User talk:Srich32977/Archive 26
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Srich32977. 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 |
Please fix the part of your script or editing method that changes page ranges incorrectly
This edit changed page ranges incorrectly. See MOS:NUMRANGE, which explains that number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between, e.g. pp. 1902–1911 or entries 342–349.
You have been asked multiple times to fix this error in your editing, but you continue to make this error.
I don't think any of us, including you, want to be involved in the drama that a proposed block would entail, so please just fix your script or editing method. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: You fail to note that WP:MOS favors consistency in citations. "MoS presents Wikipedia's house style to assist its volunteer editors write and maintain articles with precise and consistent language, layout, and formatting. ... Where more than one style or format is acceptable under MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason." Also, the Chicago Manual of Style is an accepted MOS. Your roll-backs are disruptive in that they re-introduce errors. If you want to improve articles, simply fix the particular page range citations to suit your own favorite method. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Also look at WP:CITEVAR. When I see a mix of page-range citations, I go (more or less) with the range style in the majority. When the pp. 123–45 style exists, I will go for it, and change pp. 123–4 cites to pp. 123–24. That method is a bit easier than doing pp. 123–124. In all such gnomish efforts, consistency is re result. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)!
- CITEVAR appears to give deference to an originally-consistent style, from which later edits diverge. Sailing stones originally used full numbers. {{cite journal}} and friends do not appear to use the Chicago standard for field order, so using "Chicago page numbers in non-Chicago field order" is explicitly a mixed style. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I'm not clear on what you mean. The Sailing stones link you provided has hyphens and single "p."s for the page abbreviation. The current version does not use "p."s. (Except for the 1997 Messina cite.) Changing the page ranges from 123-124 to 123–124 was proper. The present Further reading section has 6 items. Three are done with templates, which omit the "p."s when rendered. If the 3 manual citations were converted to templates then the 1997 Messina cite would omit the "pp.". But that is an effort which demands more brain-power. Regarding, "Mommy, I have to ..." – did the child say "pee" or "pp."? I scanned WP:CS and I see "p. 123" is the only example. "p. 123–124" is not given, nor is "pp. 123–124". BUT in Template:Cite book we find that "p. x" is rendered when one page is given. And "pp. 12–13" is rendered when multiple pages are given. SO, AGAIN, my effort has been to provide a consistent page-range style. E.g., "p. 12" and "pp. 123–132" (or whatever) for the multi-page cites. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- CITEVAR appears to give deference to an originally-consistent style, from which later edits diverge. Sailing stones originally used full numbers. {{cite journal}} and friends do not appear to use the Chicago standard for field order, so using "Chicago page numbers in non-Chicago field order" is explicitly a mixed style. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Srich32977, your claims are arrant nonsense. Your edit to DDT made the page-numbering style less, not more, consistent, and contravened MOS:NUMRANGE. You have been asked by multiple editors to stop these disruptive edits. I have been on your side in the past, and even coached you and praised you for good edits, since many of your minor edits are improvements. Unfortunately, your page range and MOS:POSTADDR errors are simply that, errors, and you need to stop making them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- "MOS:POSTADDR" what's that? – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Srich32977, your claims are arrant nonsense. Your edit to DDT made the page-numbering style less, not more, consistent, and contravened MOS:NUMRANGE. You have been asked by multiple editors to stop these disruptive edits. I have been on your side in the past, and even coached you and praised you for good edits, since many of your minor edits are improvements. Unfortunately, your page range and MOS:POSTADDR errors are simply that, errors, and you need to stop making them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I just did an edit on United States raw milk debate. See: [1]. Some of the edits were done via the citation bot, some by auto-ed, and the rest were all on my own. Please look at the page-range changes. How well did the article comply with NUMRANGE before I did my edit? Was there consistency before my effort? And now how does "my version" compare? (I think I made improvements.) So I ask you – if I edited and achieved a consistent Chicago Manual of Style compliant layout, would you complain? And what would your complaint be? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- That article has a diverse mix of citation styles, including Vancouver, CS1, comma-separated elements, and probably other styles. Your edits appear to have improved the compliance of that article's citations with MOS:NUMRANGE, and you avoided messing with tricky possible false positives like "Number 404-228". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Take a look
at Leonard Leo. A lot of new content was just added and I'd appreciate your thoughts. Marquardtika (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Lauri Torni, German, American.
