Thanks for the recognition. I will sound somewhat impaired but how do you do it? I tried several ways. Is it not just four of these '~'?
Help would be appreciated. Rosser Gruffydd 20:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
CS1 error repairs and www stripping
I notice in many of your recent edits, your edit summary indicates that CS1 errors have been repaired when there has been no change affecting CS1 errors (insofar as I can tell).
I am also curious about the stripping of "www":
Is there some WP guideline indicating that "www" should be removed under certain conditions even though it is an acceptable hostname in the url?
Is this being stripped arbitrarily or only under specific conditions?
I note that modern versions of browsers (e.g. chrome) actually hide the "www" prefix, so while it looks like the url has been redirected to a domain that without the "www" prefix, this frequently isn't the case. This browser behavior can lead to an erroneous assumption that it has been redirected. Fabrickator (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fabrickator, thanks for the question. As far as why i strip the "www.", if you look at CS1 errors, this seems fairly clear that it doesn't belong in |title=, |chapter=, |publisher=, |work=, or the parameter i most commonly remove it from, |website=. As for the other part of your comment, you note that sometimes i don't repair CS1 errors when i say i do? The example you give isn't one of those ~ "www." was removed from four parameters there ~ so i'm not certain, but i suppose i could have accidentally allowed my default summary to go through without changing it; absent an example i can't be more specific or responsive. Happy days, LindsayHello19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, LindsayH. Ha ha, I had overlooked the fact that these were changes to the "website" parameter rather than to "url", so it's not necessarily intended to be a clickable link. However, when I view the prior revision, I'm not seeing any "CS1" errors that got fixed by the edits (i.e. the presence of "www" does not seem to cause a CS1 error ... could I have a setting that shows CS1 errors selectively?
Also, would it be considered desirable to wikify this, e.g. "portsmouthfc.co.uk" to [[Portsmouth F.C.]] (notwithstanding the obvious additional complexity in any sort of automation script)? Fabrickator (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what you point out is certainly strange. What i/Kahtar do is load the category CS1 errors: external links to run through. It currently holds some 14k articles, so it's a slow process (i've been doing it for several years; when i started there were over 35,000 articles in the category! Not that i have done all that reduction myself), but removing those red CS1 errors in the references is my main gnomic activity at the moment. As to why that article didn't show the errors, i don't know; it was certainly in the category as that's the only way i select articles for Kahtar to edit.
As for wikifying it, i think that generally if it is relevant, the website will be wlinked in the article already. I take a look around to a degree as i make these edits, and very frequently they are websites which really are not linked to the subject in enough of a manner that they require a wlink. Happy days, LindsayHello08:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LindsayH, the affected articles had CS1 errors, but the "www" prefixes are not getting flagged as errors. An "insource:" search shows that there are over 300,000 articles with "website" values starting with "www".
As for wikilinking in citations, per WP:CT: It is expected that a reference citation includes wikilinks to the relevant article for the source, such as ''[[The New York Times]]'', rather than ''The New York Times''. Fabrickator (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's very strange Fabrickator, because when i edit as LindsayH (as opposed to Kahtar) seeing the "www" prefixes in the |website= parpameter is exactly how i find them to change them. Here, for example, the previous version shows the CS1 error, as you can verify here. Why not in the example you gave, i can only shrug my shoulders and say, "I don't know."
Linking, yes, sometimes it is useful, expected even. Personally i think that linking to the same publisher or publication multiple times in the same article ~ i've seen at least a couple of dozen links to the same point on occasion ~ seems to be a waste of electrons, but i don't change them because in references i don't think they are intrusive enough to pose an irritation or problem for the average reader. I see your point, but currently i'm not convinced that the usefulness of such wlinks would be worth the effort to find if there could be such a link to be found. Happy days, LindsayHello14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(resetting the indent)
LindsayH, I have finally realized why I wasn't seeing these errors. The CS1 notice I most commonly see is the green notice {CS1 maint: unfit url (link). So I have learned to look for CS1 errors by searching for CS1!
That said, it appears that the "external link" errors will only be detected if the parameter includes "//" then followed by some string containing a period. So with regard to the edit to Fratton Park, the script deleted the "www" prefix in two places, though these were not considered CS1 errors, while it failed to fix a "title" parameter that is considered to have an external link. Fabrickator (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Death - The Sound Of Perseverance
Please return the style i had just edited. That album is not Death Metal and that is why i wrote Extreme Progressive Metal as it is the proper style played on the album.
awb script needs some work
With this edit, your script replaced [sic] with {{sic}} (2×) in {{cite web}}|title=. The script should not have done that because it causes a URL–wikilink conflict error.
Thank you for catching that. About two edits after that one i realised that i had mis-clicked in turning off the "sic" substitution; stupidly i didn't go back and check if i'd made any damage. Again, thanks for correcting my foolishness, Happy days, LindsayHello12:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precious anniversary
A year ago ...
"what the reference actually says"
... you were recipient no. 2235 of Precious, a prize of QAI!
