User talk:Stevietheman

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

Please explain your edit[edit]

Could you please explain how to use the website template for Court Listener.

Also, does it work more effectively than just a [ Court Listener] citation?

Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP:, which edit in what article? I don't have a photographic memory.  :) Also, I'm unaware of the existence of a Court Listener template, so you may want to link to that so I can review it. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stevie: In Thompson v. City of Louisville, the last ref was to a Court Listener tabulation of number of citations (According to Court Listener, this case has been cited approximately 16,000 times as of July 2015.). It was originally in the format

According to Court Listener, this case has been cited approximately 16,000 times as of July 2015.<ref> [ Court Listener]

but was changed to:

According to Court Listener, this case has been cited approximately 16,000 times as of July 2015.<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=Search Results for 362 U.S. 199 |website=Court Listener |accessdate=July 18, 2015}}</ref>

The edit was: 10:00, July 18, 2015‎ Stevietheman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,527 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (→‎Subsequent developments: use cite web for ref)

PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP:, edits like this are done because of the guideline WP:PLRT. Go here for info on how to use the cite web template. If you have a more specific question, I'll be happy to help. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I looked at PLRT. This problem has nothing to do with link rot. This was not a bare URL. The ref had as much information in it before as it did after your edit.
Your edit did not improve the quality of the citation or preserve it from link rot. You put the same URL in the edited version as it had before, with the same background source information. Why didn't you just leave it alone? All you explained was "because of the guideline." The guideline is about bare URL cites; this wasn't one. [I am perplexed ;-) ]
PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the standard way we cite web pages across the Wikipedia. And the information I added was the accessdate, which is part of helping to avoid link rot. I will never leave refs like this alone. :) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 00:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the edit in question again, I also added a title that wasn't there before. Titles help in restoring potential dead links as well. I kind of feel funny arguing this, because you'll find that all experienced editors will agree with what I did, and I/we will continue doing it. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deprecated persondata[edit]

OK, great. As I had prematurely removed the deprecated persondata before (I think we had a conversation about it), I was trying to undo those edits. But great if I don't have to do that now. Thanks for telling me. Quis separabit? 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC), my understanding is that the only caveat is that removing it is considered cosmetic and therefore should be done only with other true fixes. But if you've already done recent fixes to a particular article, removing it by itself should be all right. Also, IMHO, it's not worth getting into any edit conflicts about, in case another editor insists on keeping it around for the time-being. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. I had largely decided to discontinue the practice so there shouldn't be any conflicts. I still may, from force of habit, update or correct persondata with incomplete or inaccurate info, though. Quis separabit? 15:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Joe D[edit]

I didn't intentionally make that edit. Must've accidentally hit "rollback" on my watchlist without realizing. Sorry. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it might be a boo-boo. :) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Spacing for infoboxes, headers and text --[edit]


Please do not re-space articles that are already consistently spaced internally: [1]. The Michael Phelps article is the fourth or fifth article on my watch list which has popped up with your re-spacing edits in the last several days . . . .

Consistent internal spacing is permitted by MOS, and permits editors to review infobox text at a glance, find the beginning and ending of sentences more quickly, and review the text and coding of templated footnotes more easily. Separating headers from the text of the following paragraph also makes for easier review. And, FYI, the infoboxes of all 660 U.S., 260 Australian, and 220 Canadian Olympic swimmers are all spaced consistently per the template's example. It's not an accident, and the remaining 2500 articles that use Infobox swimmer are targeted for clean-up in the near future. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1:, thanks for the note. It's important to note I am not merely doing space reductions -- they are tagging along for other guidelines-based technical fixes. I don't do space reductions by themselves, unless I have clicked 'Save' by accident.
As for infoboxes, I will be willing to avoid doing space reductions for established types of articles where editors generally don't want it (if you don't mind, let me know which types of articles where editors are sensitive -- so far, you're the very first editor to raise a concern). But just because a template example has built-in spacing isn't enough of a reason to not remove the extra spaces. As you say, they are there for the example, but not necessarily for all time. To me, and I say this as a very long-time editor, the extra space is unnecessary clutter.
As for headings, in general, I don't remove any separation from the following prose, although it's possible I've done a little of that in manual cleanup. If you have any examples where I've done this, please show me at least one so I can correct my cleanup code.
As for consistent internal spacing, that's part of what I'm fixing, as almost all the articles I deal with have inconsistent spacing. I tilt toward removing extra unnecessary space. Outside of infoboxes, I'm not removing any spaces that have any particular use as far as I can tell.
To repeat, I don't do any space reduction unless I'm doing other guidelines-based technical fixes. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring notice[edit]

Please address the problem - you cannot add unsourced content about a living person to a Wikipedia article, per WP:BLP; you shouldn't do that with any article per WP:VERIFY but it is even more important with living people. Thanks.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bellarmine University‎. 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. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, I'm reporting this baseless message to an admin, as this post has nothing to do with reality. I have not been doing anything as you describe. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah - I thought you were the same as the IP editor. My apologies. In any case, this has been fixed by another editor - problem solved. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to note for posterity, there really wasn't a problem to be fixed in this article because Jerry Abramson already backed up his former/current positions. There's no necessity to copy over references in cases like this. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cincinnati Cyclones[edit]

Hello and thanks for trying to keep User: in check. This editor's biggest issue is usually not using the edit summaries and altering franchise histories. They also occasionally switch IPs but the style is always the same. They are always unresponsive to messages and warnings but many of their edits are very nitpicky (such as removing the inactive from the Cyclones). Although many times they do seem to be attempting for consistency since in this case Cincinnati was the only franchise history I have seen that directly states when it was inactive (also shouldn't the hiatus in the mid-2000's have had the same statement?). However I still find myself having to re-edit all of theirs. I thought I should at least explain why I left the inactive off of my re-edit since you seem concerned with it. Thanks for your effort anyways with trying to deal with the possible vandal/poor editor. Yosemiter (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yosemiter:, Thanks for your work and the explain. I'm one of those weirdos who just doesn't cotton to editors removing content without explaining why. Your explanation makes sense. If only the anon could take a moment to use the danged edit summary. Their "bull in the china shop" approach is going to get them blocked if they keep it up. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)