User talk:Anomalocaris

Archives

2006–2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021

Don't squeeze out spaces between sentences

as you did here. This change has no effect on the rendered page, and just makes the source more difficult to read. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Dicklyon I also remove that extra space. As a copy-editor, I read articles mostly in edit mode, and having sentences spaced out with those extra spaces, combined with all the references that interrupt the sentences, makes it harder to follow the flow of the sentences and determine the cohesion of the paragraph. The tighter the sentences are, the easier my job of copy-editing is. If you have WikEd enabled (Preferences, Gadgets, Editing), in most articles references are shaded in gray while text is black on a white background, so the references ought to stand out. Corinne (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dicklyon, glad to hear from you. At random I edited (without making changes) five articles linked on your user page:

Huygens–Fresnel principle: no double spaces between sentences. (After your last edit, of 18 periods between sentences, 8 had double spaces.)
Rule of thirds: of 13 periods between sentences, 3 have double spaces.
Amnon Yariv: no double spaces between sentences; however the longest paragraph has newlines at the end of each sentence. (Same after your last edit.)
Circle of confusion: no double spaces between sentences, even after your last edit.
Critical band: about 41 of about 86 periods between sentences have double spaces.

So for a random selection of five pages you care about, none of them have even a majority of periods between sentences followed by double space, and three of them don't have any. I don't see why you're bothering me about this when you don't seem to care about it when you edit articles yourself.

Hi, Corinne, nice to hear from you as well. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I don't go around doubling spaces, you shouldn't go around squeezing them out. Leave well enough alone, instead of making edits that are worse than pointless, please. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Dicklyon, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am obviously not the only editor who sometimes converts multiple blanks to single blanks in Wikipedia markup text. Some editors insert extra spaces out of carelessness or old typewriter habits applicable to neither formatted text nor HTML and related markup text. Other editors, such as Corinne and I, sometimes take them out. I never change multiple spaces to single spaces in formatted layouts, such as the {{Cite}} templates with each parameter appearing on a new line. Unless you can explain how changing markup like

 Please.  Thank you.

to

 Please. Thank you.

is worse than pointless, other than I just don't like it, I don't see a problem here.—Anomalocaris (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's pointless, as it makes not difference to the rendered result. Second, it's worse, because it needless creates changes to review, and these are not totally free; furthermore, scrunching the source makes the source less readable. The "typewriter habit" had, and still has, a good purpose in making it easier to see the separation between sentences. So leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, when I edit articles and find multiple spaces, much of the time, the multiple spaces are not all at the ends of sentences. For example, in my edit of Basilica of St. Giles, amid all of my other changes, I changed 12 multiple spaces to a single space, only one of which was at the end of a sentence. I believe these 12 changes, along with everything else I changed in this edit, were appropriate. I plan to continue changing multiple spaces to single spaces in the random places I find them. I will continue to avoid changing multiple spaces to single spaces in formatted layouts, but I am not planning to also avoid changing multiple spaces to single spaces at the end of a sentence. I am sorry you don't like it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is the point of such edits? Even within a sentence, it's quite pointless, but if you want to do that, can you be less undiscriminating about the context please? Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you contend that my edit of Basilica of St. Giles would have been better if I had left the 12 multiple spaces as single spaces? Why should anyone looking at the markup for this article have to stumble across

  During 1482–1486, three chapels were  built in the southern
  prominently  grouped around the main entrance
  The whole church is lit through  high, mostly three-part, glazed  Gothic windows,

and other examples of multiple spaces? Those multiple spaces have no meaning in the markup and they slow down the editor's reading process. Therefore they should be removed, along with the other changes I made, viz. nbsp (substituting   for nbsp;); straight apostrophes; ins space after "St."; logical quotes; book titles (boldly guessed) in quotes (sic, I meant italics!); combine similar <ref>s; move Ground plan descriptors into image caption.

I believe that articles should be consistent, not only in things like using MDY or DMY dates, but also in spacing. If most of the inter-sentence spaces in an article are single-spaced in the markup, I think that all of the inter-sentence spaces in an article should be single-spaced in the markup. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would argue that your edit at Basilica of St. Giles did as much harm as good, since it didn't distinguish between accidental double spaces and possibly purposeful double spaces between sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: Template talk:Short pages monitor

Thanks for the pointer. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut (magazine)

After a slightly closer investigation, I've concluded it isn't worth it to send Shortcut (magazine) to AfD. However, I don't ^(normally) use {{notability}} tags since non-notable subjects aren't really supposed to have articles to begin with. It's better to try to fix a problem than to tag it, though I've done both. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando De Luca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the S/2003 J 18 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Perry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell Automation

re: user talk page 66.102.157.201 If you're an administrator, you can tell the original poster from me that I go by the Cold War Marine Mantra: Never pick a fight but absolutely finish off those which are started with you by others and do it in such a fashion that they don't ever pick a fight with you ever again.

Since you can't do any of that online, I've done the next best thing: reported his actions to his administrator and will continue to do so until something is done.

Everybody else should follow the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm and mind your own business. Meaning you should take your Big Blue Marble/Free to Be You and Me attitudes back to the Castro or the East Village where they belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Turing

Hi, I'm not sure the quotes are correct now in the note. I added a quotation mark but you say I removed one. Gap9551 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gap9551: Sorry, my mistake; I have reverted my change. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bore

Thanks for making this vast improvment. She bore him a son? What is she, an ox? People still talk like that? Anyhow, thank you for the unintentional laugh, and have a good weekend. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage dates

Thanks for this. The marriage template used here, for example, is supposed to give the end date of the marriage and the reason for the end of the marriage. For people such as Spencer Tracy and Abraham Lincoln, the end date of the marriage is the date of death of the person. For others, it may be divorce, annulment, the death of the spouse, etc. for that reason, using the date of death in the template and the reason=death really isn't duplicative. I'm quite surprised at all these edits, and dismayed at the work involved in fixing them. 32.218.47.115 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Capone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

27 December 2011|newspaper=The New York Times|date=November 30, 1941}}{subscription required}}</ref> Over the next two and a half years, Capone and his co-defendants filed a series of legal
by Weiss and Buchalter, who also were executed.<ref name="hill jacobs">{{cite book|last=Hill]|first=David H. Jacobs; [introduction by Henry|title=The Mafia's greatest hits|year=2006|publisher=Citadel Press|location=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes

I actually knew the subject... normally I would work slower but since I knew the article subject it simply was a lot easier. As for the other edits, they were smaller than usual and were simple (at least from a reviewing standpoint). Thank you for asking! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you were wondering, running man has an English version. I know absolutely nothing about the Korean language or anything of the sort. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello

can u please add the same picture from bipasha basu's personal life section to Karan Singh Grover's? regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks can you please also?

change Karan Singh Grover display image to this picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSG_at_HS3_Trailer_Launch.jpg 120.17.62.29 (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note...

...that the Manual of Style is a guideline and not a policy. Policies are mandatory and must be followed by all Wikipedia editors under every circusmstance. Guidelines, on the other hand, are merely advisory in nature. Ignore all rules is, on the other hand, a core policy of Wikipedia. On several occassions over the years the Arbitration Committee has spoken out strongly against edit warring in support of MOS, since not following MOS does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Please do not take that path. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at User talk:Beyond My Ken —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Could you please approve of my pending edit on Demagogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:25F1:4ADB:C245:1288 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware...

...of the following section of WP:HARASSMENT:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.

Considering that we just had a dispute over Flatiron, and that I have recently brought John Randel Jr. from 2,397 bytes to 7,386 bytes, it is extremely difficult for me to see your recent edit to the latter, making the same kinds of changes you made to the former, which I objected to, as anything but a deliberate attempt at Wikihounding. If you continue this behavior, I will being it to the attention of an administrator for adjudication. I suggest to avoid a block, you reconsider your choice. BMK (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please do not reply on my talk page as, of this time, you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. BMK (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally considered a very serious violation of WP:CIVILITY for someone to post to another editor's user talk page after being told directly to not do so. It would still be allowed for discussion to continue elsewhere, like at the talk page of the relevant article, or some relevant wikipedia space location, so the ban would not in any way necessarily preclude reasonable, useful discussion of the matters in question, but not at that user's personal user talk page. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter: Even if "BMK is more or less perfectly within his rights to request that others not post to his user talk page, or ping him," there is an actual problem I brought forth. While there is no dispute that BMK makes many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, BMK also repeatedly detracts from Wikipedia by using profanity, making threats, and intimidating other editors. As I noted at AN/I, Wikipedia:Keep off my talk page! says "It may be the case that the demand to keep off could be used as evidence of unreasonableness or incivility. This might especially be true if such demands are made often, made rapidly after a first encounter with an editor, or made in response to actions that cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive." The elements, connected by "or", are

such demands are made often
made rapidly after a first encounter with an editor
made in response to actions that cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive.

The Rambling Man helpfully stated that condition 1 was met. I showed the record establishing condition 2. I claimed that condition 3 was also met, but that is necessarily an opinion. You did read User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note..., didn't you? I hope you agree that it "cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive". So I believe that all three conditions for unreasonableness or incivility are met, and only one condition is required. BMK is a great editor, but also one with problematic behavior. It takes courage to stand up, do the research, and show when lines are crossed. So when someone has the courage to do that, it's an opportunity to say, "BMK, we encourage you to avoid bans on your user talk page rapidly after a first encounter or in response to non-offensive postings; we urge you to WP:Assume good faith in deciding if a posting is offensive; and we suggest that you avoid profanity and gangland-style threats." I hope that I am wrong, but I predict that BMK will continue to occasionally fail to WP:Assume good faith, will continue to occasionally intimidate other editors, and will continue to occasionally use highly inappropriate language on user talk pages, including the user talk pages of newbie editors. Other editors will be stressed, because nobody had the courage to put a metaphorical hand on BMK's shoulder and say, "can't you please try to get along a little better?" Have a nice day. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your intention was to raise the issue as a continuing problem, honestly, you did a miserable job of it. Your rather laughable hyperbole about "gangland threats" and other comments, most of which could and I think were taken as being much more than was called for, indicate, honestly, that your own behavior in this matter is perhaps not above reproach. And your recent after-the-fact comments to Baseball Bugs on his talk page seem to perhaps demonstrate further problems on your part. The structure of your comment at ANI was such that most of those who responded seemed to see it as TLDR. I know it struck me as being less than productive, and, honestly, a bit like, well, whining. Yes, people act badly. This might well include you. But the method you used to bring this matter up, and the truly counterproductive presentation of it you gave, at least in my eyes, raises possibly as many concerns regarding your conduct as anyone else's. And your ongoing comments here and on BB's talk page, honestly, don't do anything to reduce those concerns. At this point, I suggest you follow the advice of one of the other editors at ANI and let this matter drop. I know that I have no interest in discussing the matter any further, and probably won't respond to any further pings or other attempts to keep the closed discussion ongoing. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie Monster revsersion

Why did you revert a valid edit to the cookie monster article? The cited source is completely valid and topical. 2601:185:8201:FB97:6C93:1FED:890E:9735 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

This edit [1] changed a matched double prime (italics) to a quote on one side and double prime on the other at "David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor...". I only mention it in case this was a script that acted up, otherwise it's probably just a typo. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall-K1: Yes, it's just a typo. Thank you for fixing it. Do you know about the {{prev}} template? You can enter your above link as [{{prev|737881850}} this edit], displaying as this edit. More versatile is {{diff}}, which allows display of differences between non-consecutive versions. You can enter your above link as {{diff||prev|737881850|this edit}}, displaying as this edit. I usually use {{diff}} because it's nifty to have the external link symbol go away. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it used and marveled at its elegance but never knew how to employ it. In particular, where do you get the diff number from? I've been around WP a number of years now and sometimes am too embarrassed to ask how to do something that it seems like I should already know. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, all I had to do was follow the link to the template documentation. It's like the ruby slippers, I've had this power all along. Thanks for the pointer! Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Spanish Americans page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Anachronox page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anomalocaris. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced age

Instead of edit warring, can you please explicitly cite the source that says Dan Pulcrano was 19 in 1978? Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate:

One reversion is not "edit warring".
It says right in Dan Pulcrano:
At age 19, he went to Los Angeles to help publisher Jay Levin launch the LA Weekly.^[1]

^ Jackson, Ron (February 2008). "Changing of the Guard: How Dan Pulcrano Became The Point Man in the Historic March From Old Media to the New World Online". Domain Name Journal. Retrieved November 29, 2013.