I just saw your note on the AWB page and wanted to wish you and your heart the best. Life is unpredictable but I hope things turn out well. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I came to thank you for you wonderful support for us folks (on RfA, of all places), but add wishes for health as well, - take care, and keep brightening days, double-precious! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have been correcting a number of short description entries for biographies for some time now. As a principle, I agree with and support the definitions that you quoted in your message. My basic approach is to just provide enough information to help identify the biography based on the country that the person has primarily lived in or carried out their occupation; the primary occupation(s) of the individual during their lifetime ; and some information regarding when they lived. Given that it doesn't take up much space, my preference is to put the date of birth and date of death to help identify when the person was active or flourished . If that is not available or is uncertain, I then refer to the relevant century or part of that century (e.g. early 2nd century AD). For individuals who have ruled an empire or a kingdom or a principality or the like, I have added a second bracket with the period of reign since I believe that is relevant to getting a very brief understanding of when the individual was most influential. However I'm not wedded to that if you think that that is unnecessary information. One key element in my approach is to try and make sure that the short descriptions are not too long e.g. under 100 characters. Happy to discuss further with you regarding my approach to Roman emperors. I don't wish to be pedantic about it -- I just want to try and improve the overall quality of the short descriptions as they are important both in Wikipedia and for Wikidata. Regards Chewings72 (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harley Fresh
Lindsay
So you nominated my article for deletion knowing the fact the information gathered was correct and didn't close it. My article has been deleted but you can still fix it. Tone can restore my page if you ask him to.
Unfortunately, Kalabsm insta, i'm guessing you didn't read what i put on your talk page. I don't regret nominating, nor the deletion; i think both are justified under our policies. Likewise, i won't be asking Tone to restore it, because he wouldn't anyway, just as he didn't when you asked. I truly do recommend what i suggested on your talk page: Let Harley Fresh go, for a while, try and edit something else and learn a bit more about it.
Just as a simple matter of housekeeping, new comments/sections, like the one you opened here, go at the bottom of pages, not the top, so you'll notice i moved it. Also, you can sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~ which appends your signature ~ like this: happy days, LindsayHello09:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello, LindsayH! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.
Sorry to ask but can someone or maybe you add info about Damian Priest the reason why I'm asking is because I want to study WWE Superstars cause I wish to be one even if Im still in school so please more pictures and info. KESHA69 (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your contributions. Please note that common terms (including "singer-songwriter") are not linked unless there's a compelling reason to do so. Tony(talk)01:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony1. If we're talking about John Jacob Niles, there was a compelling reason ~ it was in the See also section: Nothing there should be unlinked. Now, it may not belong there, i completely agree, but since it was, i linked it; happy days, LindsayHello06:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Moondragon, for bringing that to mine attention. I agree, i don't know what happened ~ well, more exactly, i know what happened, because i have corrected it, but i don't know why. Mine apologies for the error; it is now, i believe, corrected; happy days, LindsayHello09:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need your help
Dear Lindsay I need your help. In the Pashtun talkpage I reached a compromise with the user by changing the words in the impugned sentence to match his exact words - but even still he wants to completely water-down the point contrary to the 4 citations and the mentioned quotes within them. I also see him employing bullying tactics by edit waring; although the matter was closed in the talkpage [atleast from my side]. I am relatively new to Wikipedia [and I only want to edit Pashtun-related pages] but this whole argumentative experience with this user has been draining. Please help us settle any tension; although I have personally triedPashtoPromoter (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taivo. I fully understood that abruptness ~ i hope i didn't come across as blaming you ~ i have participated once or possibly twice in those naming discussions, and i admire the patience of those who've been there more. My only reason for the message was the fear i always have of driving away editors, though i note that that account is actually older than mine, so i probably didn't need to be concerned! Anyway, thanks for the message here; see you around ~ happy days, LindsayHello14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. Seems a bit unnecessary now, as the whole thing has been gone through and closed during a few hours i was away from my computer ~ much as i admire her, in mine opinion Risker's action was not optimal in closing so quickly. Anyway, i'm sure all will be good in future ~ and you'll recognise that my comments are as i intend, right? See you around; happy days, LindsayHello07:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And i should add, i didn't realise until i read the ANI discussion that the block was a direct result of Ivanvector reading my comment on your talkpage; for that i apologise ~ 'twas never mine intent for you to be blocked at all;happy days, LindsayHello07:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your encouragement and trust in my recent run for admin. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couple as similar unit
Thanks for your correction and duly noted. You are right. The word “couple” is in most cases treated as a singular unit, when the context is for a pair that’s permanently so (as in singing duo ‘Chad & Jeremy’ or icon characters like ‘Tom & Gerry’ - when they are described as a couple). I guess my tendency was to treat John Legend and Chrissie Teiggen as a plural unit by virtue of their individual statures.
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hello LindsayH. I just wanted to thank you for opting-in to receive these notifications. This is the first bot-notification of the trial now in progress. In this case, the notification is a bit late as the goal is to have them posted within 24 hours of the original message. I anticipate that things will improve over time. I'd like to reiterate that you are under no obligation to endorse this or any posted message although you are certainly welcome if you are so inclined. In considering an endorsement, you have fulfilled what was asked of you opting-in. I won't be messaging you in the future when this notification posts, and don't mean to encroach on you now. I am messaging you this time for two reasons; first: because this is the beginning of the trial and I did want to send you my thanks. And, second: because I wanted to tell you about another editor I messaged (without using the template) but you may know this former admin whose tools were removed for inactivity (not under a cloud) and again, you are certainly welcome to consider endorsing that message as well. It is on the talk page of user:Toddst1[1]. I wish you the best and thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of template substitution
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
