What happened to your talk page? Amaury (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Haha It actually is a lil more peaceful without all of the comments :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 00:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- In any case, there must have been some clean-up or something. I just updated my edit statistics, and while most are only little, some are a more noticeable change. And even with the little ones, there usually aren't that many. It's just one of those things I guess we'll never understand like we discussed last time I brought it up. Amaury (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: Electronic health record
i added that external link as reference link, if that is not allowed please let me know is there any chance to add my link on wikipedia, i tried to replace a dead link with my link but didn't work.
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchavan85 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Rahulchavan85: Typically, when hyperlinking a word that isn't very common and we think some readers won't know what it is, we'll link it to an internal article rather than externally link it. In regard to linking externally or generally adding links as sources, it would be a good idea to read up on WP:ELNO, WP:LINKSPAM, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:VERIFY. Amaury (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Rahulchavan85: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is absolutely not allowed. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I'm new to the Wiki. Could you please tell me why my edits were erased? Thanks, Maria') (current)Maria29082908 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Maria29082908: I think it's perfectly clear from the edit summary he gave. It's a red link; therefore, no such article exists, and we don't link to non-existent articles per WP:REDNOT. Amaury (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Maria29082908: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I probably should have put a lil more detail in my edit summary, but Amaury basically explains it. To expand a bit further, the See also section is a section that directs readers to tangentially related articles. Therefore, a link that does not point to an existing article does not belong. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 18:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to make a section on my user page—or maybe add it to the sidebar with my information; if that's possible, let me know—where I list the editors I work collaboratively and have a friendship with. I just don't know what to name it so that it gets the point across, but is also short and concise. One idea is Fellow Editors, but I don't think that gets the "collaboration" point across. Any ideas? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I don't know of a way to change the sidebar. I guess a script or something could be written, but that's over my head and, likely, only people with said script installed would see it :) I've seen other editors with sections like that, but for the life of me can't remember who or what they were titled... "Fellow Editors" sounds fine to me. My best alternatives would be something like "Frequent Collaborators", "Wikipedia Colleagues", "WP Friends", "Editing Confidants", or various combinations of those. Don't really think any of those have a particularly nice ring to them, but they're the best I can come up with :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Unrelated, but might as well just use this section.
Thought you might be interested in a life update. Mom is starting her first round of chemotherapy on Friday, both the pills and the infusion. I can't remember the exact details, but it will be the pills, I think, twice a day for three weeks with an infusion once a month for at least six months. The length may or may not increase or decrease. On the week she has an infusion scheduled she'll be on a break from the pills.
Full story here on my June 20 post—or June 21 as a guest since guest time zone is Eastern. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Amaury: Wow, that whole situation is horrible, but I'm glad that they ended up being contained and removed. Stay strong! I hope everything goes well from now on. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 18:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, yup. Thank you. The important part is that she's going to be just fine, and the chemo is being done more as a preventative/precaution as mentioned in the thread than anything. At 64, I think she can handle a small six-month bump in the road, even after adding the more minor bumps in the road like her hip surgery.
- On a yet again other unrelated note, it feels good to be on the other side of the spectrum, because it means I can get involved in discussions like this where I'm otherwise uninvolved, something I've been trying to do more of, though I know it's not your cup of tea. In that specific case, I even used my own bad experiences from when I used to be a chronic edit warrior myself to try and offer advice. You might get a good laugh or two reading that whole thing. For example, you'll notice a lot of users there were getting all worked up and there I was just staying calm and collected. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Amaury: :) It's always great when you can turn negative experiences from past mistakes into something positive and use it as insight. Staying calm and collected seems to be becoming a lost art in a lot of Internet cultures, but as long as we can keep in ours (at least for the most part), there is still hope for Wikipedia. Nice job! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 04:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Custom Signature Help
You may have noticed that I modified my signature a bit to include a quick link to my contributions (I even originally had a link to my sandbox, but I didn't feel that was relevant). This is the code I have: [[User:Amaury|Amaury]] (<small>[[User_talk:Amaury#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Amaury|contribs]]</small>). Notice how I have #top for my talk page, because if I don't, it will just bold it like it does in your signature and not link it. However, this means that #top is in the URL even on comments I make outside of my talk page. I notice on the default setup, though, when there is no custom signature, the #top is only included in the URL on talk pages. Is there any way with a custom signature to only make it show #top when on my talk page. It seems possible because I've seen at least one other user with a custom signature with #top in the URL only on the talk page.
I should add that the current way works and is really no big deal, so WP:NOTBROKEN could apply here. :P It's just a really tiny visual thing. You'll notice with #top, it doesn't take you exactly to the top of the browser page, but the beginning of the talk page, if that makes sense. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Amaury: I know what you're talking about, but don't really know the solution. I was going to say a possible fix would be parser functions on a subpage, but I checked WP:SIG#NT and saw that parser functions in sigs are forbidden. Without that, the only workaround that I can think of would be to create a redirect to your talk page in your user space and have your sig point to that redirect. I imagine that would work, but don't know if it's worth the hassle. Hope this helps some though. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Probably not worth the trouble, then. Again, it's only a minor visual thing, or I could just remove the "#top" and deal with "talk" not being a link on my talk page.
- Also, this is off topic, but sometimes I feel like Wikipedia would be better off if only registered users could edit. We'd still deal with new users, but that would be a lot better than new users and IPs. From personal experience, I would say 98% of IPs are vandals or otherwise disruptive editors, 1% are actually useful, and the other 1% mean good, but end up being disruptive. Exhibit A. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Amaury: A lot of editors agree with you about that, but it is not likely to change since the Wikimedia Foundation put it in their founding principles that registration is not to be required. I see both sides of the argument, but I tend to side with the Foundation. The main reason I lean that way is because I don't know if I would've started editing if registration was required. I started out purely reading, but every now and then I'd run across a typo and fix it. Later, I discovered vandalism and removed it. I may not have went to the trouble if I had to register. I don't know how many of our editors started the same way, but even if it helped create a handful of dedicated editors, I believe that it is worth it despite considering the thousands of anon vandals.
- Rambling a bit here, but while I'm talking about my noob days, I'll share a bit more. Probably my last anonymous edit was to add the release of a professional wrestler. Not knowing any better, I didn't source it, so it was a BLP violation. I was properly reverted without warning but was provided an explanation in the edit summary. I read the policy and that is when I decided to create an account and learn the WP ways. I wish I remembered who the editor that did that was (or at least the wrestler so I could dig it out of the history), because now, I'd really like to thank him/her. Had they templated me, I probably would've been turned off of WP and stopped editing before really getting started. That's why I'm a bit sensitive towards newbies who mean well but screw things up and make it a point not to warn them unless they continue after an explanation in the edit summary, then on their talk page. I hope now that my positive edits have out-weighed my noob mistakes :)
- Sorry for straying off a lot there, but since I was on my early editor days, I thought I'd share how my editing mind-set formed and give a little insight into my head :) I don't believe that I've actually shared that before. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)