I think we should add that out of respect for his service in the respective militaries regardless of birthplace, and previous service. The corroboration that is supporting him having a U.S citizen is his stature as an officer, Which can only be given to Citizens. And despite the S.S being controversial, Lauri Torni Did fought for Germany. I'm not adding German-American but German and American. I added different links to both words 'German' and 'American'. I'd appreciate if you'd do that as we've got to respect those who've fought for our country. They are who represent 'The U.S'. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jack Morales Garcia: Thank you Jack. I'll get back to you tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jack Morales Garcia: J. Michael Cleverly, in his A Scent of Glory says "Eventually, Slavs, Moslems, Indians, and other Asiatics joined those from all over Europe in the various units of the Waffen SS." (page 74. ISBN 9607663489. From this we can say these joiners did not become German-Slavs, German-Indians, German-Moslems, etc. In other words, they did not become "hyphenated Germans" simply because they signed up. Also we do not know what the citizenship requirements were to become an officer in the Waffen SS. Just because some armed forces require citizenship of their officers (like in the US), we cannot assume that other armed forces do the same. In Thorne's history we know he petitioned for US Citizenship on 1/27/1954 and started US Army basic training on 1/28/1954. He got his citizenship in 1955. He became a US Army officer in 1957 via OCS. I hope this history answers your concerns. Thank. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well at least add an 'American'term. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
ISBN stuff
Hey, I found your edit here to be somewhat odd; you added an equals sign to an ISBN making it incorrect, and you removed hyphenation from a correctly-hyphenated ISBN in the same edit. It's not a big deal, but I figured I'd flag those for you as undesirable changes. If that's part of a script you're using, you should double-check that script's output before submitting edits. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. The = sign was a fat finger mistake. The hyphens in ISBNs really don't matter. When you look at WorldCat or Amazon you see books listed without hyphens. The magic ISBN template automatically links to a sources page. Hyphens in ISBNs were once useful for people using pen/pencil & paper to copy down ISBNs, but who uses those tools anymore? – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC) ALSO, one ISBN in the article was unhyphenated, the other not. I was doing a compromise with a hyphen in the ISBN-13 entry. 18:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
November
 |
Thank you for article work in November! Look today at BB music, a little crusade of mine ;) - his birthday on St Cecilia's day, patron saint of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Your recent edits to the 'Deaths in [month] [year] list articles
Hi,
I noticed that you recently made changes to 4 deaths lists using the 'AutoEd'-tool:
1,
2,
3,
4.
Is there a particular reason why you added spaces to the bullet list markup? ('* [[' instead of '*[[')
The reason I ask is I cannot find any standards about (bullet) list markup styles. Moreover it seriously interferes with my maintenance tooling I developed for this type of death lists.
I manually need to remove those spaces from the articles for my tooling to work so I want to ask you to change your script or not to apply your script to the 'Deaths in [month] [year]-list articles (at least not to the ones up to Deaths in January 2006.
Kind regards, Mill 1 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mill 1: the Autoed script adds the spaces to the bullets. Per WP:AutoEd#Basic the spaces "allow automated screen readers discern list markup". I'll avoid Autoed in such death list articles. My bigger objective is to get rid of arlingtoncemetery.net links as they are SPS items with lots of WP:LINKVIO. Please look at the WP:RSNB for more info. – S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: Thank you for your reply. Mill 1 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: Just a quick update: I scanned all death list articles for 'arlingtoncemetery.net' references using this query. I found two (in September 2001 en December 2003) and have replaced them so you don't need to worry about the death list anymore. 1764 to go! Tip regarding insource queries: if you add a text (my example: "Deaths in ") to the insource query, the execution of it take a lot less time. Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: Thank you for your reply. Mill 1 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Trump Demagogue RFC
I don't think you were allowed to close the RFC since you voted. I started a section on the demagogue talk page about the closure and a user told me to contact you on your talk page. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters
- @SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters, Beyond My Ken, and Michael Bednarek: Quite correct, I should not have closed it because I opined in that RfC. But that egregious error is moot. In any event there are a few issues that deserve comment: 1. If I had not "!voted" in that RfC I would have closed it and given the same result. E.g., Trump as a demagogue has not been listed in the article because the examples are historical in nature. (This saves WP from being a WP:BATTLEGROUND for or against Trump and/or Trumpism.) 2. That RfC had been open for three months. I pointed out that the issue might disappear in 2 weeks. (It seems that Trump as a demagogue was not validated in the election or by the Electoral College. I closed the RfC knowing that his legacy would be discussed in light of the election results.) 3. Since the January 6 coupé failed it shows that WP:NOTNEWS is even more important to keeping WP encyclopedic. As post-inauguration events unfold this WP:POLICY will continue as a vital concept for us to follow – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Srich, that response is nonsense from start to finish. And FYI I say this notwithstanding that I agree Trump should not be cited in that article. @SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters:, you can request a closure review at WP:AN, as Srich could have told you. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Srich closed the discussion about the improperly closed RFC and said do a new RFC. I will start a new RFC so that aspect will be taken care of. Thanks for your help. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Srich I very much appreciate all you have done for Wikipedia but it's a bit disconcerting that such an experienced and prolific editor would be so cavalier. WP:POLICY doesn't just apply when it's convenient. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO Srich closed the discussion about the improperly closed RFC and said do a new RFC. I will start a new RFC so that aspect will be taken care of. Thanks for your help. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Tahquitz (disambiguation)