That article in turn quotes Pulcrano as saying, "While working in Santa Barbara on a summer break when I was 19, Jay Levin approached me and asked if I would help him start the LA Weekly...."
LA Weekly includes among its references L.A. Weekly Founder Jay Levin on the vision that started it all. L.A. Weekly, December 4, 2008; www.laweekly.com ..., which says that Levin is "Founder, president and editor 1978-1991."
So we have a reliable source for LA Weekly being founded in 1978 and we have a reliable source for Dan Pulcrano at age 19 meeting with LA Weekly founder Jay Levin shortly before LA Weekly was founded. Therefore, Dan Pulcrano was born c. 1959. Thank you for your attention to assure that Wikipedia's information is properly sourced. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Krey

Hi,

When the author blanks a page, that usually means they want it deleted. I have tagged it for CSD G7. Adam9007 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brand of the Devil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway Theatre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Im Tirtzu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Jewish Journal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sean Spicer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of "publisher" field

Hello

In your contribution to Template:Cite web/doc, you claim that |publisher= is deprecated. But I am not seeing to that effect in the documentation page.

Not only it is not deprecated, existing literature tells me that the citation style is a matter of optional style. This means that all that Wikipedia has required is consistency and retention, nothing more. Beyond that, it is at editors' discretion as to which citation style they choose and which fields they fill in. Therefore, the "publisher" effectively cannot be deprecated at all.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa: Hello. Thank you for your interest in this issue and communicating with me on my talk page. I didn't say that |publisher= is deprecated. My edit summary was "use of publishers with newspapers is generally deprecated". And here is a source for this: Template:Cite news/doc#Publisher, which says, "Not normally used for periodicals." A newspaper is a type of periodical. Therefore, my edit summary was true. When readers read citations, they care that an article was published in the Houston Chronicle, not that the Houston Chronicle is published by Hearst Corporation. I believe examples on template documentation should be entirely consistent with what we want to encourage. We don't want to encourage editors to slap |publisher=Hearst Corporation (with or without the wikilink) alongside every |work=Houston Chronicle (with or without the wikilink). On the contrary, we want to discourage the publisher parameter, because it is "Not normally used for periodicals." —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if my efforts in this area is any indication, that certain piece of example has not encouraged or discouraged anything. But like I said, Wikipedia policy has left the choice to editors' discretion and has no sanctioned any predefined in house style. You shouldn't be wanting to discourage or encourage the use of publisher's name. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa:

User:Codename Lisa/Websites and their publishers

This page is a personal page, and as such, I will refrain from editing it, but I have some observations:

Despite your piped link anchored to the words "if my efforts in this area is any indication", you have provided evidence neither of your efforts beyond creating the page, nor indications of any sort.
Most of the Works are just plain websites and not periodicals.
Two of the Works are redirects, viz: MSDN → Microsoft Developer Network; ComputerWeekly → Computer Weekly
Two of the Works are print periodicals, viz: PC Gamer, Maximum PC. Some content may be online-only, and this can be determined on a case-by-case basis.
One of the Works is a website of a print periodical: theguardian.com is the website of The Guardian. I assume that anything published at theguardian.com appeared in the print edition unless it is obviously online-only, such as a blog, an author page, a "contact us" page, or something like that, and I normally code articles from that website with {{cite news|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}.
One of the Works is a piped link to a redirect to a section of a page, viz: Wired (website) → Wired (magazine)#Website. The article lead says it is "published in print and online editions" and, because I don't visit the site, I make no assumptions as to whether articles at wired.com are from the magazine; I would attempt to determine this on a case-by-case basis. If I determined that an article appeared in the magazine, I would code it as {{cite magazine|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]}}. If I determined that an article appeared only on the website, I would code it as {{cite web|publisher=[[Wired (website)|Wired]]}}. If you code it as {{cite web|website=[[Wired (website)|Wired]] |publisher=[[Condé Nast]]}} I would not say you are wrong. However, I note that some articles at Wired are republished from other publications, and in that case I would mention the original publication and use |via=[[Wired (website)|Wired]].
Eight of the Works are former print periodicals now published online, viz: PC World, Computerworld, InfoWorld, MacWorld, eWeek, ComputerWeekly → Computer Weekly, InformationWeek, PC Magazine. Some of these have online magazines and probably have non-periodical content also.
One of the Works are is an online periodical that never had a print edition, viz: Windows IT Pro. Some of its content may be outside the periodical edition.

"Not normally used for periodicals" means "don't", at least usually

I continue to claim that "Not normally used for periodicals" means "don't", at least usually. There are over 4,000 articles on Wikipedia linking to Houston Chronicle, the newspaper that started this discusion. Let's look at the first 10.

Article	Markup	Display	Comments
Apollo 11	{{cite news \|title=Hear what Neil Armstrong really said on the moon \|first=Mark \|last=Carreau \|url=http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Hear-what-Neil-Armstrong-really-said-on-the-moon-1862496.php \|work=[[Houston Chronicle]] \|date=September 30, 2006 \|accessdate=June 13, 2013}}	Carreau, Mark (September 30, 2006). "Hear what Neil Armstrong really said on the moon". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
Bigfoot			Newspaper mentioned in article text, not in citation
Common Era	{{cite news\|first=Michael \|last=Gormley\|title=Use of B.C. and A.D. faces changing times\|publisher=[[Houston Chronicle]]\|date=24 April 2005\|url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2005_3864650\|page=A–13\|accessdate=2011-05-18}}	Gormley, Michael (24 April 2005). "Use of B.C. and A.D. faces changing times". Houston Chronicle. p. A–13. Retrieved 2011-05-18.	`\|publisher=` should be `\|newspaper=`, which would italicize newspaper name
Cary Elwes	{{cite journal\|title='Bride' basks in glow of video\|journal=[[Houston Chronicle]]\|last=Westbrook\|first=Bruce\|date=6 September 2001}}	Westbrook, Bruce (6 September 2001). "'Bride' basks in glow of video". Houston Chronicle.	should use `{{cite news}}`; `{{cite journal}}` is for peer-reviewed journals.
Cold fusion	{{cite journal \|ref=harv \|mode=cs2 \| last=Berger \| first=Eric \| title=Navy scientist announces possible cold fusion reactions \| periodical=[[Houston Chronicle]] \| date=23 March 2009 \| url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6333164.html}}	Berger, Eric (23 March 2009), "Navy scientist announces possible cold fusion reactions", Houston Chronicle `{{cite journal}}`: Invalid `\|ref=harv` (help)	should use `{{cite news}}`; `{{cite journal}}` is for peer-reviewed journals.
Exxon	Pearson, Anne and Ralph Bivins. "[http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1989_659330 Exxon moving corporate headquarters to Dallas]". ''[[Houston Chronicle]]''. Friday October 27, 1989. A1. Retrieved on July 29, 2009.	Pearson, Anne and Ralph Bivins. "Exxon moving corporate headquarters to Dallas". Houston Chronicle. Friday October 27, 1989. A1. Retrieved on July 29, 2009.
Friends	Hodges, Ann (September 22, 1994). "[http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1994_1227698/nbc-sitcoms-make-thursday-less-funny.html NBC sitcoms make Thursday less funny]", ''[[Houston Chronicle]]'', [[Hearst Corporation\|Hearst Newspapers]]. Retrieved on January 4, 2009.	Hodges, Ann (September 22, 1994). "NBC sitcoms make Thursday less funny", Houston Chronicle, Hearst Newspapers. Retrieved on January 4, 2009.	Only example listing the publisher.
George H. W. Bush	{{cite web\|url=http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Ex-DA-Frank-Briscoe-legal-heavyweight-for-1689920.php\|title=Ex-DA Frank Briscoe, legal heavyweight for decades, dies at 84, January 5, 2011\|publisher=''[[Houston Chronicle]]''\|accessdate=March 9, 2014}}	"Ex-DA Frank Briscoe, legal heavyweight for decades, dies at 84, January 5, 2011". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved March 9, 2014. `{{cite web}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help)	`\|publisher=` should be `\|newspaper=`, which would italicize newspaper name without needing apostrophes
	{{cite news\|last=Feldman \|first=Claudia \|url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1992_1099189 \|title=Moving back to the 'hood . . ./CITIZEN BUSH \|work=The Houston Chronicle \|date=December 13, 1992 \|page=Lifestyle p. 1 \|dead-url=yes \|archive-url=https://archive.is/2012.12.08-154849/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1992_1099189 \|archive-date=December 8, 2012 \|df= }}	Feldman, Claudia (December 13, 1992). "Moving back to the 'hood . . ./CITIZEN BUSH". The Houston Chronicle. p. Lifestyle p. 1. Archived from the original on December 8, 2012. `{{cite news}}`: Unknown parameter `\|dead-url=` ignored (`\|url-status=` suggested) (help)
	{{cite web\|url=http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Former-President-Bush-fired-up-for-coin-toss-at-10909057.php\|title=Former President Bush 'fired up' for coin toss at Houston's Super Bowl\|author=George, Cindy\|publisher=''[[Houston Chronicle]]''\|date=February 4, 2017\|accessdate=February 5, 2017}}	George, Cindy (February 4, 2017). "Former President Bush 'fired up' for coin toss at Houston's Super Bowl". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 5, 2017. `{{cite web}}`: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: `\|publisher=` (help)	`\|publisher=` should be `\|newspaper=`, which would italicize newspaper name without needing apostrophes
Geneva	Clanton, Brett. "[http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4676934 Another oil firm puts base overseas / Weatherford says Switzerland near key markets]." ''[[Houston Chronicle]]''. Friday 12 December 2008. A1. Retrieved on 23 January 2010.	Clanton, Brett. "Another oil firm puts base overseas / Weatherford says Switzerland near key markets." Houston Chronicle. Friday 12 December 2008. A1. Retrieved on 23 January 2010.
Houston	{{cite news \| title = Katrina's Human Legacy \| work=Houston Chronicle \| date= August 27, 2006 \| url = http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4178618 \| accessdate = August 29, 2007}}	"Katrina's Human Legacy". Houston Chronicle. August 27, 2006. Retrieved August 29, 2007.
	{{cite web\|title = Lack of zoning has paid off for Houston\|work=chron.com, Houston Chronicle\|date= May 27, 2008\|accessdate=March 27, 2009\|url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/5804649.html}}	"Lack of zoning has paid off for Houston". chron.com, Houston Chronicle. May 27, 2008. Retrieved March 27, 2009.	`\|work=` should be simply `Houston Chronicle`
	{{cite news \| last = Hegstrom \| first = Edward \| title = Shadows Cloaking Immigrants Prevent Accurate Count \| work=Houston Chronicle \| date = February 21, 2006 \| url = http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3500074.html \| accessdate = February 6, 2007}}	Hegstrom, Edward (February 21, 2006). "Shadows Cloaking Immigrants Prevent Accurate Count". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 6, 2007.
	{{cite news\|title=Study suggests UH degrees are crucial economic factor\|last=TRESAUGUE\|first=Matthew\|url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/3868657.html\|work=Houston Chronicle\|date=May 17, 2006\|accessdate=May 31, 2011}}	TRESAUGUE, Matthew (May 17, 2006). "Study suggests UH degrees are crucial economic factor". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 31, 2011.
	Huber, Kathy. "[http://www.chron.com/life/gardening/article/Houston-botanic-garden-slowly-becoming-reality-1896890.php Houston botanic garden slowly becoming reality]." ''[[Houston Chronicle]]''. Monday October 30, 2006. Retrieved on November 14, 2011.	Huber, Kathy. "Houston botanic garden slowly becoming reality." Houston Chronicle. Monday October 30, 2006. Retrieved on November 14, 2011.
	{{cite web\|url=http://www.chron.com/sports/article/IndyCar-s-coming-to-town-Houston-race-slated-for-3442320.php \|title=IndyCar's coming to town: Houston race slated for 2013 – Houston Chronicle \|publisher=Chron.com \|date=March 28, 2012 \|accessdate=June 28, 2013}}	"IndyCar's coming to town: Houston race slated for 2013 – Houston Chronicle". Chron.com. March 28, 2012. Retrieved June 28, 2013.	newspaper name should be omitted from article title; work should be newspaper name not website
	{{cite web \| title = City Council may grow by two seats, Houston Chronicle \| author=Matt Stiles \|work=Houston Chronicle \| date = August 10, 2006 \| accessdate = March 27, 2009 \| url = http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4168311}}	Matt Stiles (August 10, 2006). "City Council may grow by two seats, Houston Chronicle". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved March 27, 2009.	newspaper name should be omitted from article title
	{{cite web\|url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7397637.html\|title=Aimee Buras, "Clymer Wright, force for Houston term limits, found dead," January 25, 2011\|work=Houston Chronicle\|accessdate=January 29, 2011}}	"Aimee Buras, "Clymer Wright, force for Houston term limits, found dead," January 25, 2011". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved January 29, 2011.
	Lee, Renee C.. "[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7669040.html Murder, other crimes drop in Hoston]", ''[[Houston Chronicle]]'', July 26, 2011, p. B2. Retrieved July 26, 2006.	Lee, Renee C.. "Murder, other crimes drop in Hoston", Houston Chronicle, July 26, 2011, p. B2. Retrieved July 26, 2006.
	{{cite web \|url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7386162.html\|title=UH takes big step up to Tier One status\|work=Houston Chronicle \|accessdate=July 6, 2011}}	"UH takes big step up to Tier One status". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved July 6, 2011.
	{{cite web \| title = Airport designated 'model port of entry', Houston Chronicle \| author=Bill Hensel, Jr. \| date = April 5, 2007 \| work=chron. com \| accessdate = June 21, 2008 \| url = http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4319002}}	Bill Hensel, Jr. (April 5, 2007). "Airport designated 'model port of entry', Houston Chronicle". chron. com. Retrieved June 21, 2008.	newspaper name should be omitted from article title; work should be newspaper name not website

