For new visitors: Welcome! Please leave new messages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes (~~~~). If you message me here I will reply here; if you're not logged into an account I may leave {{tb}} on your IP address's talk page.
For returning visitors: Welcome back!
Note: My watchlist gets over 1000 edits per day so I don't look at it any longer. If you want my input in a discussion, please ping me or write something here. Wham2001 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Abishe (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precious |
|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank-you Gerda
Wham2001 (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual creation of non-notable pages and drafts by Numspan33. Thank you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! That draft must be one of the most chaotic things I've seen on Wikipedia – glad it's been deleted again. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello, do not worry about the sources on the legalism page yet, I have to go through them. I have a tendency to source stack and then trim later.FourLights (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aah, that makes sense. Thanks for dropping by to let me know Wham2001 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how I'm supposed to upload vids to the pages I'm working on? DementedSoul4000 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @DementedSoul4000, this information page should have what you need (particularly the "Uploading video" and "Embedding" sections).
- But can I ask, is this for Draft:Sword4000? I am going to be blunt here – right now your chances of getting that draft published as an article on Wikipedia are essentially zero. There are a set of criteria that determine whether an article should be included in Wikipedia known as the "notability guidelines" (it's not a good name – "inclusion guidelines" would be closer to the mark). For an article about a living person you need to show either:
- That the article subject has has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG) or
- That they meet one of the extra criteria in WP:NPERSON – in this case probably WP:NENT.
- Wikipedia gets lots of draft articles about youtubers, and they almost all get rejected for lack of sourcing. As far as I can see no third-party reliable sources have written about Sword4000, and so your draft will get rejected as well when you submit it. I'm saying this, not as a criticism or your work or because I have anything against Minecraft videos, but because I don't want you to spend lots of time on the draft and then not get anywhere with it. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @DementedSoul4000, please don't remove either messages written by other people, or messages from you that have been replied to, from talk pages (either user talk or article talk pages). I've restored this section. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more advice. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks ago, you had flagged some broken footnotes at Talk:Flaming Creatures#Missing sources. Is there a tool you were using to identify those? Trying to see if there's a way to automatically check footnotes I add on other articles. hinnk (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Hinnk, I use User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js, which highlights problems with {{harv}} and {{sfn}} references, in particular duplicate or missing long-form bibligraphic details. It's super-useful Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! This should make things much easier. hinnk (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this revert. Apparently my forgetfulness. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries I sometimes think that we would be better off if all the references, external links, see-also sections etc. on Wikipedia were handled via some sort of relational database – then validity of the footnotes, avoiding repeated references, etc. could be done automatically and I would need to find some other way of filling quiet Sundays. On the other hand, looking at Wikidata, perhaps we're better off as we are. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks for fixing the weird typos in my copyedit of the Kim Beazley article. I don't know what happened but I was having some key pressing problems on my keyboard yesterday. I should have checked the edit after making it. Cheers, Yahboo (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries – these kinda things happen Thanks for dropping by! Wham2001 (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, re sfn style I did Chandler in June, and I've just fixed O'Connor and Flynn. I found them in old revisions of the article. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the best I feel a bit embarrassed now that I hadn't thought to look in old article revisions – there's always a trick to learn here, it seems. Thanks again for all your work on the sfns, Wham2001 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Social Security (United States), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a recent edit from you at Flag of Bahia, placing an endash between two page numbers within a template. I am curious as to whether that fits with the following element from MOS:RANGES;
Do not change hyphens to dashes in filenames, URLs, or templates such as {{Bibleverse}} (which formats verse ranges into URLs), even if a range is embedded in them
Please note that this is an enquiry; I do not know the answer one way or the other for certainty, but maybe you do have that knowledge?
(A second question might be to ask if such an edit is critical to Wikipedia; for instance I will often lazily add the minus sign as a dash here on Talk pages - should I take myself out back and give myself myself a damn good kicking for it?)
WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would read that passage from MOS:RANGES as saying not to use en-dashes in templates that reformat their output into URLs (because the URLs then would be broken), rather than in templates in general. You can see that e.g. the page range in the sixth example on {{cite book}} uses a en-dash, and
{{cite book}} doesn't reformat the page range to use an en-dash (or indeed reformat it at all other than prepending "pp."), so MOS:PAGERANGE would imply that you should put the en-dash in the template input.
- For the second part, should you care – I don't think so. 99% of our readers probably don't know what the difference between an en-dash and a hyphen is, and won't notice if you use the wrong one. I only change them because I'm one of the handful of obsessive weirdos that does notice – it's like an itch that you keep on scratching. If it doesn't bother you, better to focus the effort on something that matters more to the reader – which is practically anything else.
- Thanks for dropping by Wham2001 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A good answer, and if you follow my edits you will see that one of my peccadillos is the gross abuse of Infoboxes, which often includes date ranges that are presented incorrectly (per MOS) - the difference being that Infoboxes are much more in-your-face. So I am all in favour of applying en-dashes where they are highly visible, even though 12 months ago I didn't even know such things existed. Thanks to Wikipedia I think we should both probably commission a T-shirt with the logo 'Wikipedia turned me into a Weirdo', although in my case I probably didn't have that far to travel.
- Hey, do you want to see an Infobox that drives me nuts? German submarine U-369 - and there were 703 U-boats in that class alone, and well over 500 articles on Wikipedia, with every single Infobox repeating the same 'General Characteristics', at length. Every single goddamn one gets its own page, even those that "carried out no patrols/did not sink or damage any ships". I just haven't got the cojones to step up and ask if that is right and proper to flood each Infobox with the same detail, because the military-mafia here will probably close ranks and put me in front of a firing squad. And I'm a certified coward!
- Forgive my digression. If you are happy with your en-dash edits, then I'm happy too. WendlingCrusader (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was certainly weird before Wikipedia, but I'd still wear the t-shirt!
- I agree that the tendency for every "notable" topic to have its own article, even if there's nothing to say about it, is pretty stupid. That submarine is a good example – it would be perfectly adequately described in a table or bulleted list in the article about the submarine class. Will a Great Consolidation of super-short articles ever happen? Hard to predict, I think. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey bro I get what you mean but that YouTube video is about an interview done with assyrian politican ano abdoka who says that Assyrians number 282.000 to 250.000 in Iraq he has official church documents and leads Assyrian.crusader (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would advise Assyrian.crusader to take this argument to the article talk page – though "youtube video of a politician being interviewed" is not a source I would choose, without more, to rely on – but I see they've been indefinitely blocked for harassment and POV-pushing. Wham2001 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated History of Christianity - again - please take a look and criticize at will. Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank-you for letting me know! I'm not sure that I know enough about the subject to offer any useful review, but I will read through the article at least. To attempt to bring a topic with such broad scope to FA is brave, to say the least! Best of luck with the reviews, Wham2001 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made several changes to the hells angels page. Particularly the support clubs from Canada. I am in one of them and would appreciate it if you reversed the edits. Thank you 156.34.75.2 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember these edits, but only rather vaguely and I can't find them in my edit history. Could you please post diffs to them and explain briefly why you think I'm wrong? Or, even better, start a discussion on the article talk page and ping me to it. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for demonstrating the ref=none trick for sfn and harvp citation styles on I. Bernard Cohen. That will also help me elsewhere. RowanElder (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries! In case you didn't know, if you want to use harv/sfn to cite more than one publication by the same author and in the same year then the usual approach is to add a suffix (a,b,c...) to the year in both the long-form reference and the sfn template; see e.g. McIntosh 2000a and b in Piri Reis map. But if you don't want to re-use one of the references the ref=none trick is easier and cleaner for the reader. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again: I had seen the use of suffixes documented in the template docs but I had missed "ref=none." RowanElder (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
