User talk:49.177.30.125

Frequently referred to

 * Help:Redirect
 * Block indent
 * MOS:LAYOUT
 * Block indent
 * MOS:LAYOUT
 * Block indent
 * MOS:LAYOUT

Electoral results for the district of Bingara - duplicate references
No need to apologise - transcluded articles can be a bit tricky especially regarding references - the error arose because Results of the 1917 New South Wales state election was transcluded at Electoral results for the district of Bingara & Electoral district of Bingara - editors were "fixing" one page which created errors on another. The way in which you edited 1916 Bingara state by-election meant that on Electoral results for the district of Bingara there were two identical references, but no error message. Instead I have fixed Electoral district of Bingara by defining the reference so now it appears all three pages work properly. Happy to discuss further. --Find bruce (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Cravat
You are fixing one redirect by creating another. Change your redirect to Ascot tie. Also, why are you changing Cite web to cite web? There is no good reason to do that. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop inserting a bad link into more articles. The correct one is above. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 10mmsocket Please CLICK on the links I introduced, and maybe look into things a bit before jumping. Also Cite -> cite NOTHING to do with me PLEASE STOP reverting. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't replace one disambiguation with a redirect. It's that simple. If you are going to fix cravat with the modern version then link to Ascot tie. You should also care that you are using a faulty tool that is breaking other things. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I DO care. What's it breaking?
 * My understanding differs from yours. I have never has issues doing them, no-one has ever reverted my DABS before, (and I KNOW they get looked at by experienced editors.) I use the DAB solver, and instructions it gives. Please don't be so harsh; I am always cooperative and willing to listen. Thanks. Also, did you see my note about the Cite -> cite thing?
 * non-redirect link DAB diff that changes Cite - cite 49.177.30.125 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's breaking the cite templates - obviously not your fault but you could stop using the tool until it is fixed. As for the link, it is bad form to introduce redirects into articles. You should always link to the actual article. Unfortunately it looks like DAB solver fixes DABs but cannot spot that it's changing a DAB to a redirect which is just as bad. If you're going to change a bunch of the same links it would probably worth checking yourself after the first one rather than trusting it to go ahead and make multiple changes. You're doing a good thing, but a bad tool is making your contributions less effective. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As you can see I have stopped. Prob will just stop all up, I think. I will give it a day or two - it was a nice little relaxer while it lasted. I'll see in a day or two how I feel. BUT I will have so many I will have to go back and repair.
 * And the cite thing? those changes are Bot changes I did NOT do them - or are you saying that my using the redirect is making something change the all the cap 'C's to lc 'c's?
 * I've double-checked: The cites templates are not "broken"; it's nothing to do with the DAB solver or linking to a redirect page. I just had a heart attack for absolutely nothing. I can see that "cite" is the standard you get when using the reftool for a new citation, so how can it be "broken" if a bot changes it to that?
 * Plenty of other users' - as well as my own non-DAB - edits have had this happen - I've looked back at the edit histories. The first time I noticed it was when there there were about a dozen of these changes in someone else's edit. And I thought "what an obsessed person to go through the whole page just to change C to c!" There were so many of them. Then I saw it happen a couple of more times and realised it must be an auto thing. I wasn't very happy about it because I thought: if something goes awry, it will look like I've done those changes in my edit ... but, no, no, the "real" Wikipedians know what they're doing, so it will be fine, no-one will blame me.
 * I have just spent the last 45 minutes thinking I had done something awful. Notwithstanding your deprecation of my use of a redirect page, I didn't break anything (even if I need to go back and fix the ascot-bldy-ties!). Please point me to where WP policies say it's not cool to use a redirect when disambiguating. I am always one for following policy, it's just that was not an obvious point to me. I have reviewed Help:Redirect, and had another look at WP:DAB (btw, note that this link is a redirect, just like all of those common WP shortcut links), and cannot really discern that. I'm sure you're correct, but characterising it as you did, as being "that simple" as if I am an some kind of ignoramus, rather than the careful editor I actually am, is a bit much, I think. Thanks.49.177.30.125 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Again,, if you could answer this, repeated from above, I would be very grateful: My objection was not really to your reversion, as you suggest elsewhere, but your non-explanation, and that you seemed to think I should know wth you were even talking about ... and acting as if my errors were highly problematic. (They weren't.) Your characterisations are overblown and, in some case, spurious. You do not seem to pay attention to the substantive queries or remarks put to you either. I may may be oversensitive perhaps - I'll own it, I guess - but wonder whether you have considered the possibility that you may be ever so slightly overconfident? Did you note the reply I received below, for instance: It seems a rather calmer view is taken there, in contrast to your alarmist warnings. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Changes (auto updates, I presume)