Summary: Of the first 10 articles linking to Houston Chronicle, there are 21 citations of that paper, of which only one citation lists the publisher, Hearst Newspapers.

"Hearst Newspapers" is clutter in a citation of an article in the Houston Chronicle. It is more work to enter in the first place, and it doesn't help anybody.

"Not normally used for periodicals" has appeared in Template:Cite news/doc since July 1, 2012, almost 5 years ago. It means, in most cases, don't use this parameter for periodicals. It could be used to add credibility to an obscure paper, but the Houston Chronicle is number 14 on List of newspapers in the United States#Top 25 newspapers. Houston Chronicle stands on its own without any need for "Hearst Newspapers".

I was right to remove |publisher=Hearst Newspapers from the examples in Template:Cite web/doc. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, that link wasn't supposed to be evidence. The burden of evidence is with the person proposes a change; that's you.

Second, you seem to repeatedly not get the message: This issue is a matter of optional style. The domain of optional style does not concern itself with what is dominant; the non-dominant form is still has the right to exist. (Why don't you study WP:MOS and the ArbCom ruling mentioned in it?) An example of the optional style worthy of notes is the MDY date style.

Third, Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody is allowed to remove any single piece of information just because "no one likes it". To remove a piece of info, you need to cite a policy that says it is forbidden. And there is no policy saying "adding publisher's name to citations of periodicals is forbidden."

Fourth, the example whose publisher you removed was an online source, not a paper periodical. So, all your arguments so far, regardless of their validity, were inapplicable.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa: "First, that link wasn't supposed to be evidence." Excuse me. You presented it as evidence. You wrote, "if my efforts in this area is any indication," which means "click this link for evidence that indicates something." Thank you for sending me down that rabbit hole.

You are correct that some aspects of referencing are not mandatory. However, avoiding listing the publishers of major newspapers is mandatory. See, for example, Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher: "The 'publisher' parameter should not be included ... for mainstream, widely-known newspapers ..."

I won't debate your point about what nobody is allowed to remove, because it is irrelevant here, as my basis for removing the publisher is what Wikipedia says to do for widely-known newspapers; what readers don't like is not essential to my reason.

You are correct that the example in Template:Cite web/doc listing an article in the Houston Chronicle actually appeared online and not in print. Thank you for pointing this out. As the item didn't appear in the Houston Chronicle, the example is wrong and should be changed. Either we need an example that appeared in print, or we need to avoid implying that this piece did appear in print. Either way, anything sourced to Houston Chronicle should not also list as publisher the corporation that owns it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are wandering off the topic too much. The bottom line is:

If a parameter is not deprecated, don't say it is deprecated.
Do not remove examples of non-deprecated parameters. If you want to change the example to something more suitable, I am fine. I call that a compromise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please use the talk page before another revert. You're already pushing the 3RR Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop looking for excuses to put Trump in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop edit warring. Gain consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My response should be above the reference. You made it a ref instead of a simple link, so it created a ref below. It will always stay at the bottom of the page Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in discussion

Please stop your edit warring and try actually discussing some edits. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

Your reverts are also changing edits made to links etc. Please stop just clicking undo. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping bugs

I just undid (by accident) your edit at [2] because the page was still showing up in the paragraph wrapping error list. Any ideas about the actual fix? --Izno (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Izno: I am perplexed by most remaining instances of Paragraph wrapping bug workaround and I don't have any ideas about the actual fix. By the way, did you know that the edit link could be coded as {{Diff|Lotto–Soudal|798793103|prev|your edit}}, resulting in your edit ...? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just lazy regarding diffs. I left a note at Template talk:Geobox, and plan to submit the footballbox collapsible to TFD (because WP:MOSCOLLAPSE--we should not collapse information if it's important enough to be in the main editing space on Wikipedia), which should take care of the majority of the rest. I think we're going to have a couple of these just like there's a couple in the Tidy whitespace bug error that also perplex me. --Izno (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close Tag

I see you made an edit the WCWC Pacific Northwest Championship in which you slight changed the center HTML close tag. The way it was was fine. I know I'm splitting hairs, but unless I am missing something, it was redundant. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fishhead2100: I edited WCWC Pacific Northwest Championship, changing <center/> to </center>. HTML tags are cancelled by a slash at the beginning, not the end. For example, bold is used to bold the word "bold". (In Wikipedia, it is preferred to 3 apostrophes instead of HTML tags for bolding.) So the <center> tag is closed by </center>, not <center/>. Trailing slash is used to open and close a tag all at once. For example, <ref name="Joe"></ref> can be simplified to <ref name="Joe" />. Or,   can be simplified to  . So, again, leading slash means "This is the end of the region of influence of the corresponding tag without the slash", while trailing slash means "opening and closing this tag in one operation". So, <center/> is incorrect, and </center> is correct, for closing the preceding <center> tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the Wikipedia bolding format. I know about the reference tag. Thanks for the explanation. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious ======= dashes

Hi, thank you for helping clean up the Balfour Declaration article with [3] this edit. In part of the edit you removed the ===== dashes. I didn’t like them either. But they were serving a purpose - this is to illustrate the deletion of a large amount of text from the previous draft of the declaration. We do need to illustrate this, as without it the representation of the changes is incorrect. Can you think of anything we could replace it with? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile: I had no idea that's what ====== was supposed to mean. Take a look at what I did there. If you don't like it, feel free to put back the ======, although that is rather sucky. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that’s a very elegant solution. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I appreciate your efforts to clean up the double-colon problem, part of which I seem to have been responsible for. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

hgvj How you are? UserUSA (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double colons and WP 1.0 bot logs

Hello Anomalocaris. I had to revert your edit at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skepticism articles by quality log but have applied this change instead. I've unfortunately not received a response about my bug report yet, but the bot appears to mislink Draft: space articles. If you are using a script to do those edits, I suggest to either add an exception for 1.0 logs to add the Draft: prefix, or to skip those, perhaps... Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 04:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another complication was that the Draft_talk links were also broken (starting with a single colon and must be differentiated from legitimate Category links starting with a colon): [4]. —Paleo Neonate – 04:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Many thanks for your note and help on wiki :) Hebohne90 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: editing html tag on my user talk page

Please abstain from making corrections to the html-code on my user profile talk page. Your adding a missing DIV tag may strictly speaking be a correction, and possibly you meant well.. But it does give abit of the impression of 'poking' at me, and meddling in beeswax that's none of yours. Thus seeming like a provocation attempt; calling on memories of past unpleasent experiences, and facilitating anxiety. ... If what you're trying is to get my attention then I suggest you try something like a friendly "Hey" in stead. RP Nielsen (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial but unhelpful wikicode spacing changes

Please do not change double to single spacing after sentences in the wikicode. It makes it much harder to visually parse the code. The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence for a reason – the same reason the same style has been used for typed manuscripts for over a century. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 02:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish: The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence^{[citation needed]} —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in the wikitext. Please stop doing that. Robotically making pointless changes to wikicode is considered disruptive because it triggers watchlists and wastes people's time for not benefit to the project. And you dodged the actually substantive rationale above with a silly "cn"; this is not an article and there is no external source for internal WP matters. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: If you want to convince me that I have an editing practice I should change, I suggest that you identify one or more edits I have done that involve the objectionable practice, and identify and quote from a Wikipedia page that says not to do what I did. What you have written so far is not succeeding in convincing me that I have done anything contrary to Wikipedia policies or norms:

"The proof is in the wikitext." I don't know what you mean. (You probably know that the English words proof has a somewhat-forgotten meaning relating to test; "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" means that it is in eating the pudding that its quality is assessed. I don't know if this is relevant to the point you were trying to make.)
"Robotically making pointless changes to wikicode" does not engage with me because I feel myself to be an organic intelligent living being and not a robot, because I expend mental energy on every edit, and because I believe my edits serve a useful purpose.
"~~If you do not, this will result in swift noticeboard action.~~" Thank you for removing this threat, which you may have realized would not be very effective and might even be counter-productive in persuading me that I had done something wrong.
"is considered disruptive" uses the passive voice with no implied actor. If it is considered disruptive by Wikipedia, please identify a page on Wikipedia saying so.
"because it triggers watchlists" raises the question of whether my edits contain any unquestionably good changes or not. If I edit an article and make at least one unquestionably good change, this edit will trigger watchlists, and users who review every edit will have to inspect my work whether or not I also make other changes at the same time.
"and wastes people's time for not [sic] benefit to the project." How other editors choose to spend their time is their business, not mine. I believe my edits do benefit Wikipedia.
"And you dodged the actually substantive rationale above with a silly 'cn'": I wasn't being silly at all. You made an assertion, viz: "The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence." I challenged you to support that assertion. If your assertion is true, there are several ways it could be supported:
- Something on or off Wikipedia that says this.
- A survey of articles selected in some manner, such as a selection of most-viewed articles or featured articles, could be conducted and one could see if the current Wikitext of those articles is as you say, or if edits tend to be in the direction you claim is that of the vast majority of editors.

