This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
You mistaken Roman Warszawski with Roman Warszewski. Warszewski is other person and does not resemble Warszawski from a photo The Wolak ( talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I have been mulling over your edit [1] to references where Antony Beevor was the author. I have found quite a few other articles where short form references do not seem to point to the right work. The most obvious clue is if the page number is higher than the number of pages in the book. Others are simply perplexing, but are either citing the wrong reference or the wrong page. I think the instance we have seen here is a mechanism as to how this happens. The target work does not end up in the bibliography. If there is another reference by the same author, a correcting editor assumes that the short form ref has the wrong date in it, and changes it. From experience, sorting out exactly what reference is intended – some time after the event – is a substantial puzzle, especially with a prolific author. It is even time consuming to fix if you have one work in two different editions, one of which has some extra material which messes up the page numbering.
First step to stop this problem is for people like me to check that sfn references are actually working before moving on to something else.
A second level of protection from this is hard to recommend. In an ideal world, no-one would edit existing text without its references to hand. In many cases that is an unrealistic expectation. Antony Beevor is someone who has his major publications listed here in Wikipedia – looking up publishers' websites is not a complete answer as many academic authors use more than one publisher – but even then that would not help to identify the 2014 published work in this case, as that is the paperback version of the 2012 hardback edition. (Since page numbers can differ, identifying the correct edition is important.)
It seems to me that a high level of caution is needed by a correcting editor who alters the year of a cited work in a short form reference. With a recent edit, the editor who created the problem can be identified and contacted (whilst they still remember what they intended). With older errors, it may be better to flag the discrepancy on the article talk page in the hope that a subject expert will take up the matter.
Perhaps it is just the type of articles in which I do most of my editing (small numbers of published experts, each with several publications), but I see this as a big problem in ensuring verifiability of Wikipedia articles. That is why I tend to avoid short form references as the full citebook template is more resistant to hard-to-correct errors (if you have an ISBN in each inline citation, you can normally identify the correct work).
Sorry to ramble on about this subject. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Mpnader ( talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi mate, May I ask you to help me with grammatical correction in Battle of Kiev (1941) article? I'm somewhat inexperienced in writing work to English in Wikipedia. If you are not willing yourself, Would you please recommend someone else for this work? Thanks in advance! Mpnader ( talk) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Are you going to chase other editors away from like you tried with me here? The fact that I had already left the discussion doesn't justify you chipping in. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that. My prior edit in the caption of the image was reverted, so I added the text to the subsection instead, forgetting about the wrong year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Two years and only 8,000 articles with no target errors left to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello dear one, I have a question. On History of Christianity , the early modern period, the trial of Galileo, I want to add a reference that goes back to an earlier place in the same article: History of Christianity#Roots of scientific revolution. I've tried every way I can think of, plus I haven't been able to readily find the WP rule. So I am taking the lazy way out and just asking the teacher. :-) How the heck is referencing a section in a WP article properly done please sir? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads-up, that you will start to notice harv/sfn warnings for the "no link pointing to this citation" case that are already whitelisted in situ. (For starters, at Ships of ancient Rome, possibly others.) I haven't investigated yet, but just thinking about it I think I know why it's happening, and if I'm not wrong, it's related to {{ harvc}}/{{ citec}} and no amount of whitelisting will fix it; it will require a change to the script. I have to run out, but will get to it eventually; in the meantime, don't waste time tracking any of these at Ships of ancient Rome, or other articles, if you happen to see that the {{ citec}} template is involved. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 23:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello ActivelyDisinterested,
I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.
The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.
If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.
Thank you for your consideration.
--- Jonathan at CornellNLP ( talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
What does it stand for? Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Ahh! Now I get it. Interesting for science fiction, but for me it's irrelevant as I don't see civilization surviving for much longer than this century as we descend into vast chaos because of climate change. Some will survive, but at what cost? Only the wealthy will be able to protect themselves, and only by keeping slaves to work and produce for them. Capitalism as a functioning system will collapse as there will be no working class that can afford to be consumers. Capitalism requires a consumer base. Extreme vulture greed-driven capitalism will indeed survive by using slaves. I'm sure there are types of science fiction that describe these future scenarios, and as we've seen in the past, they soon cease to be "fiction" but become harsh realities. I doubt our planet and societies will be able to advance to the space exploration stages envisioned by many science fiction writers. Only the extremely wealthy will be able to protect themselves from the extreme heat, pollution, and noxious fumes from rotting oceans.