Since you have previously updated a related article, you might be interested in knowing there is a discussion regarding the Tahquitz (disambiguation) page. The discussion is at Talk:Tahquitz (disambiguation). OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
...for acknowledging my little communication. I was prepared to be all pissed off at you but for some reason I haven't the heart. But please do be more careful in future. When you see a well-developed article that consistently does something in a certain way, it's best to consider the possibility that it's that way for a reason, and think twice before changing it. EEng 18:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Removal of source for notable in list
This edit removed a source for a notable listed in the article for New Hanover Township, New Jersey with the edit summary "ref (especially non-RS) not needed because his own article has/should have proper refs". My read of WP:LISTVERIFY would seem to indicate that all notables in lists like this should have a source, regardless of the fact that it's also required to be the source for the individual. If the question is the reliability of the source, why not fix it per WP:PRESERVE and add a better source? Alansohn (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Alansohn: The list guidance you cite is for list articles, not lists we find within articles. For New Hanover we can name Godrey as a notable native, and omit any inline referencing. His native son status should be in his article, and supported by proper references. Re the AC dot net reference, I've been going through the several hundred WP articles that use it. In the vast majority of cases the website is reprinting from different sources without attribution. We cannot WP:V the info presented. Its a bit sad because Patterson has done a remarkable job with photos and research. But he's still a self-published source. (Also, the website has not had any editing for over 10 years.) Regarding PRESERVE, there is no problem to "preserve" in the Township article because removal of the cite IS the solution. And the AC dot net link is preserved in the Godfrey article as an external link. We are not using it in the text to verify anything. (I hope this explains my editing.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- An editor can add anybody to any article. No reader should be forced to search through the original article to see if the person really belongs there, where in a standalone list or a list inside an article, as is the case here. Once you remove the source, the material is unsourced, plain and simple, and WP:V requires removal. If the source is unreliable, remove the entry or fix it, as required by WP:PRESERVE; if there's a better source in the persons article, then add it. Your response explains why you made your edit; it doesn't justify it. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Alansohn: Does my latest edit work for you? My goal is make sure AC dot not is not seen as an official ANC website. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've added a source from the National Park Service to the New Hanover Township article for Godfrey's list entry that should meet anyone's standard. I'm not sure that so many efforts to impugn the "AC dot net" source are justified if the only objective is to be clear that the site is unaffiliated with Arlington National Cemetery. I'd say it's overkill if it's a legitimate reliable source; if it's totally unacceptable, the sources should be removed *AND* replaced (where another source isn't already present). I looked at the article for Godfrey, and it appears that there is no source in the article now that establishes a connection to Cookstown / New Hanover Township. Am I missing something there? Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Alansohn: Does my latest edit work for you? My goal is make sure AC dot not is not seen as an official ANC website. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- An editor can add anybody to any article. No reader should be forced to search through the original article to see if the person really belongs there, where in a standalone list or a list inside an article, as is the case here. Once you remove the source, the material is unsourced, plain and simple, and WP:V requires removal. If the source is unreliable, remove the entry or fix it, as required by WP:PRESERVE; if there's a better source in the persons article, then add it. Your response explains why you made your edit; it doesn't justify it. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hope for 2021
 |
Thank you for improving article quality in December, and good wishes for a time of transition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Have a good new year 2021! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I tried to give 2021 a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct, - did you know that - at three years - you belong to the project's "older" active members? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Korean drama
Why you change the ratings on Korean drama like that? are you see the references from AGB Nielsen website? the numbers written on that website is three numbers behind decimal. If you doing like that, there's some dramas became same rating when in fact it is not.