In any case, my use of {{citation needed}} was intended to prompt you to either provide some evidence for your claim or admit that you were making stuff up. I believe you were making stuff up, but I'm open to evidence in support of your claim.

"this is not an article and there is no external source for internal WP matters." So, present a source from Wikipedia.

Except when I need to make a null edit, I never edit articles just to adjust white space. Sometimes, when I am editing an article for other reasons, I change multiple spaces to single spaces for reasons including:

I find it distracting when the wikitext has "bumpy" spacing, such as multiple spacing between words in the middle of sentences.
I find it useful to highlight a snip of wikitext without markup and search for it in the body of the article. This will not work if the wikitext has multiple blanks.
I have seen other editors remove spaces here and there, so let's just get it done all at once and not bit by bit.

I am willing to engage with you further on this. Please remember that reasons that are equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT aren't likely to work. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly reasonable, at least on an individual point basis (more so that my self-reverted fist-shaking, for which I could offer an explanation that wouldn't be much of an excuse). However, please consider that when people object to something it's a good idea to put that something on hold pending resolution. That, too, is reasonable. You've asked for a lot of things that would take quite a bit of time and effort to assemble if you actually insist on them. If I were to go to this much trouble, I'd probably do this in the form of an RfC, not a user talk discussion. In the interim: What "useful purpose" you allude to is served by changing "This is sentence 1. This is sentence 2." into "This is sentence 1. This is sentence 2."? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: Thank you for acknowledging my reasonability. You wrote, "You've asked for a lot of things that would take quite a bit of time and effort to assemble if you actually insist on them." You probably didn't intend it that way, but what that says to me is "the time of SMcCandlish is more valuable than the time of Anomalocaris." That's another example of SMcCandlish arguments notable for being not only unpersuasive but also counterproductive.

Above, I suggested featured articles as a place to investigate Wikipedia whitespace markup practices. Well, since my time is less valuable than yours, here goes. Starting at Portal:Featured_content, look at the newest featured articles. We are looking for multiple spacing in ordinary running text, not in infoboxes, not in places where templates have one line per parameter, plus trailing blanks at the ends of paragraphs. I counted the numbers of multi-spaces in mid-sentence, at ends of sentence, after the {{sfn}} template, at paragraph ends, at end of lines that start with |, inside {{cite}} templates, plus the total number of sentences in the article. At paragraph ends, single blanks count the same as multiple blanks.

Article	mid-sent	end-sent	after `{{sfn}}`	end¶	end \| line	in `{{cite}}`	# sentences
Raymond Leane	0	0	0	0	0	2	hundreds
Northern rosella	5	1	1	2	0	4	76
Craig Kieswetter	0	0	0	0	1	0	44
Coldrum Long Barrow	0	0	1	0	0	0	>40

After looking at 4 articles, I feel I have done enough. Only one article has period space space at the end of a sentence, and that article has only one such occurrence. I stand by my theory that when you said "The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence" you were making stuff up. I was right to quote that claim and append {{citation needed}}. You should have either offered some evidence to support your claim, or admitted that you were making stuff up, or just gone away. Instead you accused me of dodging a valid complaint with something allegedly silly, and you alleged that I waste other people's time. I am the one who has wasted time here in order to create thoughtful detailed responses and investigate a bogus theory. The burden of investigating should have fallen on the one making the claim. I consider the matter closed, but if you want to spend your time gathering, organizing, and presenting evidence, I will consider it. Cheers! (P.S. the answer to your question is in the three bullet points directly above it.) —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I offered one reason that didn't pan out, among other reasons. The rest will take time to dig into. Of course I didn't mean your time's worth less than mine; rather that doing this much work for a two-editor dispute in user talk isn't a good use of anyone's time. Actually, MOS:STYLEVAR should be sufficient for you to retire that particular editing pattern. Code readability improvement is a substantial reason for using the two spaces; I'd asked you for one in favor of reducing them to a single space, and you've not provided one. You're correct that I should have provided a clearer rationale up front, but I've provided one now, with STYLEVAR. Even if consensus were to reject the idea that those who prefer the two spaces have a "substantial reason" for it, lack of one for reducing it to single is sufficient reason to stop doing that – even if no other evidence or rationale is ever provided to you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, SMcCandlish. It is not OK put forth a made-up "fact", viz: "The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence". It is not OK, when properly asked to support that made up "fact", to put the editor asking for support in the wrong. When a body of evidence is presented that the "fact" was indeed made-up, it's pretty lame to say that the reason "didn't pan out". "Didn't pan out" is something else altogether. "Didn't pan out" is for something like, "let's ask other editors what they think" and after a long wait, nobody answers. "Didn't pan out" is for "I'll check that book out from the public library" only to find that the public library disposed of its only copy last year. "Didn't pan out" is not a proper way of acknowledging "I made stuff up and acted improperly when challenged on it."

MOS:STYLEVAR relates to articles that have a style, not to articles that lack a style. If an article has random multiple spaces scattered throughout the wikitext and not uniformly at the ends of sentences, it lacks a style, or maybe it had a style that some editors didn't follow, and it is OK to clean up the jumble.

Your claim of code readability is equally unsupported and equally made-up. There may be editors who benefit from double spaces at the end of every sentence, but I benefit from uniformity, and I believe (without proof) that other editors benefit from uniformity too. One thing I do know, though, is that, in a wikitext, it's easier to eliminate multiple spaces uniformly than to eliminate multiple spaces uniformly except at the ends of sentences and have uniformly exactly two spaces there and only there.

I provided my rationale two edits ago. You ignored it. I pointed to it at the end of my previous response. You ignored it again. I've suffered enough. Let's hope that our next interaction is on the same side, and not one of us making the other waste a lot of time debunking made-up "facts". —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going back to your "I consider the matter closed, but if you want to spend your time gathering, organizing, and presenting evidence, I will consider it." The enhanced readability in monospaced text of two spaces between sentences, and the fact that a bunch of style guides recommend it, is something I can source, though it's mostly dead-trees style guide research, so will take some time. But made up? Not off-wiki, and not on, though giving you a diff-pile for the latter would also take time and likely wouldn't be as productive (I'm sure you can diff people agreeing with you, to counter it). What's weird to me is that that high frequency of double I see in articles isn't mirrored in your FA results, which means: a coincidental blip due to small sample size; or someone or someones at FAC share your view and are acting as "spacing enforcers" before passing articles; or despite the relative breadth of my editing I'm coincidentally running into cluster after cluster of double-style articles, but they're statistical outliers. Hard to say right this moment, but my money's on "FAC enforcer(s)". Your rede on STYLEVAR is excessively literal, and not tenable when taken together with WP:COSMETICBOT and MEATBOT. The MOS wording is taking a "broad strokes" approach to style, and is perhaps poorly written in that regard; but we know for a fact from COSMETICBOT (which was recently made even more stringent) that people really, really hate it when their watchlists get pointlessly triggered by space-twiddling and other tweaks that do not affect the displayed output or fix a genuine bug – even though the watchlist allows them to filter out bot edits. It's the trivial edits they hate, not the fact that bots are doing it. Isn't that worth considering? (And, yes, that means I shouldn't go around changing stuff to use two spaces, either.) I apologize again for the blustering; several days of sustained personal attacks from a tagteam had me in a bared-teeth frame of mind and I hadn't chilled out from it yet. Not an excuse, but that's what the deal was.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish:

Even if you can source that one or more style guides recommend two spaces between sentences in markup text, I presume those would be in-house recommendations and not generally applicable. But even if someone wrote a style guide saying that it's best to prepare HTML or other markup copy with two spaces at the end of sentences for any web host or service, even though it will display as a single space, I question whether that style guide would apply to Wikipedia markup.

My read on WP:STYLEVAR is correct. It says to retain styles. Even if this applies to spacing at the end of sentences, which has not been established, how do we know if there is a style to retain? Well, at WP:CITEVAR, it says, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. ... If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.... If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data." And surely, if an article has compete citations, but the style is mixed, sometimes author (date). title. publication., sometimes author, title, date, publication., and sometimes still other styles, an editor can see it doesn't have a consistent style and impose one. (I do this all the time, by converting everything to {{cite}} templates.) By analogy, if a wikitext has random double spaces scattered in the middle of sentences, in the middle of {{cite}} templates, and other random locations, it doesn't have a consistent spacing style, and an editor is free to impose a style of no multiple spacing in running text, even if WP:STYLEVAR does apply to the use of double spaces.

WP:COSMETICBOT supports what I do. It says, "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext ... should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." I don't edit articles just to change white space, but once I am editing for other reasons, I often change the white space as well. Sometimes (in the spirit of WP:STYLEVAR) I line up the equals signs in an infobox for consistency.

WP:MEATBOT says "disruptive editing must stop", but doesn't say what editing is disruptive. I agree that disruptive editing must stop. I don't agree that my editing is disruptive.

"It's the trivial edits they hate": That's why I don't make cosmetic changes to the wikitext unless I also make substantive changes at the same time.

"What's weird to me is that that high frequency of double I see in articles isn't mirrored in your FA results, which means: a coincidental blip due to small sample size; or someone or someones at FAC share your view and are acting as 'spacing enforcers' before passing articles; or despite the relative breadth of my editing I'm coincidentally running into cluster after cluster of double-style articles, but they're statistical outliers. Hard to say right this moment, but my money's on 'FAC enforcer(s)'.": OK, let's test that theory. Instead of examining new featured articles, let's start at Portal:Contents/Portals and examine the first article in each portal. If that article happens to be a featured article, go on to the next one also. Here are the results:

Portal	Article	mid-sent	end-sent	after `{{sfn}}`/<ref>	end¶	in `{{cite}}`/[extlink]	# sentences	Featured?
Portal:Contents/Culture and the arts	Celebrity	1	0	2	3	2	>100	No
Portal:Contents/Geography and places	Atlas	4	3	0	0	1	~20	No
Portal:Contents/Health and fitness	Health care	1	1	0	2	1	>50	No
Portal:Contents/History and events	Ancient Egypt	1	0	1	0	0	>100	Yes
Portal:Contents/History and events	Ancient Greece	0	7	37	0	0	>250	No

Conclusions:

Among both featured articles and portal content, all wikitexts examined have no, or only a small minority, of sentences ending period space space.
Whatever the applicability of WP:STYLEVAR, WP:COSMETICBOT, and WP:MEATBOT, editing an article to clean up white space along with substantive changes is OK if there is not a clear white space style, or if the editing moves toward the existing clear style.