Our best bet is to devote all excess wealth to saving this planet, stopping pollution, and creating societies where "few have too much and fewer too little" (the motto of the current Scandinavian model societies), with huge, well-educated, and prosperous middle classes that can float extremely successful capitalistic businesses while keeping the Social Democratic balance of ensuring the welfare of all citizens. In them, education and health care are human rights. America is the lone exception among modern developed nations, and its citizens and businesses are paying a heavy price for that greed. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I started the Rfc with the question 'Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer?'. The sources speak of Columbus both ways and the editors will decide which is correct. However, now in the article after Italian there is a note and an additional explanation: 'the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity'. By starting Rfc, I don't want to give legitimacy to that information if the editors decide to keep the current state because I don't know if this information is in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. In fact, this information is not part of my Rfc question so I don't know if I can check it on some noticeboard without violating neutrality? Mikola22 ( talk) 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please review this recent edit of yours? It removed the short description, added a redlinked category, and other changes not mentioned in your edit summary. Just wondering if the edit wasn't executed properly? -- DB1729 talk 20:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
You state on your userpage that I have an undisclosed single purpose account used to maintain privacy. Its work is completely unrelated to this account.
Per
WP:SOCKLEGIT and
WP:ALTACCN, you should consider notifying the Arbitration Committee about this account, if you haven't already; the latter policy also states that those who maintain single purpose accounts [...] are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so
. The reason I came across your account in the first place was due to a comment you made on a disruptive user's talk page about "chang[ing]... the established truth" on Wikipedia, so you'll have to forgive me if I have some questions as to the nature of your SPA in light of that - of course, you don't have to answer to me personally as I am not an arb and have no interest in the private matters of editors, although I would politely suggest that you do make a declaration to the Committee.
Patient Zero
talk 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey, here's a belated apology–– I didn't mean to malign your work on Logical form (linguistics). I just saw references turning into "citation needed" tags and assumed something was going wrong. I can help repair the others at some point, though honestly that article could use a thorough rewrite. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Thank you for all you do to clean up references across the project, and apologies you've had to clean up after me a few times now at Charlemagne. Consequences of late-night editing, and I'll endeavor to quadruple-check to make sure all is right with reference formatting. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 21:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hi there, I've just noticed that you archived the discussion on AJ English on the RSN. While I agree that there was no consensus, about 50% of the editors believed AJ is unreliable for the conflict, with plenty of backing information. Does that mean that the AJE should be normally marked as reliable with no comment whatsoever? What is the solution in this case? Bar Harel ( talk) 09:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned news organization considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.
Hi, I disagree with the added words in this edit. In 6 months, I never seen a off-topic discussion in RSN, just misguided ones about biases. I think the added note takes away attention from the more important note about RfCs. In case of an off-topic discussion, a link to WP:NOTFORUM is a possibility. Ca talk to me! 05:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This should work. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/wbr Polygnotus ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I saw your reversion of my edit to this article. Please explain further – I don't think you're correct. Both the comma and the "b" cause date formatting errors that result in the article appearing on the the list at Category:CS1 errors: dates for correction, and even though the title appears in ALLCAPS in its source, it should be reduced to title case according to Wikipedia's style manual at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#All caps.
