This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
I WISH I COULD RETIRE
This user wishes that they could leave Wikipedia, but doesn't seem able to do so...
If you are new here, and feeling angry, please read Tips for the Angry New User before explaining to us how terribly wrong and messed up Wikipedia is. Would you believe, we probably already know? You can also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia culture via these policy links -> and helpful essays ^^^
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Um, excuse me, but here you removed the ref info from the ref section and peppered it into the article body, which makes the article much harder to read and edit in source mode. Please do not do this as I did that way on purpose and I had to clean it up. Are you are in the habit of doing this? I sure hope not. Herostratus (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Has there been some change to WP:MOS / WP:CITE in favor of putting all refs below then using short form in the body? Everyone I work with puts the first usage in full form and then uses the short form afterwards. What is your precedent or reason for prioritizing this form? - CorbieV☊☼ 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It's common sense because it makes the article easier to read and edit. It's supported by the |refs= field of the reflist template so I assume its allowable. Where in the rules does it say not to do that. There's a lot of rules here, but rather than getting into that explain in plain English how peppering the details of the refs up in the body of the text so that they are intermingled with the article text makes the article easier to read and edit or has some other benefit. (I use the old source editor; if peppering the ref details into the article text makes it easier to use the visual editor, I'm willing to be educated.)
If there's a rule somewhere that proscribes this, point it out and let's see if we can get it corrected (and if not, we should probably work to remove the support for the |refs=option of the reflist template). Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, at Wikipedia:Citing sources, under "Inline citations" subsection "Avoiding clutter" it says "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing. There are two main methods to avoid clutter in the edit window... 2) Using list-defined references by collecting the full citation code within the reference list template, and then inserting them in the text with <ref name="ABC" /> tags" which is just what I did. Herostratus (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I saw you reverted my change here. That article is now linked three times in the template. Why does it need to appear any more than once, as sworn virgin? Its really annoying clicking on a link in a box only to be redirected back to an article you've already read. Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
As long as it's there once and is easy to find, I'm not attached. I didn't see the other linkage. Let me take another look. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I've self-reverted. That template is difficult. Some of these articles don't fit neatly into these categories. I don't have an easy answer to this. I think I would make an "other" section in addition to the current "other" section, with a different title. Not sure what, though... - CorbieV☊☼ 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)