Anomalocaris (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) SMcCandlish and Anomalocaris, I hope you don't mind my interjecting a comment here. I haven't read all of the above, but I would like to say that, for me, it is easier to read articles in edit mode when there there is only one space after a period/full stop. As you know, I spend my time on WP mainly copy-editing articles, so I read articles mainly in edit mode. To me, the extra space after a period/full stop spreads the sentences out more. There is already enough other material (references, etc.) in between text that spreads the text of a sentence or paragraph out, and the less additional space the better. I can grasp the meaning and flow of sentences better when the sentences are compact. I don't spend time solely removing that extra space after periods/full stops, but if I am copy-editing an entire article, I do remove the extra space. I have found that by far the majority of articles do not have the extra space, so that must mean that most editors do not add it when they are adding new material to articles. I certainly hope that no one is going around deliberately adding an extra space after periods/full stops. I wouldn't encourage anyone to go around removing them, either, but if, in the course of making other edits, an editor removes some extra spaces, I don't think he or she should be criticized. – Corinne (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "spreads the sentences out more" – which is why it increases parseability. There're inconclusive studies that seem to have about a 50/50 rate that single-spacing enhances reading speed of normal prose in a proportional font. But that's "automatic reading" scanning of text; what we do as source-mode editors is almost entirely very conscious parsing of a complex combination of text and code, and the more distinct each bit of material is the easier it is to do this. I can't speak to your experience, but someone doing traditional copyediting who happens to be doing it in source mode is primarily absorbing the material as natural language, i.e. reading, not parsing. I do tremendous amounts of copyediting myself, but I'm also doing code cleanup at the same time, and the difference between well-spaced and more run-together material is palpable. There are many other examples of this, like citations templates done as {{cite foo|title=Lorem Ipsum|last=Doe|first=Jane...}} instead of {{cite foo |title=Lorem Ipsum |last=Doe |first=Jane...}}, putting hatnotes and images code on the same line as regular text, using vertical-formatted citations in running prose instead of in WP:LDRs (it wrecks the ability to easily tell what is and isn't a paragraph), inserting bogus single line breaks in mid-paragraph (ditto), and many others.

That said, I repeat what was probably lost above in the pile: I don't think anything's going to be resolved by arguing on Anomalocaris's talk page about it; this will require research and broader input, and this isn't the venue for it. I was in a shite mood and wasn't thinking critically (in the positive sense) when I opened this thread, and apologize for it again. There's a real issue to hash out, eventually, but a squabble between two editors (perhaps now three) isn't the useful way to do it. I do appreciate Anomalocaris's time in hosing down some of what I said. It's not a joyous experience, but I'd rather be corrected than continue obliviously needing correction.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 17:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Please stop "fixing" redirects. See WP:NOTBROKEN. James (^talk/_contribs) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James: Thank you for your comment. I have made made over 1,500 edits in the past month, and it's not immediately obvious what you mean. For example, I recently edited San Bruno station (BART), changing [[San Mateo County]] to [[San Mateo County, California|San Mateo County]]. I believe this is correct because, even though San Mateo County redirects to San Mateo County, California, and is therefore "not broken", it is helpful to some readers to be able to mouse over the wikilink and see that the linked article is, in fact, San Mateo County, California. Moreover, if there ever is anything other than a redirect at San Mateo County, it will almost certainly be a disambiguation, and not an article page more useful and relevant than San Mateo County, California. In that same article, I changed [[Pittsburg / Bay Point (BART station)|Pittsburg / Bay Point]] to [[Pittsburg/Bay Point station|Pittsburg/Bay Point]] because, on the display side, the official name of the station inside and outside Wikipedia does not have spaces around the slash, and on the link side, once a link is piped, it's usually best to have the link as the real Wikipedia location of the article, unless, for example, there is reason to believe that some other link, now redirected, might eventually have an article of its own. So I believe this change was also correct. In that same article, I made a several more changes like this one, changing [[Colma (BART station)|Colma]] to [[Colma station|Colma]]. As with Pittsburg/Bay Point, this is based on the theory that once a link is piped, it's usually best to have the link as the real Wikipedia location of the article. So, I believe that my edits to San Bruno station (BART) were correct, and not in conflict with WP:NOTBROKEN. If you want to comment on this particular edit, or anything I've said here, or any other edit I have made that you feel does conflict with WP:NOTBROKEN, please continue, and I will consider what you have to say. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to userspace MGWR Class D

Thankyou for your recent edits to userspace User:Djm-leighpark/MGWR Class D. Please be aware I copy/pasted this into the MGWR Class D article (Which was redirect following the move of MGWR Class D to MGWR Class D-bogie. This has removed the attribution history and it is likely I will nominate userspace User:Djm-leighpark/MGWR Class D for speedy delete at some point. I have made an attribution of your work in Talk:MGWR Class D. I hope this is sufficient. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark: I took the liberty of inserting Wikilinks in your comment here. Ordinarily users don't edit each other's comments, but I think it's helpful in this case, and in any event it doesn't distort your intent. Anyway it's my own talk page.

There was no need to mention me at Talk:MGWR Class D, but no harm either. I made a minor edit in MGWR Class D. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

italicizing language templates

You just fixed the italics in Shaqe Çoba, but when I do the same in Praskovia Arian the Russian names aren't italicized. What's going on with that?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is actually in correcting lint errors, in this case Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4, which result from (among many other things) putting ''around {{lang-}} templates, and I wasn't focusing on how things are displayed. I simply assume that the {{lang-}} templates work correctly without surrounding them with double apostrophes, and I take the double apostrophes out. But since you have raised the issue, let's talk about it. In Wikipedia, generally we italicize non-English words written in the Roman alphabet, but not non-English words written in other alphabets or in non-alphabetic languages. I assume that the {{lang-}} templates handle this correctly. For example:

She said yes ({{lang-sq|Ajo tha po}}) → She said yes (Albanian: Ajo tha po)
She said yes ({{lang-ru|Она сказала да}}) → She said yes (Russian: Она сказала да)

The documentation for how things should appear is on those template pages themselves. Shaqe Çoba uses {{lang-sq}}, which is used to indicate to readers the original form of a term or phrase in Albanian language. The Albanian language uses the Roman alphabet, and {{lang-sq}} displays in italic. The Russian language uses the Cyrillic alphabet, and {{lang-ru}} displays in roman (non-italic). I don't think there is any mystery here beyond that. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm using transliterated Russian, not Cyrillic. Should I drop the lang-ru template and just italicize the terms myself?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66: Well, I'm not a big user of the {{lang-}} templates, but template:lang-ru is where to find out more. The documentation on this page is somewhat confusing; it's not immediately obvious (to me, anyway) if parameters need to be named or if it goes by sequence. But anyway, it says,

The parameter|translit= enables a transliteration (of the original text with the Latin alphabet) to be given.

So in my example, it could be something like

She said yes ({{lang-ru|Она сказала да|translit=Ona skazala da}}) → She said yes (Russian: Она сказала да, romanized: Ona skazala da)

But if you omit the Cyrillic,

She said yes ({{lang-ru||translit=Ona skazala da}}) → She said yes ([] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help))

it looks messed up, because it's trying to display non-existent Russian-language text. This reveals the meaning of "required" for the |text= parameter. The whole point of this template is to display Russian characters in the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet, and if you don't want to do that, don't use this template. That's my analysis. Hope this helps. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that your article, Praskovia Arian, as well as the First Women's Calendar she created, doesn't seem to be in any other language Wikipedia. If you have Russian-language skills, it would be great to create those articles in Russian Wikipedia! —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my Russian is limited to a few words and phrases only. But thanks for the advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the signature advice

I just modified my signature per the advice you left on my talk page and it looks great. Thanks!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 20:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and thanks from me, too! PK T(alk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I wasn't aware it was causing problems, so I'm glad you notified me. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Cheers for the advice on my signature's obsolete font tags. They're good now ;) ronaz^Talk! 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sig

Thanks for the note. I've just fixed it. Graham87 02:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I cannot overemphasize how much I appreciate your diligence as the best lint trap on WP. Seriously...I understand what you're doing, and appreciate what you've done and continue to do. You are indeed deserving of recognition. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sig

Thanks very much for letting me know! Changed it so it causes no further issues :). Nate • (chatter) 22:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing signature

Thanks for the information, how do I do change it? Yours, Quis separabit? 06:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Preferences, scroll down to Signature. Make changes there. SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]'''

→ SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

to

'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<span style="color: #347C2C;"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></span>]]'''

→ SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomalocaris. I understand what you are doing, and it is useful. However, please ensure you check that the folks you are messaging have a signature that uses deprecated tags. I changed my signature over a month ago, which you can see on the very talkpage on which you posted your notice. Up to you what you do, but I suggest you at the very least glance at people's talkpages for their current signature before posting your message. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeffrey Lloyd Leonard (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

Thanks for the heads up. As a nifty bonus, my signature renders exactly the same now as it did before, except it causes nobody any glitches! Yay! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: List of Australian Academy Award winners and nominees

Thanks for the heads up :) DonEd (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anomalocaris. 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)[reply]

Obsolete elements

Do you know the who/what/where of the control of the output of Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag? It should be looking for <tt>...</tt> as well as ... and <center>...</center>, but I don't see any results indicating that it is doing so. That deprecated element should usually be replaced with <code>...</code> but in some circumstances with <samp>...</samp>, <kbd>...</kbd>, or .... I run into it frequently in old template and "Help:" namespace documentation, and in some "Wikipedia:" namespace pages, userpages, talk pages (especially older ones), and occasionally in articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 02:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: I have edited hundreds of lint error articles. Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag is finding four obsolete tags, in order of most frequent first, , <center>, <tt>, <strike>. This ordering is based on my experience, not a rigorous survey. When I find <tt>, I replace it with <kbd>, to preserve appearances. <code> is usually not the best replacement for <tt>. If you want to work on lint errors, you should install LintHint, if you have not done so already. By default, LintHint works only in the article space. There is a workaround, but I haven't installed the workaround. Instead, if I need LintHint in a non-article, I copy and paste replacing an article's wikitext, run LintHint there, make changes as needed and copy back to the source item, and of course I don't save the article I was using as a test bed. Crude but it works. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as <tt> is being handled, I won't complain, other than to suggest that doing <kbd> automatically isn't the best option; the semantic markup most appropriate for the use-case in question is what should be used, or it defeats the purpose of semantic markup. User input like a user name or the answer Y to a prompt is <kbd>...</kbd>. Output, like a filename or a directory listing, an error message, etc. is <samp>; same goes for presentation of function and tag names, names of commandline utilities. Source code (even if the block contains some output or input) is <code>, whether compiled or interpreted (including Linux/Unix and DOS commandlines), while purely typographic use of monospace that has nothing to do with these "computerese semantics" should use the styled . Working on lint: I've been doing it manually with Special:LintErrors, a little, and also doing custom stuff like this one to track down abuse of ... for italics that are not emphasis but purely typographic, like italicization of non-English and of titles of works. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: Well, you inspired me to greatly enhance mw:Help:Extension:Linter/obsolete-tag. I fear that this level of detail may scare off users by giving too many choices, but there it is. Here in Wikipedia, we don't care much about semantic markup, using ''[[Plasmodium vivax]]'' and She said, "That's ''disgusting''!" where HTML markup would prefer  and  markup respectively. And I for one don't care much either; there are gray areas between  and , and also between <del> and <s>. If I had my druthers, HTML would not care about why and just focus on how it looks, but that's not what the deciders decided. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ''...'' just turns into ...; we only need that one explicitly in rare cases (mostly templates where the markup in the code italicizes input; we don't want input like "politicians'" to combine with a following '' in the template code to form a ''' that turns on accidental boldface. Myself, I don't see why they kept <s>, since <del> does the same thing, and if there's ever a case of strike-through that doesn't represent deletion, it can be done with CSS. But oh well. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Changed signature tags per your request...