Ira
Ira Leviton ( talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You asked why [2], this is why [3]. Messing with broad organization like that in an active discussion is going to create EC friction, I wouldn't be shocked about it in the future and its probably happened hundreds of time before you just haven't noticed. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
I find the idea of trimming down on headers pretty good, and I've already done some work on it (NPOVN, FTN and Resource Exchange). Is there any other area where you think that such changes may be warranted? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 17:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for sorting out the tangle of editions, dates and page numbers used in the Caligula article. Barrett produced several near-identical versions of his '89 original, then a more drastic re-evalution, using old and new material in paper and online versions. Another editor has been using the '89 edition plus some changes (several and all highly significant and I've been using the much more recently published second, more heavily revised online edition. I'll keep an eye out for any further difficulties with the sources. Thanks again, Haploidavey ( talk) 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Do check the talk page of Battle of Aror, the problem is still not resolved. A user randomly came, removed some cited information and added another cited information which contradicts earlier info, and even though the noticeboard accepted the reliability, the user continued removing it claiming him/herself it is not reliable. Not to involve in edit warring, I kept myself away from adding the source again and used talk page. The reliability reviewer said that "Take it up at ANI or some other dramaboard. This is no longer a RSN issue, it's editor conduct." and surprisingly when I took that to ANI, they said the discussion is going on, so finish it first. They made that comment because you have involved there by making a comment related to AGEMATTERS and the un reliability of Cambridge source because it is outdated. I agreed to it and listed multiple modern sources for that information. Please solve the issue or it will affect the faith of readers of Wikipedia seeing different data being displayed within some matter of time, and for me I felt like edit warring really worked here. Imperial [AFCND] 05:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello ActivelyDisinterested, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Ca talk to me! 16:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I must have annoyed you with those errors due to my edits, I often forget about refs, my apologies. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted that because your changing it when the article is still be written. That format is the the only way to view all the images that need to go into the article, in that densitity. It may be a bit error'd at the moment but it will get fixed. But that format you put it into, is entirely unsuitable for this article, that gallery are junk. Don't revert it. If its need slimmed, post to the talk page. scope_creep Talk 22:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ActivelyDisinterested! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 15:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
User:A.S. Brown
User talk:A.S. Brown is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks for this fix. I committed that error six months ago [4] and it has gone unnoticed since then. Merry Xmas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The DYK was not a bot error. I asked admin to do that, because we all had to make a big effort, and promptly, to prevent the article from being deleted on the grounds of notability. In my opinion, in this case, all edits counted, including single edits. If you want to be modest about it, that is your choice, but please know that your effort did make a difference, and was appreciated. Cheers. Storye book ( talk) 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey you! Are you ready for the holidays? I am getting there... very slowly. I am hoping you have time in spite of all the holiday partying to answer a question for me. There is a notice that comes up that says there are problems in some of my cite journal refs, but I can't see them. How do I identify them and get rid of that notification? It is not welcome to stay at my house for Christmas! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-hidden-error {display: inline;} /* display hidden Citation Style 1 error messages */
So I appreciated you showing up and fixing those changes on HofC. They weren't mine. Another editor is going through the sources which I am very, very grateful for but it does give me more confidence to know that you are keeping an eye on what they are doing. Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
User-talk might be more efficient for getting past this impasse. Can you help me understand what your objection is, to exactly what wording, and on exactly what basis/bases? "Agree to disagree" doesn't really work when someone has erected a vague stonewall but will neither clearly explain their point nor budge from their stance. I'm trying to find a substantive rationale in "is[n't] necessary" and your earlier "dislike". These seem to resolve to purely subjective "I don't like it" feelings. I've presented a rather detailed syntactical analysis (more than once) of what is provably wrong with the original construction of the opening sentence. Fixing it is trivial copy-editing that makes no substantive change to the intended meaning (or the predominant interpretation) of the material. No one has presented a counter-analysis showing that my analysis is incorrect. We can invite people from WT:LINGUISTICS to check my work if you want to.
People have repeatedly used the inclarity to wikilawyer that the meaning of the rule is that a self-published source can only be used for a claim about that source (publication) not about the author of the source, and this is clearly (by broad consensus) not the meaning of the policy (indeed, the original point of it was the use of a self-published source for a non-controversial statement about the author of the source). But "publication only" is what the original sentence implies because of its confused structure. That is to say, "isn't necessary" is demonstrably not accurate; any time a policy can be easily wikilawyered due to wording inclarity, it needs to be repaired. The simple and obvious way to patch that crack forever is to fix the syntax errors in the sentence – something that comes at no cost of any kind.
There is no WP:CREEP in this at all. Maybe it's been a long time since you read that page.