Sonoma County Historical Society List of Historical Landmarks
Please see the talk on this page regarding cemeteries. Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- emaciation of article
- While the moving of this list from the List of cemeteries in California to the List of cemeteries in Sonoma County, California article may certainly be a good one, what the editor failed to tell us is that in doing so, about 45 cemeteries were eliminated. The concept of including all cemeteries so that this can be a useful reference has been discussed in the original talk page and on this talk page. Secretly stripping out 1/3 of the cemetery information for the County makes this Wikipedia article just about useless. I had been promoting Wikipedia as the go-to place for research on County cemeteries and landmarks, but it seems Wikipedia editors do not want this online encyclopedia to be comprehensive. The elimination of the Healdsburg Designated Historic Structures list article leaves a HUGE HOLE for anyone looking for historic landmarks in the County -- the formal establishment of the sites by the City of Healdsburg has been there since the article was first started. The Wikipedia editors' ripping out Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts landmarks 178 to 192 further makes Wikipedia almost useless. When this article was started, it began with the California Historical Landmarks and then was expanded and built over time. (That was not my work.) The full list could be developed, photos could be added, newspaper articles could be linked, language such as "most-important" could be refined to the actual words from the City -- "historically-significant," that sort of thing. What happened to that collegiality? Wikipedia has great features such as the internal links and referencing which should make Wikipedia partners with local historical communities. It seems Wikipedia editors want those interested in comprehensive list articles to get off Wikipedia. I'll turn my attention to learning WIX and avoiding Wikipedia.MikeVdP (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Ranges in short descriptions
I have not see this sort of change to short descriptions. Most bios on my watchlist do not do so. Is this a new thing, or something that you are trying to apply across bios? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: WP:SDDATES says "The inclusion of a date or date range is encouraged where it would improve the short description as a disambiguation, or enhance it as a descriptive annotation." Sooner or later readers will be looking to see what Carman (singer) is doing. Since he's no longer moving about in contemporary society his YOB–YOD is appropriate, and more informative in the short description. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's not even a guideline. I'm not sure how adding it here helps "as a disambiguation, or enhance it as a descriptive annotation" as the case with Carman, his role as a musician is the key, not the duration of his life. I won't stand in the way of the change, but removing the genre is certainly not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ...
 |
... for improving articles in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| thanks for keeping wiki factual and vandal-free! Alibino (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC) |
Speedy tag on old user page
Please excuse my rollback of your tag without an edit summary, the page was crashing my browser when I tried to edit it. User:Od Mishehu/stub tags was created in 2014 and the block was in 2019, so it wasn't created contrary to a block or ban. Fences&Windows 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Fences and windows: No problem on the rollback. But how do we get rid of the useless clutter? (It pops up on the template indexing pages.) Perhaps by a G6 tag? – S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Fences and windows: Never mind. No one looks at the page. I just went ahead and blanked it. – S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered what the issue was. Good solution. I would've probably IAR deleted it if I'd known the reason. Fences&Windows 23:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:RANGE concern, again
Please stop disruptively breaking page ranges in contravention of MOS:RANGEMOS:NUMRANGE. Your talk page archives are full of requests for you to stop doing this; you know better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: – you failed to notice that the previous version had a mix of citation ranges. Some were in the the acceptable Chicago Manual of Style and some were not. I fixed those citations so that consistency was achieved. But you came along and left the article with a mix of citation styles. Okay, your anger at my "disobedience" may be a factor. In any event I've corrected the problem. Bottom line, your criticisms are ill-founded and annoying. – S. Rich (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Further, Jonesey95, here are the numbers: the article has 62 page cites with endashes in them. Twenty-two of them were in a "123–45" format. Four (or five) were in a "123–145" format. Also, your edit summary contained unneeded personal comments (WP:SUMMARYNO). 00:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing the page ranges per MOS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your edits bring editors' attention to the issue in their articles, which is a good thing, but your habit of enforcing consistency to the most common format in the article, rather than to the MOS, causes them extra work which creates the annoyance. Consistency is great, so is following the MOS and it would be even better if you could combine the two in one swoop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66:. You are mistaken. There is no WP "MOS". "... Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including ... The Chicago Manual of Style ..." (WP:CITESTYLE). In the example above I corrected errors in order to attain a consistent style. It was easier to remove 4 or 5 digits from the "123-145" citations rather than add digits to the twenty-two cites that were "123-45". I have received thanks for this correction. (I appreciate the thanks, but I have not received apologies for the disparaging comments directed at me.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nor will you as I believe you to be misguided in your efforts and unwilling to recognize your actions as such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Srich32977, are you seriously claiming that WP:MOS does not exist? I advise a wikibreak, or at least a trip around the block to get some fresh air. MOS:NUMRANGE is a section of an English Wikipedia guideline, a thing that exists, and it clearly says:
As with date ranges (see above), number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between, e.g. pp. 1902–1911 or entries 342–349. Except in quotations, avoid abbreviated forms such as 1901–11 and 342–9 as they are not understood universally, are sometimes ambiguous, and can cause inconsistent metadata to be created in citations.