Now I have a request. I am not program 'savvey' and often copy desired tags from other entries when adding or editing. This mostly works - but sometimes doesn't. May I ask for your help on this subject in future? Cheers! Shir-El too 07:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature. It's usually best to reply on the same talk page. To make sure the reply is seen, link to that user's name (like Anomalocaris), or use {{u}}, or use {{ping}} or one of the other aliases of {{reply to}}. Yes, feel free to leave messages on my talk page asking for help. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes it's convenient to converse on the same page, but I like to be polite and contact the person directly. I also appreciate the tags but don't know how or where to place them. {BTW the letters 'tlx' were once short for 'telex' or teleprinter. TKS! :) } All the Best, Shir-El too 12:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Signature

Thanks! I wasn't aware of the issue. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echo what he said. Thanks for bringing this up. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike code

Hi, Could I ask what the issue is with the strike code positions ?, Either position works fine so I'm somewhat confused (and plus I've done it this way since the age of dawn and have never had any complaints), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, cc: Izno: HTML tags are closed with identical tags except preceded by a slash, for example:

normal small normal : normal small normal
normal superscript normal : normal ^superscript normal
normal <s>strikeout</s> normal : normal ~~strikeout~~ normal

Some tags can be self-closing. For example, if italics are opened and closed with two apostrophes, and the text right after the italics begins with apostrophe, the software has to guess whether the third apostrophe at the end is inside or outside the italics. To mark that the third apostrophe is outside italics, one could use

''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> : Casablanca's

which can be shortened to

''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]''<nowiki />'s : Casablanca's

which can be further shortened to

''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]''{{'}}s : Casablanca's

Another very common example is <ref name="Joe"></ref> can be shortened to <ref name="Joe" />.

For some tags, self-closing is a high-priority lint error, specifically Self-closed tags. Prohibited self-closed tags include , <div/>, , , <td/>, , and <s/>. If one of these is used with the intent of closing a corresponding opening tag, for example, <s>Strike that!<s/>, there are actually two lint errors: a Missing end tag (<s> and a self-closed tag (<s/>.

Even if it looks like it worked, it's bad markup. Things that look OK on the screen now may look bad as we move to HTML5, and that is why Wikipedians are working busily to eliminate lint errors from Wikipedia. You can help! for more information, see WP:Linter. But even if you have higher priorities than eliminating existing lint errors, at least, you should avoid creating new ones. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry I didn't realise you replied, Thank you for the detailed analysis of it but for me I've always used the strike code in that way and will continue to do because that's what I'm used too, The same goes for the bullet point - That apparently goes a certain way but again I do it my own way as again that's what I'm used too, so although you're helping by fixing that issue you're technically not helping because if I strike something out I'll use the same code or layout as the one at Zoe Quinn, I honestly don't mean to be pedantic or awkward (and I apologise if I'm coming across that way) but like everyone here we all have our way of doing things and rightly or wrongly that's how I do my strikeouts, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010: When a Wikipedian informs another that they are doing something contrary to Wikipedia policies, the second Wikipedian should pay attention. If User A uses smart quotes (“...”), and User B tells User A that MOS:CURLY says to use straight quotes ("...") instead, User A should follow the instructions at MOS:CURLY, or provide an explanation why in this special case, curly quotes are needed. Explanations that are not acceptable include,

I've always done it that way.
Don't fix it because I'm just going to keep doing it wrong anyway.
It looks fine, so who cares?

I provided links to lint errors, Self-closed tags, Missing end tag, and WP:Linter. Wikipedia is telling you something, but you're not listening. That is madness.—Anomalocaris (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, I've since self reverted, Obviously we don't want the website to look mishmashed in 10 years time but at the same time I dislike anyone changing any part of my comments that's just me but then again you yourself may of changed my comment and I would never have known so it seems kinda pointless in resisting something that's probably already been done to my comments .... suppose I'll just have to grin and bear it lol :), Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point it's about what we're used too .... If I've been doing things a certain way for coming on 5 years I'm not alls a sudden going to do it the new way am I and chances are I'll probably forgot to do it the new way because I'm so used to doing it the old way ..... Anyway as I said I've self reverted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad your signature edit

How'd this happen? The edits on either side of it are accurate... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=814073272 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan: Well, if you must know, I ...

searched for Special:Contributions/Masem
found the most recent talk page, which happened to be ... User talk:Eric Corbett
clicked the "diff" link, taking me to this edit
copied the signature markup
skipped the step of clicking on talk just below the "Revision" line at the top of the page
clicked on the talk in the very top of the page
clicked "new section"
pasted the signature markup
pasted boilerplate
edited the signature to new standards
previewed, looked OK! Saved!

Any more questions? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature thanks

Been away from Wiki for so long, I was unaware of the deprecated markups you told me about. I appreciate your help immensely. Have a great day. Man way 22:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help please...

Just added section "Recent study" to Man flu and the reference names appear in the text instead of next to the links. What am I doing wrong? Many thanks! Shir-El too 11:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: got the links out of the text, but the links are still in full in the reference list. Cheers! Shir-El too 11:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shir-El too: Take a look at it now, and see what I did. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEASON'S GREETINGS!!!

Wonderful! Will look at the edits to learn for next time. Really appreciate it. Shir-El too 12:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further question: both sentences of the last para. are quotes. Why did you remove the "" from the first one? Shir-El too 12:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shir-El too: Well, a subsequent editor has removed four edits from the editing history, so I can't look at it, but here's probably what I thought. To use a quote with quotation marks, it has to be attributed. You can say,

Near the end of his inaugural address, the new president said, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

But you can't just leave that quote by itself. You probably had the quote free-standing without saying that someone said it, so I removed the quotation marks and put it in the voice of Wikipedia itself. A subsequent editor saw it as a copyright violation and removed these four edits from the edit history. Anomalocaris (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)—[reply]

Dear Shrimp (if you will forgive me the levity): thank you for charging to my defense. Diannaa's edit forced me to review the main article in full and made me realize I only needed the one reference to cover three points:

1) that "Man flu" has a physiological basis, 2) that it hasn't been reserched or defined, and 3) ignorance of it may be causing real harm.

I revised the text accordingly. Again, many thanks for your help. All the Best, Shir-El too 19:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Another user claimed the item was a spoof, citing another website. So I contacted The BMJ directly and got confirmation that it was NOT, and revised the item accordingly (again). Cheers! Shir-El too 17:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature heads up on 11 Dec

Thanks for the heads up on the redundant tags. Was unaware that this would impact sigs as well. Again, thank you. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 08:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ... but if you hadn't archived my original posting on your talk page, you could have thanked me there ... and I could have thanked you there too ... Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polysulfone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ICI and Pore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas box

Hi Anomalocaris, I've since updated my xmas box and just wanted to know if it now produces any lint (or other) errors ?,
The }} has been added to the end of the sentences too,
If there are errors you've spotted then by all means please update it but just wanted to see if there were errors as I'd rather avoid all of this next year if possible :),
Hope you had a lovely Christmas :),
Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were two obsolete HTML tags (<center>...</center>), which I replaced with HTML5-compliant markup. Thank you for your support for keeping the lint out of Wikipedia! Best wishes for 2018. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah brilliant thanks so much! :), No worries exactly the less errors here the better so thanks for your contributions and for keeping Wikipedia lint-free :), Thanks and I hope you and yours have a very Happy and Healthy New Year :), –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Thanks for the heads up... --SamuelWantman 07:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanna

Hi, thank you for all the good work you do here at Wikipedia. Could you take a look at the article about Sanna Nielsen to see if there are any bugs in the formatting that needs fixing. Appreciate it. Take care.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ: I improved the references a bit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons category in lists

Here's a search. I've been changing to inline version rather than removing the bullet when there's only one or two items (and switching to the right kind of list item). --Izno (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Izno: I thought that {{commonscat-inline}} should be used in the body of the article and {{commonscat}} should be used at the end of the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonscat-inline#Usage. --Izno (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Izno: Thanks. Unfortunately the documentation and talk pages of the two templates don't give any guidance for which to use. I don't have strong views on this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Usually you use one or the other depending on the balance between right floated templates like commons cat and actual links on the left. When you have no other links, or only 1 other link, and no boxes, the inline template is reasonable. Once you're past that you should take a look to see which looks more aesthetic. --Izno (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Izno: Thanks. That seems like good advice, which I will try to remember to follow ... —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Thanks, fixed. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Html

Hi Anomalocaris, Hope all is well :),
When you have a spare 5 minutes could you check my archive box and see if all's okay please?,
I've updated the coding and removed the <big> and <center coding so just wanted to make sure there's not any errors,

Also on my box the 2015 and 2016 lines aren't centered correctly like the lines above and below it - Is there anyway to fix this ?,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010: Don't assume that any given request can be completed in 5 minutes. I edited your archive box, properly nesting '''...'''. I edited {{Digital clock and date}} to remove some lint there. Your page calls {{User:TParis/RfX Report}}, which redirects to {{Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}, which is missing a closing italics (''), but there's no point in my fixing it since the "page is maintained by a bot". I have asked the owner to fix it. The call to {{User:TParis/RfX Report}} is in a table, but lacked the pipe character (|) to indicate a table row. I inserted the pipe character, fixing a lint error, but this changed the alignment of the table. The page is now lint-free except for the missing end tag in {{User:TParis/RfX Report}}. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No no no I never did expect it to be done in 5 minutes ? .... When I said "When you have a spare 5 minutes" I meant that as in "I know your busy all the time but when you have a spare 5 minutes here and there could you look into this for me" .... so you could've done it in a week, 2 weeks etc etc .... If I ever say to you"When you have a spare 5 minutes" that isn't me saying "Can you look into this right now" I mean can you look into it when you have a spare 5 minutes and aren't busy ...., Anyway thanks for your help much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 11:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Font tags in my signature

Thanks for prodding me to finally use modern-ish HTML markup in my signature! --bdesham ★ 23:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color fonts

Hello, I made the change to my signature markup using one of the formats you had recommended. I wasn't aware that there were any problems as I normally use Firefox and the old one didn't appear to have any rendering problems. Should be fine for the next five years! Blue Riband► 13:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Thanks for the note about my signature font tags. I've been away from active editing for quite some time so hadn't left signed messages in ages until a couple of days ago. I've updated it and it should be all good now. AUTiger » talk 06:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Thanks, fixed my signature :)

MossBoss254 ^Talk 01:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Signature

Thanks for the heads-up on my signature! Without the notice, I probably wouldn't have ever noticed it was still using obsolete tags. My signature should now be up to current HTML standards. --Aamsse ^{talk to me} 03:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks ...

— Mahalo for the corrected syntax! – Altman^📞– 01:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

You pinged me: is my sig a problem? If so please explain what I need to do to fix it. PamD 10:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PamD: No, your signature is not a problem ... though it could be simplified from

[[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]]

: PamD

to

[[User:PamD|''Pam'']][[User talk:PamD|''D'']] : PamD

... but that's not what I pinged you about. I pinged you because I saw that on 18:09, 19 March 2017‎, you edited Wikipedia:Signatures, and I invited you and others who also edited it to add your thoughts to discussions I started at WT:Signatures. If you don't have anything to say, that is fine too. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Changed as requested. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature formatting

Hello, Anomalocaris. You have new messages at Perspeculum's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Anomalocaris. You have new messages at Tillander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lint errors

Hello Anomalocaris,

You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the {{edit protected}} templates. Per the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit requests, the request needs to be specific. The people patrolling these requests are not necessarily those who are familiar with the various templates and modules, so all we can do is gauge consensus and do some basic checks.