We can go over it in detail:
|
---|
So, please tell me where you think the CREEP essay is somehow being failed. Then why following your own interpretation of an essay is more important than one of our core content policies actually making sense (and making the same sense to everyone who reads it). |
CREEP does not mean "never change old wording". It does not mean "never make a sentence clearer if the sentence would end up slightly longer". It does not mean "never add a clarification to something confusing or misinterpreted".
CREEP does mean don't add new rules, or over-complicate existing rules, in ways that we do not need. We do need clarity, that clarity removes complications, and nothing at all in this is any kind of new rule.
Hell, I wrote an essay about instruction creep myself at WP:AJR, and contributed a lot to another, at WP:MOSBLOAT. Most of what I do at WT:MOS and related pages is head off people trying to add new pet-peeve rules, or complicated alleged "exceptions" to existing rules, to suit their personal writing preferences. I am in no way your enemy on such concerns. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello dear heart, I hope you had a wonderful holiday as I am putting you back to work immediately!! My references at History of Christianity were in two columns at one time, and I can't find when or how they were changed back to one. There are too many for one column I think. What do I need to type in to change to two columns? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the help, starting out can be difficult :) FortunateSons ( talk) 23:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The Kirby reference published in 1967 is not the reference that I want to put into the article. The hardcover book that I wish to reference was published in 2012 to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the Britannia Yacht Club; this book has an extensive section on the construction of the main and inner harbours with many pictures. Google Books makes reference to this book at: https://books.google.ca/books/about/Britannia_Yacht_Club.html?id=ndlfzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
I would appreciate if you could put the correct reference back into the article, i.e. Britannia Yacht Club, A History of Water, Place and People, 1887 - 2012. Britannia Yacht Club, 72p, 2013 (pages 25 - 31).
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Reichert Robert Neustadter ( talk) 14:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you fix a citation at Demon Attack for me. How do I enable this error message so I can catch it myself? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
.harv-error {display: inline !important;} /* display Module:Footnotes errors */
mw.loader.load( '/?title=User:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // Backlink: [[User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js]]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
You mistaken Roman Warszawski with Roman Warszewski. Warszewski is other person and does not resemble Warszawski from a photo The Wolak ( talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I have been mulling over your edit [1] to references where Antony Beevor was the author. I have found quite a few other articles where short form references do not seem to point to the right work. The most obvious clue is if the page number is higher than the number of pages in the book. Others are simply perplexing, but are either citing the wrong reference or the wrong page. I think the instance we have seen here is a mechanism as to how this happens. The target work does not end up in the bibliography. If there is another reference by the same author, a correcting editor assumes that the short form ref has the wrong date in it, and changes it. From experience, sorting out exactly what reference is intended – some time after the event – is a substantial puzzle, especially with a prolific author. It is even time consuming to fix if you have one work in two different editions, one of which has some extra material which messes up the page numbering.
First step to stop this problem is for people like me to check that sfn references are actually working before moving on to something else.
A second level of protection from this is hard to recommend. In an ideal world, no-one would edit existing text without its references to hand. In many cases that is an unrealistic expectation. Antony Beevor is someone who has his major publications listed here in Wikipedia – looking up publishers' websites is not a complete answer as many academic authors use more than one publisher – but even then that would not help to identify the 2014 published work in this case, as that is the paperback version of the 2012 hardback edition. (Since page numbers can differ, identifying the correct edition is important.)
It seems to me that a high level of caution is needed by a correcting editor who alters the year of a cited work in a short form reference. With a recent edit, the editor who created the problem can be identified and contacted (whilst they still remember what they intended). With older errors, it may be better to flag the discrepancy on the article talk page in the hope that a subject expert will take up the matter.
Perhaps it is just the type of articles in which I do most of my editing (small numbers of published experts, each with several publications), but I see this as a big problem in ensuring verifiability of Wikipedia articles. That is why I tend to avoid short form references as the full citebook template is more resistant to hard-to-correct errors (if you have an ISBN in each inline citation, you can normally identify the correct work).