That is as clear as can be, and your edits in contravention of it are disruptive. If you feel that descriptions of your disruptive edits are disparaging, you should probably examine your edits in light of this clear community guideline in order to determine why someone might think your edits are worthy of criticism. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)- Read what I quoted Jonesey95 and do not misconstrue. I quoted the portion of the MOS that pertains to citations. It says TCMOS is an acceptable MOS for citations in WP. And TCMOS says the tail numbers given should have two or more digits. The article had a mix of page ranges when I lookedat it. Some were full range and some partial. The article also had MOS:DASH and ALLCAPS errors. I fixed these errors and improved the consistency of the article. You came along and did a partial FULLRANGE fix, reintroduced the DASH & CAP errors, and left your snide comments. The problem is in WP:MOS – you want to read "should" as meaning "must", and ignore the goal of consistency. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Srich32977, are you seriously claiming that WP:MOS does not exist? I advise a wikibreak, or at least a trip around the block to get some fresh air. MOS:NUMRANGE is a section of an English Wikipedia guideline, a thing that exists, and it clearly says:
- Nor will you as I believe you to be misguided in your efforts and unwilling to recognize your actions as such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66:. You are mistaken. There is no WP "MOS". "... Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including ... The Chicago Manual of Style ..." (WP:CITESTYLE). In the example above I corrected errors in order to attain a consistent style. It was easier to remove 4 or 5 digits from the "123-145" citations rather than add digits to the twenty-two cites that were "123-45". I have received thanks for this correction. (I appreciate the thanks, but I have not received apologies for the disparaging comments directed at me.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your edits bring editors' attention to the issue in their articles, which is a good thing, but your habit of enforcing consistency to the most common format in the article, rather than to the MOS, causes them extra work which creates the annoyance. Consistency is great, so is following the MOS and it would be even better if you could combine the two in one swoop.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Murder A7s
Hi. I looked at your tagging of Murder of Jean-Pierre Renaud and Murder of Kevin Jiang, but I can't in good conscience delete either as A7, as there are citations to reliable sources (which also means G10 cannot apply). I've sent them to AfD instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Changes of Era designaters at Archaic period (North America)
I have reverted your changes of BC to BCE and AD to CE at Archaic period (North America) because that was counter to the Manual of Style guideline at MOS:ERA. The BC-AD style has been used in the article since it was created in 2004. I personally prefer the BCE-CE style, but since I use the MOS to justify reverting when users convert BCE-CE to BC-AD, I must also follow the guideline in this case. If you still want to change the Era style in this article, I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page and see if there is a consensus to do so. - Donald Albury 19:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Albury: BCE was in the short, so I was seeking consistency. Lately I've been following The Great Courses history lectures – the professors always use BCE-CE, as does the Smithsonian Institution. People from the Archaic period didn't know they were living Before Christ or in the Year of our Lord, so I think they would support a consensus that the style should be changed. Now if only I could get them to signup as WikiPedians the discussion would be easy! – S. Rich (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I really need help with editing
Hi I see that you have edited the List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought. Do you think that you could help me add some entries to missing person's lists? I have my hands completely full with editing and could really use some help, and would be very thankful to get any help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ...
 |
... for improving articles in March! On Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Passover
There have been numerous edits by Jaredscribe recently and while I was tracking down a problem edit, I made two discoveries. One is that this editor made the problem edit. The other is that the editor has been blocked in the past, so it's possible someone needs to look at the person's edits to make sure they're all right. I wouldn't know myself, and my fixes to the problem edits I did see may be all right or they may not. I didn't see anyone who was watching the article so I'm just contacting some people who have made recent edits.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: My edit was simply to shorten the short because that's where mobile app users need a short short. I do not want to track the article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Palm Springs in popular culture for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Springs in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ...
 | |
| wild garlic |
|---|
... for improving articles in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Marking edits as minor edits
Hi Srich32977! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) that may not have been. It is a sensitive topic. So it would have been better if you had given an edit summary (which you did not) and if you had not marked your edit as minor. I appreciate that using rollback automatically marks an edit as a minor edit, but it does not look as though you used rollback.
As you know, "minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. And, yes, I am aware that I sometimes get it wrong too. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Toddy1: The edit was done via the mobile app. When hitting the top "edit" icon the app allows editors to do either the description or the introduction section. The description choice opens the short descript line and gives a byte count. Say "22/90". If the count goes over 90 the app displays a message encouraging short descriptions. Well, my edit simply shortened the description. When publishing such edits the app automatically adds the m. Any editors who don't like the new short can make their changes. – S. Rich (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Article description needs to start with lowercase
Or am I wrong on this one ? SuyashJ89 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@SuyashJ89: – take a look at WP:SDFORMAT. And thank you for the question. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! I don't really think this is a suitable short description, it makes no real explaination to what the article is about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: – Compare with 93rd Academy Awards. It does not restate what the reader sees in the article title, but it does expand a little bit about the event. Your preferred version repeats "2021" and "Snooker". It gives the months. but that info will be less helpful in June, July August, 2022 etc. But I do see the 2021 Short is much like the 2019 & 2020 versions. Thanks for asking. – S. Rich (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure why you would link me to that article specifically. I'm not sure what we get out of knowing how many has gone before. A short description is to explain in links basically what the article is about. This article is a snooker event held in April and May 2021. The Academy Awards should really have an short description that states it's a "film award event, held April 2021". That explains what the article is, and gives a vague idea of when. Biographies should say what the person does, etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe that her charity efforts are more lead-worthy than "best-dressed". Instead of removing, could you perhaps word it better? Or remove the superficial other item also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I have a source but I am still family
I added a comment to midcentury modern since my parents and the company they started, Andersen Design is part of that history, But I need a reliable source for which I could cite the Collectors eye by Christine Chrchul who writes Th following:
"If you’d like to know the next big thing in collecting twentieth century design, you might want to ask Sara Blumberg and James Oliveira….....