If you need help fixing a particular error, you could try asking at WP:VPT. But generally it might be best to leave these errors to people who know how to fix them.

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ: Thank you for your thoughts. I have submitted probably over a dozen edit requests on {{edit protected}} templates in the past, and in almost all cases, my requested edits were performed. In the recent case of {{Self}}, I was unable to generate the exact code change. However, I was able to state the exact problem. I disagree with you and with xaosflux. There is no urgency in responding to the edit request; it could just sit there as a discussion topic until someone capable of fixing the bug does so. You and xaoxflux seem to think the main thing is to make the request be resolved quickly. I believe that the main thing is to have a valid (even if not as precise as is desired) error report be resolved correctly, however long it takes. That's my view, and I realize you and xaoxflux don't share it. In fact, I might be the only one who sees it my way. Anyway, I won't persist on this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The request can sit there indefinitely, but the template should not be applied until a specific edit is ready to be made. The conventions on using that template are spelled out in the page I linked above. In general its purpose is not to get attention to a request. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit request templates are an important part of dealing with disruption that can be caused by page protection - we want everything to be editable, but some things need review or to have consensus gathered first. Administrators actively patrol the edit requests to be responsive to other editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ, xaosflux: I don't want to get into a debate here, because, as I said, I won't persist. But I do want to explain why I hold my view. Protected pages replace the "edit this page" tab with "view source". On the view source page, such as View source for Template:Self, it says:

What can I do?

...

If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions. An administrator or template editor may then make the change on your behalf. Please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed.

Submit an edit request

That "Submit an edit request" is the only thing most users will see. It's a beacon that practically begs the user to click. So the user clicks, and sees an editing window with an HTML comment, "State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably [emphasis mine] in a 'change X to Y' format." I know, people who respond to these requests want a request in the form of "change X to Y". But it is also unambiguous to simply report that a template generates a Multiline table in list lint error and it needs to be fixed. Ambiguous means "Open to multiple interpretations" or "Vague and unclear". There is only one possible interpretation of my request: the template creates a specific type of lint error. It is unambiguous.

Everything is set up leading the user down a primrose path, "Oh, please, click this button and submit your request" and then "state your request clearly in a way that can't be misinterpreted" and then editors come back, "You have to submit your request in the form of change X to Y." This is bait-and-switch, and it's not nice, especially to new editors (which I am not).

It doesn't have to be this way. Unambiguous requests, even if not in the form of "change X to Y", can remain open until someone fixes them. But, as I said, I don't want to get into a debate, and I won't persist. I just wish that this primrose path led to the garden of satisfaction. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it looks like we have some inconsistent messages on the edit request dialogs based on namespaces, protection levels, etc (see this one for example for the "big format". I suspect the ones for the MediaWiki namespace (where you have had several recent ones) need improving to include the expected Please provide a specific description of the edit request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not helpful and will often be rejected; the request should be of the form "please change X to Y because... type directions. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outline navigation footers and the Harvard catlinks

Copied from User talk:The Transhumanist#Your recent edits of many outline articles, where this conversation started, and the user responded here.

In your recent edits of many outline articles, you removed navigation templates and categories, examples below.

Was this on your own initiative?
Was this pursuant to some directive somewhere that implies that these templates and categories don't belong?
Was this pursuant to a discussion somewhere?
Other?

Examples:

Outline of Harvard University removed [[:Category:Harvard University]] and others
Outline of James Bond removed {{James Bond}} and others
Outline of the Catholic Church removed {{Catholicism}} and others
Outline of the United Kingdom removed {{United Kingdom topics}}
Outline of Wisconsin removed {{Wisconsin}}

As it happens, I came to explore your edits after I went to Outline of Mexico and saw that you had removed {{Mexico topics}}. So, what's going on? —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anomalocaris,

Thank you for your interest. The outlines are usually a desert, where I'm contacted by other editors about my edits on them once in a blue moon. So, your communication is a breath of fresh air. I will be happy to explain the rationale for my edits, and look forward to your further feedback.

I'm in the middle of long overdue cleanup/maintenance of the outlines. This included inserting missing lead sentences, missing outline notice at the top of those outlines for which that was missing, missing sister links template, removal of the wikimindmap dead link, insertion of the {{Outline footer}} where missing, fixing category tags (mostly their sort order), adding missing "Wikipedia outline" category tag, and so on.

First, concerning the category links removed from Outline of Harvard University: note that the Harvard University category was retained. It was included at the bottom of the page as a category tag. The category links that were removed were hard links to categories. "Category" sections, and hard category links, are generally not included in outlines because they are redundant structural elements, and part of a separate navigation system (the category system). Recreating the category system (that is, the category links themselves, rather than tags) and its structure within the outlines is not a purpose of outlines -- those links are already in place on the category pages themselves, and can be accessed there and with the CatTree tool. Outlines are topical tree structures, and so each subject has one branch in the tree, with the branches populated by links to articles (including prose and list articles). Categories are not articles, and therefore don't belong in outlines as hard links (check other outlines, and you will see that is not generally practiced). In addition, note that categories are external to the encyclopedia itself, and have their own reserved location on articles (the bottom of the page, as category tags). I hope that explains the hard category link removal to your satisfaction.

Another way to approach the above issue, is by scope. The scope of outlines is to map out knowledge, and the contents of the encyclopedia. It is not to map out the other navigation systems, which would explode the size of outlines, and especially the amount of work needed to build and maintain them -- which is a very limited resource already. Note that Portals do include hard category links.

Navigation footers on the other hand pose different problems than hard category links. Outlines are a separate navigation system from navigation footers. Having the two systems overlap by having navigation footers on outline pages interferes with the development of outlines. For example, to determine what topics are missing from an outline, one would use the compare list feature of WP:AWB, to compare the links on the outline to the links on other navigation systems, such as the corresponding navigation footer. But that is rendered useless if the nav footer is present on the outline. What links belong to the outline and what links belong to the navigation footer becomes blurred. Determining which links on the Mexico template are not yet included in the Outline of Mexico, manually, would be extremely tedious.

Another use of outlines is as a source of links for its root topic. But navigation footers tend to accumulate on outlines, including those that do not match the scope of the outline, such as navigation footers for the parent topic, etc. This renders making lists of the outline's subjects (such as with WP:AWB's make list feature, infeasible. Those are used for many tasks, such as in the construction of indices and glossaries, lists for tagging articles within the scope of a WikiProject, focused recent changes efforts, etc. But those are thwarted if non-relevant or off-scope navigation templates are present.

I hope the above makes sense. Please feel free to share your thoughts, and I will be happy to discuss the matter with you further until we reach a synthesis of purpose. I'm certain you wish what's best for the reader, as do I. Discussing the various options and ramifications should result in the best path to that objective, whatever that path happens to be. I'm not married to any particular course of action, and look forward to your further observations, questions, comments, and concerns.

And of course, I will refrain from removing navigation footers from the bottom of outline pages until a solution is worked out to your satisfaction, whether that be reinsertion of the footers, adding the links from the on-topic footers into the bodies of the outlines, or some other solution.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: please {{ping}} me when you reply. Thank you. -TT

The Transhumanist: Thank you, you have explained it all very well. As far as I'm concerned, you should carry on your mission. I simply wanted to know what was going on. I wonder if it would make sense to put some of your above thinking, perhaps in Wikipedia:Outlines#What an outline is not or nearby there, or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines#Scope, where a sentence or two could say something like, "Outlines should not include navigation templates" possibly with a reason or two. Feel free to ignore, but this is coming from someone who has successfully created "what to do" language that has remained active. For example, I'm pleased that my bold edit saying not to link to names within names in Wikipedia:Manual of Style has survived with only minor changes, so I encourage you to be bold and publish your thoughts in an appropriate place. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense. I'm also a bit behind in the maintenance of those two pages you mentioned, and will get to them after giving the wording some deep thought. I appreciate your queries and understanding.

By the way, most of what has been going on, is happening behind the scenes, and I'm wondering if you would like to give part of it a test drive?

Building and maintaining outlines is as you may have gathered, very time intensive (i.e., slow). The current 740 outlines have taken over ten years to produce. I estimate we need about 10,000 of them. At the current rate, that would take 120 more years.

So, effort is underway to automate the process as much as possible, including building interactive tools to make editing outlines easier. A nice thing about this, is that it has resulted in generally useful technologies, sort of like what happens with space exploration...

One type of tool I've been working on are scripts that change the view of Wikipedia to reveal list items in wikiformat to make those easier for editors to copy and paste into outlines and lists. I've been trying to do this wherever they happen to be -- every nook and cranny of Wikipedia. I've found that they are all over the place.

One such place is in search results. And so I built a tool to look at those in outline/list format. Which required, in addition to the insertion of wikiformatting right on the screen, the hiding of various components of the search results so that they didn't interfere with the copying/pasting operation. And this is when it started to become applicable to users in general...

It dawned on me that each of these functions should be on a switch, so they could be turned off as desired. So I separated their functionality and give them each a toggle, in the form of a menu item in the tools menu in the sidebar. And I realized that sorting the search results would also be useful. So I threw that in there too. Then I made the script remember the settings, so that the switch positions apply to all searches, not just the current one. That is, the features stay on, until you turn them off.

The result is a general purpose search results enhancement script called SearchSuite.js.

It was completed to operational status a few days ago, and I'm looking for beta testers.

Care to take it for a spin? :) Installation instructions and a user's guide are including in the link provided above. ;)

I hope you like it. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 09:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist: Hmmm... I use MonoBook, and use other templates only for brief "How-would-this-look" checks. I'll keep it in mind for when it would actually be useful, but I'm not eager to add another wikitask.

Lately I have been fixing lint errors and notifying users with non-HTML5-compliant signatures that their signatures are linty, and offering them HTML5-compliant equivalents. That user notification project is largely complete, but I can't finish until consensus is reached at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Signature size guidelines and Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Excessive text shadow?. And hardly anybody has weighed. If you have anything to add to these discussions, feel free. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll give the discussions a look. And Monobook. The Transhumanist 16:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to tell me?