Sorry to ramble on about this subject. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Mpnader ( talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi mate, May I ask you to help me with grammatical correction in Battle of Kiev (1941) article? I'm somewhat inexperienced in writing work to English in Wikipedia. If you are not willing yourself, Would you please recommend someone else for this work? Thanks in advance! Mpnader ( talk) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Are you going to chase other editors away from like you tried with me here? The fact that I had already left the discussion doesn't justify you chipping in. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that. My prior edit in the caption of the image was reverted, so I added the text to the subsection instead, forgetting about the wrong year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Two years and only 8,000 articles with no target errors left to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 22:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello dear one, I have a question. On History of Christianity , the early modern period, the trial of Galileo, I want to add a reference that goes back to an earlier place in the same article: History of Christianity#Roots of scientific revolution. I've tried every way I can think of, plus I haven't been able to readily find the WP rule. So I am taking the lazy way out and just asking the teacher. :-) How the heck is referencing a section in a WP article properly done please sir? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads-up, that you will start to notice harv/sfn warnings for the "no link pointing to this citation" case that are already whitelisted in situ. (For starters, at Ships of ancient Rome, possibly others.) I haven't investigated yet, but just thinking about it I think I know why it's happening, and if I'm not wrong, it's related to {{ harvc}}/{{ citec}} and no amount of whitelisting will fix it; it will require a change to the script. I have to run out, but will get to it eventually; in the meantime, don't waste time tracking any of these at Ships of ancient Rome, or other articles, if you happen to see that the {{ citec}} template is involved. Cheers, Mathglot ( talk) 23:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello ActivelyDisinterested,
I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.
The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.
If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.
Thank you for your consideration.
--- Jonathan at CornellNLP ( talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
What does it stand for? Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Ahh! Now I get it. Interesting for science fiction, but for me it's irrelevant as I don't see civilization surviving for much longer than this century as we descend into vast chaos because of climate change. Some will survive, but at what cost? Only the wealthy will be able to protect themselves, and only by keeping slaves to work and produce for them. Capitalism as a functioning system will collapse as there will be no working class that can afford to be consumers. Capitalism requires a consumer base. Extreme vulture greed-driven capitalism will indeed survive by using slaves. I'm sure there are types of science fiction that describe these future scenarios, and as we've seen in the past, they soon cease to be "fiction" but become harsh realities. I doubt our planet and societies will be able to advance to the space exploration stages envisioned by many science fiction writers. Only the extremely wealthy will be able to protect themselves from the extreme heat, pollution, and noxious fumes from rotting oceans.
Our best bet is to devote all excess wealth to saving this planet, stopping pollution, and creating societies where "few have too much and fewer too little" (the motto of the current Scandinavian model societies), with huge, well-educated, and prosperous middle classes that can float extremely successful capitalistic businesses while keeping the Social Democratic balance of ensuring the welfare of all citizens. In them, education and health care are human rights. America is the lone exception among modern developed nations, and its citizens and businesses are paying a heavy price for that greed. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I started the Rfc with the question 'Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer?'. The sources speak of Columbus both ways and the editors will decide which is correct. However, now in the article after Italian there is a note and an additional explanation: 'the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity'. By starting Rfc, I don't want to give legitimacy to that information if the editors decide to keep the current state because I don't know if this information is in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. In fact, this information is not part of my Rfc question so I don't know if I can check it on some noticeboard without violating neutrality? Mikola22 ( talk) 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please review this recent edit of yours? It removed the short description, added a redlinked category, and other changes not mentioned in your edit summary. Just wondering if the edit wasn't executed properly? -- DB1729 talk 20:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
You state on your userpage that I have an undisclosed single purpose account used to maintain privacy. Its work is completely unrelated to this account.
Per
WP:SOCKLEGIT and
WP:ALTACCN, you should consider notifying the Arbitration Committee about this account, if you haven't already; the latter policy also states that those who maintain single purpose accounts [...] are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so
. The reason I came across your account in the first place was due to a comment you made on a disruptive user's talk page about "chang[ing]... the established truth" on Wikipedia, so you'll have to forgive me if I have some questions as to the nature of your SPA in light of that - of course, you don't have to answer to me personally as I am not an arb and have no interest in the private matters of editors, although I would politely suggest that you do make a declaration to the Committee.