Italian glass is one of the fields that now consumes them, particularly the stunning shapes that have been produced for hundreds of years on the fabled isle of Murano in the Venetian Lagoon. They’ve also been buying American studio pottery from the 1950’s and the 1960’s ,especially the simple bowls and vases made by Weston and Brenda Andersen in East Bootbay, Maine. Not to mention twentieth century Scandinavian pottery.
What do these disparate fields have in common? Looking at the pottery shapes on display, you can see that the crosscurrents of design have flowed from Europe to America and back. But Sara has a more elemental reason: “It all comes down to form”. In relating why they love one group of Andersen pieces, she calls them “organic” and the same would be said about their favorite objects-not to mention the way they have decorated their home.”
........ "Responsible for changes good and bad in architecture and design, the industrial Revolution changed the manufacturing process of pottery for good. New factories spat out thousands of pieces of pottery per day – their goal to stock kitchens and dining rooms of middle-class Europe and America quickly and inexpensively.
The Scandinavians were the first to rebel. The y began to address the need for “good design for every day use” around 1916. For Swedish artist and alchemist Wilhem Kage, that meant inventing hundreds of new glazes.
The Americans were quick to follow suit, benefiting from the influx of European designers during the 1930’s and 1940’s. The Scheiers were a husband-wife team famous for creating slightly iff-center pieces. Also thumbing their noses at machine-made perfection were Weston and Brenda Andersen of East Boothbay Maine ( many of their pieces are seen in this spread)"
UNQUOTE
The only online reference I know of for the Collectors Eye are retail venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackenzie Andersen (talk • contribs) 11:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
However that prohibits me from including my own greater understanding based on my own direct experience with the source- specifically since Christin Churchill does not say that it was production used as an art form, I cannot say so, but that is important since part of the reason we no longer exist is that we do not fit properly into any category that allows us to raise capital- specifically when we applied to Fractured Atlas as a social enterprise, which we have always been, teaching the skills, art and science of making ceramics on the job, we were rejected specifically because I used the word "production" which the board of Fractured Atlas deemed to mean that anyone using the word "production" is only in it for the money. That is why it is important to make the point that before Andy Warhol used production as an art form, Andersen Design did so, founded on the philosophy of creating a hand-crafted product affordable to the middle classes in the era when America had a middle class.
Since I am family, I can not contribute and Andersen Design is delegated to the dustbin of history as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
If I were writing teh page on Andersen design I would write what I know to be true and others do not necessarily understand. Dad was a threat fab of Lewis Mumford, who connected teh Arts and Crafts movement to a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, as does Christine Churchill, Andersen Design is as much a continuation of teh 19th century Arts and Crafts Movement as they were originals of teh 1960's design movement, Dad studied slipcasting under Eva Zeisel, t Pratt Institute. His college education was interrupted by World War II and when he return dad was somewhat taken aback to see that Eva was using his designs as teaching examples. Russel Wright invited Dad to apprentice twice but he didn't think he could afford to do so with a family. Then he took a job as Dean of teh Alron Art Institute which is probably wherein developed his first prototypes and then quit to move to Maine to start a slip-casting production as an art form. Who else knows this history?
So I will use your explanation in my Substack blog, Butterflies and Rocketships. Maybe I can inspire someone else to include us in Wikipedia that way/
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
questia
It isn't dead Questia that I am complaining about. Here is the citation in question:
Two errors there after your edit that should not have been there: |url-access= requires |url= and |access-date= requires |url=. If you are going to change/remove citation template parameters, it is your responsibility to make sure that nothing is broken so that others don't have to follow after you to clean up the mess. This is why there is the preview button. Please use it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: This is a "six of one and half-dozen of the other" situation. The "six of one" pre-fix version had the untagged, in-accessible link and the irrelevant Questia wikilink. I fixed those two errors. Alas, I created the url-access/access-date error. So your "half-dozen of the other" edit fixed the url-access error, but you re-introduced the two fixed errors. I used the pre-view, but missed the red-text. Mea culpa. – S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
And still not previewing?