I can't figure out what you mean by the edit you apparently made on my Talk page, or even where that match of text is. Please clarify; if here, {{ping}}; otherwise on my Talk page, Thank you. --Thnidu (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Thnidu (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace page edits

Hey there! Is it possible that you could explain this edit to one of my userspace pages? I honestly have no idea what you’re saying in the edit summary, and I wouldn’t mind something perhaps more clear and concise for an average, non-technical user such as myself. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PhilipTerryGraham: Thank you for asking. By the way, the edit difference page you linked to could also be linked using the {{Diff}} template this way:

{{Diff|User:PhilipTerryGraham/Reviews|prev|834162842|this edit to one of my userspace pages}}: this edit to one of my userspace pages

As you can see from there, I removed the colon at the beginning of two lines that appeared thus:

:{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

The edit summary is "avoid indenting tables, which was causing Multiline table in list lint errors". The two indenting colons were each causing Multiline table in list Lint errors. For more on why this is a problem, see WP:Linter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Alrighty then, thanks for the heads up! Is there any possible way to place a margin on my collapsed transcluded table without using the : character and causing an error of sorts on a list page? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham: The page already does contain several valid uses of

:{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

What causes the lint error is indenting this table and using {{Talk}} inside it. However, even without indenting, using {{Talk}} inside the table causes problems although not lint errors. Under the heading "Good article reviews", click on either "show" link, and it's messed up. "==GA Review==" displays just like that, while the equals signs are supposed to be wiki markup for headings. It seems you shouldn't use {{Talk}} in this way. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: So, what could be a good way to transclude the GA review onto my "Reviews" page, without writing up like {{Talk:Rocket League/GA2}} and causing these aforementioned errors? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham: I am learning as I go. I saw {{Talk...}} and thought it was the Talk template; I didn't recognize it as transclusion. So, the real issue is that you are trying to transclude into a table something that does not belong in a table. I do not know if there is a way of doing what you are trying to do. Try the Village Pump. If you get an answer, leave me a message here. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: The situation has been resolved now. Thanks for your help, by the way! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uber edit

Hi there, in patrolling for reference errors I came across one at Uber, and found that in your recent edit there, you made a number of odd changes. I only mention this in case you were using an automated tool that caused these errors (your punctuation/spacing changes made me think this was the case) - if they were genuine typos/human error, please feel free to ignore me! A ref tag was broken, quote marks were put in where they weren't needed, and what I found most odd was that a few characters were removed from a url in a citation, breaking it. Anyway, no big deal, I've fixed these, just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessicapierce: Hi there. You're right; I made two careless changes inserting a stray quotation mark, one of the two erroneously replacing the greater than sign closing a ref tag. Not to make excuses, but this happened amid replacing numerous curly quotes with straight quotes and setting the comma and period inside or outside the closing quote per MOS:LQ. And thank you for fixing the URL I bollixed. Cheers!—Anomalocaris (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: My Thoughts (Montesquieu) (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

Please don't submit your article until it's actually ready for review.

Next, you really need to add content about how his work has been received and analyzed. Please see WP:Notability (books) for what we're looking for. Though since his book is more significant than just a novel or recent work, you'll want to dig a bit into scholarship about his work to find what later commentators have found significant about it.

Articles generally require significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the topic.

Explanation: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:My Thoughts (Montesquieu) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:My Thoughts (Montesquieu), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anomalocaris! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Is it better now? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Editorofthewiki: Yes, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hiral Tipirneni Twitter image.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hiral Tipirneni Twitter image.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mélencron (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Hiral Tipirneni Twitter image.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hiral Tipirneni Twitter image.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mélencron (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hiral Tipirneni Twitter image.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hiral Tipirneni Twitter image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your longstanding efforts encouraging signature compliance with Tidy and your other work cleaning up problems in that area are greatly appreciated. Thank you so very much. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, I'm just one voice in a throng

With our newfangled extended-length edit summaries, it might be helpful when fixing lint errors to maybe link to LINT so that people have some vague idea of what you're doing. As I'm sure you've received a ping about, this wasn't too well-received. I've explained it (see two diffs later) but I thought I'd mention it to you here. I know you're doing good work, though, so keep it up! Primefac (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anomalocaris. You have new messages at RedSoxFan274's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 20:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anomalocaris. You have new messages at RedSoxFan274's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noted and thanks

Cheers. Will do. Yours, --1233^Talk 09:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Thank you for informing me with the issues with my signature, I have corrected it with the fixes you had suggested. — Iune talk 14:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel obliged to say thanks too. My signature is corrected now. --Pajo Pajimir 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for all the syntax fixes ;) -- œ^™ 08:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tontine Massacre

I have found no news about it being unreleased or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TolkienLover1 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed because it didn't receive much coverage anyway. Can you remove it? TolkienLover1 (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TolkienLover1: Feel free to edit Tolkien family#Royd Tolkien yourself! (I took liberty of adjusting the capitalization of this section's title.) —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have. TolkienLover1 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit request

Hello, I did one of your edit requests here, but could not tell how my change was fixing any misnesting of HTML tags. Could you look at the result and see if it's OK? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston: Yes, you fixed it, thanks! Amory has already fixed the other two. For future reference, there are two ways to know if a page has Lint errors.

On the left side of the page, click on "Page information", and that will bring up a page that will show, near the end, lint errors if there are any. It will list each type of lint error and the number that type of error, maxing out at 20. It won't give any additional details, such as where the error is located or what HTML tags are involved.
The LintHint tool shows exactly where each error is located and what HTML tags are involved. By default, LintHint works only for articles in the Article namespace, but if you need LintHint for any other article, you can do this either by copying the entire wikitext into an article in the Article space and using LintHint there (and don't save, of course), or by enabling LintHint for items outside the Article namespace; to do this, see instructions at Wikipedia talk:Linter#parsermigration is cramping my style, under "Well, the following steps should work".

—Anomalocaris (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the lintHint script from User:PerfektesChaos but get a lot of Javascript warnings in the Chrome debugging console: Jquery errors and 'Unknown dependency'. This is with all my other scripts disabled. Maybe I have some catching up to do. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:

Thank you for trying the gadget.
Version 3 has been released, just visit Special:Blankpage/preferencesGadgetOptions#lintHint to request other namespaces (numbers required).
Regarding Chrome warnings they might be a bit anxious. The gadget is using standard procedures and should work the same way on all browsers of recent 5 or 10 years. I am not aware of any real problem, but I would remedy what is caused inside my own programming.
- If they are originated from a certain load.php they result from MediaWiki or jquery library itself, while my code resides on index.php and tries to avoid such messages.
- The warnings are probably about legal programming practices, which are in danger to be caused by typing errors. That Unknown dependency might result from a test for a possible but not mandatory situation, but could also indicate a real mistake. Those in MediaWiki are from a bit lazy test in rush, but no real errors.
We should continue on w:de:BD:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint. You might drop the messages you mentioned there. Does the gadget work basically?

@Anomalocaris: Thanks for hospitality and advertising.

Gretings --PerfektesChaos (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sigs

I've been asking people I encounter with bad-markup sigs to fix them. (and giving them the code to do it, of course). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Trail

Thanks for fixing the italics in the talk section for The Big Trail. I was writing it on my cell phone at the time, which never helps, and I've discovered that if you miss something in italics punctuation, which is impossible not to do when working with a cell phone, once you save it on a talk page, you can't go back and fix it unless you have a different level within wikipedia. I was appalled when I saw it and I thank you for fixing it. From now on I'll skip the italics on the talk pages when using a cell phone. Trocadero Thunder (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trocadero Thunder: Yes, I did edit Talk:The Big Trail, and thank you for the acknowledgment. I have edited a few Wikipedia pages on a cell phone, but I strongly prefer a full-sized computer. I'm not sure what you mean about having a different level within Wikipedia. I don't have any special editing rights, I'm not an admin, just an ordinary editor like you. —Anomalocaris (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a mystery

Hark! An unexpected guest for super! How kind of you to call. But pray tell, Mr A. Malocaris, what prompts your visit to my lowly Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have my archive boxes back, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123:

Done Thanks for letting me know. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can't do without a few archives, can one. And they're "nont for sale". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC) ... and all still complete mystery to me... [reply]

Martinevans123: Your messages here are interesting, but it is sometimes difficult to determine what is intended by your unusual choices of internal and external links. Perhaps you are trying to say that you do not understand why I was editing your user talk page in the first place. The answer to that is I was eradicating lint errors. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes. Apologies. But well done. I found your edit summary on my talk page equally baffling. Looking forward to you fixing all my sprüngli errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC) .... p.s. I really don't like the sound of "multi colon escape".[reply]

Invitation

Dear Anomalocaris,

You are cordially invited to join the Portals WikiProject.

This is a very active project. We are in the process of completely revamping the entire portal system, and cleaning up the portal namespace. After these are done, we'll be greatly expanding the collections of portals. We have many design discussions going on, and many task types to choose from.

We also have a newsletter, that covers the progress of portal development, and the latest toys.

If you are interested, please feel welcome to sign-up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Project_participants.

By the way, I'm very interested in what you think of portals. What do you like most about them? What do they lack that they should have? What can't they do, that you would like them to be able to do?

I look forward to your replies. — The Transhumanist 09:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Please {{ping}} me in your reply. Thank you. -TT

MediaWiki Talk pages

I've dropped the protection of these to extended confirmed. Please proceed to make the edits yourself, there is no valid reason I cna find for these to be sysop-only locked, and the protecting admin is long gone from Wikipedia. Courcelles (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

Re [5] - may be because the edit requests weren't for regular articles? I'll bear that in mind. Important thing is that the edits get made, thanks for letting me know. Fish+Karate 08:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War Table

Thanks for helping with the tables. I appreciate your input! Need anything in return just ask. Adamdaley (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing my italics!

I appreciate it! Botterweg14 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For your work on Duncan D. Hunter. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your unexpected and kind help tidying my user page is very much appreciated :) ( also i never knew anyone could give banstars) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[[\|100px]]	Paleo scorpio award
	I'm free!! S B H arris 05:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dana Rohrabacher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z33

Hi Anomalocaris, it looks like this revert violates the "Consensus required" provision of the discretionary sanctions mentioned above and listed at the top of the article's talk page. Please self-revert and join in the talk page discussion here to help find a consensus on how that paragraph should be worded. ~Awilley (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hey, Anomalocaris,

I am returning to Wikipedia and just saw your message to me about my signature and some problems it might be causing. I cut and pasted the code you left but it was too many characters for the signature box. Is the signature still causing problems? If so, is there a shorter code that I could use instead? Thanks for the notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Africa Ebola virus epidemic

Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing[6] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lacey Schwartz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antonio Delgado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anomalocaris. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anomalocaris. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Snazdup

A tag has been placed on User:Snazdup requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:United States political divisions economy

A tag has been placed on Template:United States political divisions economy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08: I created Template:United States political divisions economy with the intent of appending it to the various Economy of (state) pages, such as Economy of Alaska. But I never got around to it, and someone created Template:Economy of the United States by jurisdiction, duplicating my work, and installing it in the various pages. That is fine. The only thing that bothers me here is that your message says it's giving me a 7-day warning, but in less than 12 hours, the template is already deleted. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalocaris, First, please don't take this as any sort of personal attack on you or your work. I have no doubt that you created the template in good faith! It simply was no longer needed. As for the 7 day notice, that is a good point. I'm not really sure what happened there... Please note that I'm not an admin so I cannot delete/restore pages. That being said, if for some reason you want the template back for further work on it, I'm sure that Athaenara will be happy to WP:REFUND the page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restored (log). – Athaenara ✉ 19:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08 I made my template on 27 January 2015‎, but instead of installing it right away, I got busy with other projects. The other template was created later, on 20 March 2015, and was the one that got installed in the various pages. My mistake wasn't good faith or bad faith, it was not installing my template!

Athaenara: Thank you for restoring the template, but it really isn't needed anymore, as Template:Economy of the United States by jurisdiction fulfills the same purpose and has been installed on the relevant pages. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oxygene7-13/Signature

Can I ask you why my page above was changed by you? I'm totally fine with it, I'm just curious why. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because it was using  tags, which are considered obsolete in HTML5 and are generating Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Even though these are low priority lint errors, it was easy to fix, so I went ahead and did it. For more on lint errors and how you can help, see Wikipedia:Linter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanx for answering! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jackson, Ron (February 2008). "Changing of the Guard: How Dan Pulcrano Became The Point Man in the Historic March From Old Media to the New World Online". Domain Name Journal. Retrieved November 29, 2013.

[1]