right? Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... this stems from the fact that many non-masons don’t understand the distinction between a Lodge and it’s building (indeed many Masons don’t understand the distinction). You are correct in thinking that many Masonic buildings are notable (NRHP etc)... but few Lodges are notable. It would help to separate the two. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I understand your comment correctly?

Hi Blueboar. You said on the currently... raging... RSN post this: So present them all, with appropriate captions to indicate which source (and thus which viewpoint) they are based upon. Simple. Did you want me to put pictures of all of them in the thread, or was this an elaboration on Darouet's proposal to make a combined map with columns? Sorry if this should be obvious, I'm kind of dizzy from the amount of text I just had to read, and demands that I respond from various users. --Calthinus (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It was saying that the article could have multiple maps. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It seems it was resolved in favor of that solution anyhow.--Calthinus (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I understand DougWeller correctly?

Thanks for posting in the thread on reliable sources re Frisland. Would you go there and let me know what you think about Doug Weller's comment re death threats? Apparently someone went to his talk page and vandalized it with such. He then commented on it on the thread you and I were writing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Frisland_reliable_sources). It appears to me that he is alluding that I was the guilty party. I had nothing to do with it. Apparently, his style engenders such. Youngnoah (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Something I learned long ago... never take things personally on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback plz

Could I have your response to this question please? He needs your clear response, I think. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)