Please preview so I an others don't have to cleanup after you.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
AutoEd edits
I draw you attention to your edit edits like [2] and WP:COSMETICBOT. Removing white space is not a substantive edit. Please discontinue the use of AutoEd. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Duh, editors aren't going to know exactly what AutoEd does until they run it. And per WP:AUTOED it has many useful functions. (Indeed, it has been approved IAW WP:BOTREQUIRE.) WP:Cosmetic edit makes a good point – bots which only make cosmetic edits are forbidden. But useful bots with happen to make cosmetic edits are certainly allowed. I will continue to use AutoEd, but will look to see if your articles are involved. – S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Imprecise descriptor
This edit didn't seem very helpful to me. There were all sorts of poetic groups of varied allegiance in 17th-century Britain and the 'Metaphysicals' are particularly difficult to classify, as the article explains. The description you just modified was a good deal more accurate. Could you change it back, please? Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Sweetpool50: I try to trim the SDs in accordance with WP:HOWTOSD. The SD just gives readers a very brief description of the article topic so they know they found what they were looking for. You can certainly change it to something better. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you've done some editing on this article a few months ago. At the moment, a SPA is reverting your edits and making additional bad edits of their own. I've reverted twice and also left a warning on the user's Talk page about sourcing their material. The truth is the majority of the article is unsourced. It includes lists of people buried there, by plot number yet. I have no problem with having a list of notable people (have to have an article here), along with a source, but the way it is now, we might as well diagram the entire cemetery plot by plot. Anyway, I can't keep reverting the user because there is no exemption for edit-warring in this scenario. I wondered if you would be willing to help. Otherwise, I'll just let it go; I stumbled on the article and I can always unstumble. It barely has any page watchers, so it's unlikely to get much attention. If it had, it might not be in such bad shape now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Go ahead and unstumble yourself. SPA's reverts popped up on my WL, and your note explains the recent activity. I'll do more clean up and continue to watch what SPA is up to. Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Great, I've looked at the article and apparently you and Jonesey95 have removed a lot of material that didn't belong in the article. At the moment, what looks the worst is the incredibly long History section, much of which is unsourced. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
June thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in June, with some impressions of places, flowers and music for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Your edits of Synthetic diamond seem contrary to MOS:PAGERANGE. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- The same is the case for your edits of Dowsing, Orville E. Babcock and Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Also, "copy edit" is not an accurate description of what you were doing. Please stop. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: Yes, MOS:PAGERANGE says put all the numbers in. But WP:CITESTYLE basically says "be consistent", and follow the style that is established in the article. And it says The Chicago Manual of Style is an acceptable style guide. (Because we do not have a house style.) In turn the CMS says we can do page ranges in a "123–25" format because 2 or more digits are presented in the second sequence. IOW, we can say "123–125" or "123–25". We should not use "123–5". My WP:GNOME routine is to review articles for hyphens in the page ranges, missed "pp." for multiple pages, single digits after the endash -- little things like that. I look to see if there is an established style. Scanning and editing articles on my mobile device means I can only work on one section at a time. And getting the articles to consistently comport with CMS is usually easier. (I do not switch properly edited cites into CMS just because it is "my preferred style".) Since my edits are all basically copy edits I think the "ce" edit summary works because experienced editors will recognize them as copy edits. I hope they see that the end result is an article with an established and consistently proper style. Thanks for your comments. I shall heed them and try to give better explanations in my edit summaries. – S. Rich (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- We've been through this many times before (do a search for "range" or "Jonesey95" in the archives of this page), and you have been making errors every time. I have coached you through improving your edits multiple times. I don't know why you keep returning to this disruptive behavior.
- Please edit page ranges in conformance with MOS:PAGERANGE; if you want to introduce consistency, convert partially specified page ranges into fully specified page ranges, not the other way around. I expect that you would not convert straight quote marks in citation titles to curly quote marks in violation of MOS:CURLY in the name of consistency; this is the same thing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Are you using an automatic tool to do these edits? You seem to move rather rapidly, often with only a minute or two between edits. The same issue is evident in your edits of Ku Klux Klan Act. From the above, it appears that you are aware that Wikipedia has an established guideline on this matter and you have chosen to do something different and that this is a longstanding problem with your edits that has been pointed out by others. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, please slow down and check your edits ("pp=542–447"). You are making too many errors ("p393" → "393pp"??). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Battle of Cove Mountain
@Srich32977: - Thank you for the cleanup of Battle of Cove Mountain. What caused it to be C-class instead of B-Class? Also, I noticed you changed the state in every reference to the the US postal two-digit abbreviation (such as New York to NY). I was told that we should not expect non-US readers to know those abbreviations, so they should be spelled out. Has something changed? TwoScars (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC) PS - Impressive background! TwoScars (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- TwoScars. Nothing has changed. See MOS:POSTABBR. I recommend changing those state names as recommended by MOS, throughout the article. Srich32977 sometimes makes changes to articles that are contrary to MOS in the name of "consistency". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- The reason why the changes are being made is what is needed. often what is happening is obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Many, many of my edits are done in bed with my WP approved mobile app. (I've been spotting articles without short descriptions.) The app allows me to add or modify the SDs, but does not allow for a summary. As the weather and my health improves I'll get out of bed more and do more regular edits on my real computer. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Terrible choice then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, these xtools are terrible. One of us has a 95.9% figure and the other has 98.2%. Sooner or later we will catchup with each other. ;)~ – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
July corner
 |
On DYK today, two songs, a morning song that a cousin gave to me, about the many meanings of rising, and the other praying for the courage to take the necessary steps. The morning song is a GA, - I should write more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano). - Thank you for improving articles in July, - I come a few days earlier than normally because the bloom is fading already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Giovanni Antonio Grassi
Dear Srich32977. I see you are an extremely experienced wikipedian. I am in my 7000 edits but still feel like a novice. I wanted to ask you for some help concerning two recent edits you made on the article Giovanni Antonio Grassi, simply because I do not understand what you were doing and want to learn from you. Like you I want to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines but quite often I still do not know them well enough or misinterpret them.
