User talk:CodeBadger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CodeBadger, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi CodeBadger! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jennifer Lien may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • I had to if I wanted to survive. A lot of my friends were into drugs, and I saw a lot of them die.”}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Reiner |first=Jonathan |title=She's Only Just Begun (interview in Soap Opera

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What "601 pp." means[edit]

I had to fix a blooper here - can you please make sure it doesn't happen again as it leads to really annoying problems down the line? Thanks. Samsara 07:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jennifer Lien 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:
  • exposure allegedly committed during an argument with a neighbor in Harriman.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |last = Stedman |first = Alex |title = 'Star Trek: Voyager' Actress Jennifer Lien

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 June[edit]

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

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) 00:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits in Protests against Donald Trump[edit]

This edit is completely irrelevant to the Protests against Donald Trump article because it only deals with the results of the 2012 election, not the 2016 election. I have just removed it again. Parsley Man (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, CodeBadger. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: To Matt Damon (December 2)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Yash! was: 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.
Yash! 16:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Assassination of John F. Kennedy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your addition of this material has been undone more than once. Either discuss it on the talk page or leave it out. Meters (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You have added this material six or seven times now and each time it has been removed. At least four different editors have undone you. Don't restore this material in any form unless you get consensus on the talk page that it should be in this article. We have an entire article devoted to conspiracy theories and this material is already covered there. Meters (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Journals[edit]

I saw your GF additions of the month to several journal citations. please note that isn't our style here, nor in most other publications. Just the year is required, although if the journal has numbered issues you can complete the volume= and issue= parameters Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017; request for help/guidance[edit]

Hello again. I am from Parbhani city. E wiki page of this city has been completely messed up by unregistered, and registered users as well. Would you please guide me for cleaning/tidying it up? That way, i will also get better at contributing to wiki, without making debacles on pages related to JFK, psychiatry, and CIA. usernamekiran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talkcontribs) 00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss[edit]

I note that you have ignored my request to stop adding day/months to journals. If you think I'm wrong, please discuss, don't just do your own thing. I notice that despite your short time here you have already been warned for edit-warring, don't start another battle Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sundayclose (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Much appreciated.

Page move[edit]

Don't move well-established pages without obtaining consensus. Go to WP:RM if you want to initiate a general discussion. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.

Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy[edit]

Don't post contested material to the talk page. If you want to ask an editor why he undid your edit then just ask him. If you want to ask on the talk page if the material is appropriate then just use a diff to the edit. Meters (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Why do you assert that this material is "contested" when no contested claims were made? Do you think it is appropriate for editors to revert edits without giving a reason in the edit summary or on the Talk page? CodeBadger (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that your edit was undone means that it was contested. I don't think that picture added anything useful to the article, but I'm not the one who undid it. I pinged the editor who did undo you since you neglected to do so. The firs thing to do when someone undoes you and you don't understand is to ask the editor to explain on their talk page, not raise the issue on the article's talk page first without even notifying them. Meters (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've left a comment in relation to this matter on Canada Jack's Talk page. CodeBadger (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Special Operations Executive[edit]

I have removed the paragraph you added, commenting on John Keegan's views, as it offered only personal comments, rather than encyclopaedic information. In particular, the German invaders (1940 - 1944) cannot be said to "share" views published in 1998. If you wish to add conflicting views to those of Keegan, you should re-examine Geracht's work, and quote a reliable source specifically refuting or challenging Keegan. HLGallon (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit in the SOE article and taking the time to make a comment in relation to it. In hindsight it was inappropriate for me to include the wartime comments by Nazis about what they thought about the SOE in the ‘Later analysis and commentaries’ section. I don’t think it inappropriate to include the wartime comments by Nazis about what they thought about the SOE so long as it is in an appropriate section, just as the comments by Keegan and others about the SOE were included in said section. Thus I created a new section titled ‘Wartime commentaries on SOE’ that is inserted before the ‘Later analysis and commentaries’ section as these comments predate the post war comments. I feel this has markedly improved the article thanks to your intervention. Thank you for your time CodeBadger (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Days and months in journal citations[edit]

I'm inclined to agree with Jimfbleak's comments above about days and months in citations. However, note that if you do add them, they must conform to any existing style. In the case of Eukaryote, you ignored the explicit instruction to use dmy dates, and added md,y ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

My bad. I'll use DMY in future. As lots of articles use MDY, and it looks better to my mind, I thought I would use it, and it seemed in keeping with my belief that this American style expression of dates was appropriate as Jimmy Wales is an American. But having looked at the Wikipedia article relating to dates (Template:Use dmy dates) I now see that it should be DMY. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. CodeBadger (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, CodeBadger. Related to this topic, I believe your recent edits to Eukaryote are appropriate (see this one), because that is the style used throughout the article. However, your reasoning in the edit summary—"a format commonly used in Wikipedia articles"—does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. Template {{Use mdy dates}} also exists, and an article may use either. Please read more about this guideline at WP:Citing sources § Citation style.
Also, access dates in citation templates are not required to be in the all-numeric format YYYY-MM-DD, but can be spelled out as dmy or mdy, whichever the article already uses. Plant utilized both forms in the accessdate parameter, so your edit here was good in making it more consistent, but the rational was also questionable because these guidelines do not apply to Wikipedia as a whole, but to each article individually. – Rhinopias (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to know. Much appreciated. CodeBadger (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Special Operations Executive into Andrée Borrel. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required.

I also did some clean-up of the citations. The {{sfn}} citation system is designed to provide clickable links to the books. This only occurs when you add |ref=harv}} to your book cites. There's more information on this topic at Help:Shortened footnotes. There's a script available at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors that you can install to help you detect errors in the Harvard citation system. If you need any help getting started using scripts, please let me know and I will try to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated. CodeBadger (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have started doing as you requested consistently with all edits where I copy material from another article.CodeBadger (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, CodeBadger. 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)