Patient Zero
talk 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey, here's a belated apology–– I didn't mean to malign your work on Logical form (linguistics). I just saw references turning into "citation needed" tags and assumed something was going wrong. I can help repair the others at some point, though honestly that article could use a thorough rewrite. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Thank you for all you do to clean up references across the project, and apologies you've had to clean up after me a few times now at Charlemagne. Consequences of late-night editing, and I'll endeavor to quadruple-check to make sure all is right with reference formatting. Seltaeb Eht ( talk) 21:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hi there, I've just noticed that you archived the discussion on AJ English on the RSN. While I agree that there was no consensus, about 50% of the editors believed AJ is unreliable for the conflict, with plenty of backing information. Does that mean that the AJE should be normally marked as reliable with no comment whatsoever? What is the solution in this case? Bar Harel ( talk) 09:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned news organization considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.
Hi, I disagree with the added words in this edit. In 6 months, I never seen a off-topic discussion in RSN, just misguided ones about biases. I think the added note takes away attention from the more important note about RfCs. In case of an off-topic discussion, a link to WP:NOTFORUM is a possibility. Ca talk to me! 05:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This should work. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/wbr Polygnotus ( talk) 23:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I saw your reversion of my edit to this article. Please explain further – I don't think you're correct. Both the comma and the "b" cause date formatting errors that result in the article appearing on the the list at Category:CS1 errors: dates for correction, and even though the title appears in ALLCAPS in its source, it should be reduced to title case according to Wikipedia's style manual at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#All caps.
Ira
Ira Leviton ( talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You asked why [2], this is why [3]. Messing with broad organization like that in an active discussion is going to create EC friction, I wouldn't be shocked about it in the future and its probably happened hundreds of time before you just haven't noticed. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
I find the idea of trimming down on headers pretty good, and I've already done some work on it (NPOVN, FTN and Resource Exchange). Is there any other area where you think that such changes may be warranted? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 17:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for sorting out the tangle of editions, dates and page numbers used in the Caligula article. Barrett produced several near-identical versions of his '89 original, then a more drastic re-evalution, using old and new material in paper and online versions. Another editor has been using the '89 edition plus some changes (several and all highly significant and I've been using the much more recently published second, more heavily revised online edition. I'll keep an eye out for any further difficulties with the sources. Thanks again, Haploidavey ( talk) 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Do check the talk page of Battle of Aror, the problem is still not resolved. A user randomly came, removed some cited information and added another cited information which contradicts earlier info, and even though the noticeboard accepted the reliability, the user continued removing it claiming him/herself it is not reliable. Not to involve in edit warring, I kept myself away from adding the source again and used talk page. The reliability reviewer said that "Take it up at ANI or some other dramaboard. This is no longer a RSN issue, it's editor conduct." and surprisingly when I took that to ANI, they said the discussion is going on, so finish it first. They made that comment because you have involved there by making a comment related to AGEMATTERS and the un reliability of Cambridge source because it is outdated. I agreed to it and listed multiple modern sources for that information. Please solve the issue or it will affect the faith of readers of Wikipedia seeing different data being displayed within some matter of time, and for me I felt like edit warring really worked here. Imperial [AFCND] 05:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello ActivelyDisinterested, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Ca talk to me! 16:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I must have annoyed you with those errors due to my edits, I often forget about refs, my apologies. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted that because your changing it when the article is still be written. That format is the the only way to view all the images that need to go into the article, in that densitity. It may be a bit error'd at the moment but it will get fixed. But that format you put it into, is entirely unsuitable for this article, that gallery are junk. Don't revert it. If its need slimmed, post to the talk page. scope_creep Talk 22:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, ActivelyDisinterested! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 15:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 15:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
User:A.S. Brown
User talk:A.S. Brown is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Xmas,
