User talk:Trappist the monk

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

CS1

This user is responsible for those
CS1 error messages (help).

Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.

To stop Monkbot, add a message to its talk page. Comments and questions about Monkbot are welcome here.

Ahimsa

down the list of the cited cites (phew) is a Levins with details, it's the only thing I could find and now someone has to find that too Dave Rave (talk)

Umm, what are we talking about? Neither of us appear to have edited Ahimsa.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you a busy man, it's okay ... this one, it shows a National Trust board report paper cite with

Levins, C. and C. Macarthur, J. Ecob, R. Marni, and T. Gilbert. 1995, 'Ahimsa - Cheltenham -Background Paper, Board Meeting no. 55, Agenda item 5j, ' National Trust of Australia, NSW, Sydney, National Trust Archives, Sydney.

and now that I think of it, why haven't I looked at her page, she has one, and an ADB with these details, and other links which make much better sense than a dim double link to a paper we can't read. SHe had a BDM note so theres probably a trove if we're lucky. Dave Rave (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that ref really necessary? It's used only once here to support a single sentence that is also supported by this ref (at the bottom of §§Historical notes) which itself appears to rely on the Levin et al. mystery source. ADB agrees.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that supporting ref is the reason for this ref, trying to further validate that ref, which, from the link, is no validation because we can't read it. SHR do crap cites Dave Rave (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Glass

I noticed you repaired the ref for the article in the Ira Glass. That is a very long interview with multiple pages, so to be able to direct readers where to find the quotes, I'm using page numbers. Thanks, but it wans't broken!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. At the time I saw the article there was one broken {{sfn}} template which (had it worked would have) pointed to the cs1|2 template in §Works cited; seemed rather pointless. As I write this there are there are two {{sfn}} templates, one broken, one not, both referring to page 1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Arguably there's no need for offensive edit summaries such as "remove pointless worldcat urls; fix buggered-up author/editor parameters". It takes only a small amount of imagination to reason that editors will be offended by such, and that being offended, will shy away from engaging with wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are the worldcat urls not pointless? Did not ve / citoid write malformed author/editor parameters? Show me that these things are not true and we have something to discuss. I do not go out of my way to offend people; that takes too much energy but, I shall not be censored.

I must presume that 'buggered-up' is the term to which you refer. Alas, that is a term with more than one definition. I am using in its 'broken, ruined' sense, not its sodomy sense; context is everything.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Recognition

Your work and contributions are exemplary.

With intelligent and most helpful inputs at the Help desk, you truly are an outstanding contributor. I don't think I've seen anyone provide such excellent responses for coding queries, as you do from time to time at the Help desk.

Keep up the great work! :)

Lourdes