Your first edit, at 6:32 on 24 July 2021, is tagged "(Rescuing 3 sources and tagging 0 as dead) #IABot (v2.0.8)". This concerned a source description of a book entitled "The Routledge History of Italian Americans", which can be previewed in Google Books. You seem to have backed it up in Internet Archive WayBack Machine, but there seems to be nothing wrong with the one at Google Books. I do not understand, to me it looks like pure waste of resources? Why should IABot do such a thing?
Your second edit, at 06:37, 24 July 2021, is tagged "Cleaned up using AutoEd". It inserted spaces after the "*" of the article's list of sources. Much more understandable and perhaps a good move. When I started editing Wikipedia I did my lists like that. However, I went to Dublin for an introductory editing course presented and guided by user Smirkybec. I asked her about lists and she said (if I remember right) that there was no rule, but when I asked her how she formatted lists, she said that she did not put spaces, so I changed and from then on made lists without spaces after the "*"s. MOS:LIST seems to only prescribe that lists should be formatted consistently in each article. However, I would be glad if Wikipedia had such a rule and would certainly change all "my" lists to conform with it.
With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Johannes Schade: With both tools (bots) we don't know what they will do until they are run. (Or at least I don't have the technical knowledge that might tell me what to expect.) But they are approved by WP and both provide useful edits, so running them generally does no harm. WP:AED "Adds a space after bullets (*'s) and hashmarks (#'s) to allow automated screen readers discern list markup." The deadlinks bot provides access to the archived urls. The active urls are untouched. (This is a new tool for me, but it seems useful.) I've just gone through a number of Questia citations looking to rescue them. Seems that Gale pulled the plug on the Questia urls thus leaving many WP citations without WP:V. I think many of the Questia urls are lost forever because they did not have archived links. Running the deadlinks bot should prevent this with other urls. Thanks for your question and for your edits. I hope my answer is useful. – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your service. I must admit that I am very impressed by your accomplishments. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Sandeepnamdev (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Message
Excuse me please, I want to know how to go on with Wikipedia after opening an account with them. May I please bother you for help? CJFrost1 (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@CJFrost1: you are off to a good start. Checkout the WP:TUTORIAL. Feel free to learn by doing. Other editors will come by to correct mistakes and provide guidance. Happy editing! 03:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
August thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in August! I try, today DYK for a GA by a banned user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The ramifications of abbreviations
Hi Scrich23977, this may never come up again, but I'd recommend against "fag" as an abbreviation of Find a Grave. Your edit summary threw me for a loop! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: Indeed! The template {{fag}} redirects to Template:Find a Grave. And 5 years ago there was lots of discussion on the topic. See here or here. I live near Palm Springs, California, a very friendly LGBT+++ community, so I'm sensitive to the issues involved. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Changing titles of sources
Hello! I reverted this edit. Is there some kind of policy that says it is OK to refactor titles of sources to conform to Wikipedia style? It seems to me that changing the titles of sources may make it harder to locate the sources later on if the URLs go dead. The source titles are whatever was written, not what we would like them to be, as far as I can reason. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: MY first edit was a mis-reading of EXCERPT as a non-title "splash word". (Like "EXCLUSIVE" or "UPDATE"). My revert was a fat finger hit of the roll-back button. Thanks for your attention. – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
September thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in September, - a good harvest! On Peace Day, Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conflation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lazarus. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Deliberate. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Peer review for United Nations Memorial Cemetery
Hi there, AustralianRupert has left some comments on the peer review for United Nations Memorial Cemetery, in case you haven't seen it. Best, Zetana (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)