Eid,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks for this fix. I committed that error six months ago [4] and it has gone unnoticed since then. Merry Xmas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The DYK was not a bot error. I asked admin to do that, because we all had to make a big effort, and promptly, to prevent the article from being deleted on the grounds of notability. In my opinion, in this case, all edits counted, including single edits. If you want to be modest about it, that is your choice, but please know that your effort did make a difference, and was appreciated. Cheers. Storye book ( talk) 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey you! Are you ready for the holidays? I am getting there... very slowly. I am hoping you have time in spite of all the holiday partying to answer a question for me. There is a notice that comes up that says there are problems in some of my cite journal refs, but I can't see them. How do I identify them and get rid of that notification? It is not welcome to stay at my house for Christmas! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 03:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-hidden-error {display: inline;} /* display hidden Citation Style 1 error messages */
So I appreciated you showing up and fixing those changes on HofC. They weren't mine. Another editor is going through the sources which I am very, very grateful for but it does give me more confidence to know that you are keeping an eye on what they are doing. Thank you! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
User-talk might be more efficient for getting past this impasse. Can you help me understand what your objection is, to exactly what wording, and on exactly what basis/bases? "Agree to disagree" doesn't really work when someone has erected a vague stonewall but will neither clearly explain their point nor budge from their stance. I'm trying to find a substantive rationale in "is[n't] necessary" and your earlier "dislike". These seem to resolve to purely subjective "I don't like it" feelings. I've presented a rather detailed syntactical analysis (more than once) of what is provably wrong with the original construction of the opening sentence. Fixing it is trivial copy-editing that makes no substantive change to the intended meaning (or the predominant interpretation) of the material. No one has presented a counter-analysis showing that my analysis is incorrect. We can invite people from WT:LINGUISTICS to check my work if you want to.
People have repeatedly used the inclarity to wikilawyer that the meaning of the rule is that a self-published source can only be used for a claim about that source (publication) not about the author of the source, and this is clearly (by broad consensus) not the meaning of the policy (indeed, the original point of it was the use of a self-published source for a non-controversial statement about the author of the source). But "publication only" is what the original sentence implies because of its confused structure. That is to say, "isn't necessary" is demonstrably not accurate; any time a policy can be easily wikilawyered due to wording inclarity, it needs to be repaired. The simple and obvious way to patch that crack forever is to fix the syntax errors in the sentence – something that comes at no cost of any kind.
There is no WP:CREEP in this at all. Maybe it's been a long time since you read that page.
We can go over it in detail:
|
---|
So, please tell me where you think the CREEP essay is somehow being failed. Then why following your own interpretation of an essay is more important than one of our core content policies actually making sense (and making the same sense to everyone who reads it). |
CREEP does not mean "never change old wording". It does not mean "never make a sentence clearer if the sentence would end up slightly longer". It does not mean "never add a clarification to something confusing or misinterpreted".
CREEP does mean don't add new rules, or over-complicate existing rules, in ways that we do not need. We do need clarity, that clarity removes complications, and nothing at all in this is any kind of new rule.
Hell, I wrote an essay about instruction creep myself at WP:AJR, and contributed a lot to another, at WP:MOSBLOAT. Most of what I do at WT:MOS and related pages is head off people trying to add new pet-peeve rules, or complicated alleged "exceptions" to existing rules, to suit their personal writing preferences. I am in no way your enemy on such concerns. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello dear heart, I hope you had a wonderful holiday as I am putting you back to work immediately!! My references at History of Christianity were in two columns at one time, and I can't find when or how they were changed back to one. There are too many for one column I think. What do I need to type in to change to two columns? Jenhawk777 ( talk) 08:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the help, starting out can be difficult :) FortunateSons ( talk) 23:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The Kirby reference published in 1967 is not the reference that I want to put into the article. The hardcover book that I wish to reference was published in 2012 to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the Britannia Yacht Club; this book has an extensive section on the construction of the main and inner harbours with many pictures. Google Books makes reference to this book at: https://books.google.ca/books/about/Britannia_Yacht_Club.html?id=ndlfzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
I would appreciate if you could put the correct reference back into the article, i.e. Britannia Yacht Club, A History of Water, Place and People, 1887 - 2012. Britannia Yacht Club, 72p, 2013 (pages 25 - 31).
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Reichert Robert Neustadter ( talk) 14:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you fix a citation at Demon Attack for me. How do I enable this error message so I can catch it myself? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
.harv-error {display: inline !important;} /* display Module:Footnotes errors */
mw.loader.load( '/?title=User:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // Backlink: [[User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js]]