Changes I did not make, whereby all capitalised "Cites" are changed to "cites" throughout a whole page of many (mainly low-traffic) articles I have edited, showing up as my edits. I have noticed for the past day or so, that when I make an edit there are lots and lots of minor changes to the cites within the page - that I did not add, I was a bit worried about them, because although they're likely an auto / bot thing, I thought someone may still decide I had done them. Now, Lo and behold - see complaint above from  in section "Cravat". This makes me miserable getting jumped on like the above... l know, I know, if I can't stand the heat, etc., etc., ...but really? Is there not a way to have such - apparently - automated updates distinguished as a separate bot edit, rather than lumped in when a user makes an edit? It seems to go against the principle of direct accountability for one's own edits. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Am I supposed to sign my own Talk page? Prob not, but don't want another snap at op 49.177.30.125 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, is it a "bad link" as says?  A redirect is not the same as a disambiguation page surely? I thought it was okay as long as the link goes to the specific page wanted (and DABSolver explicitly gives it as an option), rather than to a DAB page, but  tells me that it's poor form. I'd like to do the correct thing, but did not see this in what I read in the Help or policy pages - and I tried really hard to find and use correct procedures ... "Ascot tie" is not really the thing for the British English -written articles, but I am very willing to go back and change them to Cravat links as needed. Hoping you can advise. Many thanks. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Update with corrections. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Presuming you using WP:Dab solver to fix ambiguous links, then please note that one of the "template fix ups" it automatically does is convert the capitalization in citation templates - see the Notes section on the Dab solver web page.  I don't see a way to disable those automatic fixes when using the tool.  You can click the "Show changes" button before saving to see everything Dab solver is going to change before saving.  Unfortunately, the developer hasn't been active on Wikipedia, and isn't likely to update the tool.
 * I'm not sure which edit 10mmsocket is referring to as a "bad link". If you're fixing an ambiguous link by using a redirect instead, you're making it slightly better, but it could be better if you didn't need to use a redirect at all.  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I really appreciate your reply. Just to be clear: I do not mind that Dab solver did fixes  - I had slight misgivings about how it might be viewed by other users, if any problems arose, but that is all. It's 10mmsocket that is concerned. I do not wish to be taken to task so readily (Granted, I am probably in the wrong place then!)
 * Yes, I am using Dab Solver. objected to me using the cravat (modern) to disambiguate cravat, on the basis that the actual page name for that is ascot tie. That is the "bad link" 10mmsocket refers to. I used it in about four articles, which they have reverted, along with the general fixes DAB solver applied. They believe that because I used the redirect, this caused Dab solver to "break the citation template"; 10mmsocket believes that converting Cites to cites is incorrect. I just want a quiet life.
 * This is their view:
 * Are they right: Is it that simple?
 * I think it's reasonable to DAB cravat as cravat (modern) without having to pipe it as cravat on an article about, say, Eton School, for example. (This is after reading Help:redirect and WP: DAB, where I do not see any suggestion not to do so.) However, if this is genuinely a problem for the project, I will do otherwise - I want to help, not cause problems! So if someone could let me know definitively not to do this, (as dab solver routinely suggests is fine as an option), I will not do it. I strive to follow correct procedure, always, so if I could read where WP mentions this, and understand it, I would be grateful; I am not a mind reader, though. Many thanks. Sorry to be a pest. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Updated with quoted extract, minor punctuation, sp + changes 49.177.30.125 (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again! You acted in good faith and incrementally made the article better. From the reader's point of view, there's no difference in functionality between cravat and cravat .  However, I just made some changes to the Cravat disambiguation page so that Dab solver and other tools will suggest ascot tie instead of cravat (modern).  I don't understand why Dab solver bothers changing Cites to cites, and suggest you don't do so manually, since the capitalization doesn't change what the reader sees.  However, changing the capitalization doesn't "break" anything.  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, . Not to worry: manually changing Cites to cites or similar is definitely not my jam! All of your help is much appreciated. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's not only Dab solver that does this, though. And I do not want to be taken to task for it by other users. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. But your username has not identified. I have been revised corrections every time. ExpandD2003 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Reference repair of Nanda (Hinduism)
Hello, I'm still hoping to receive some answer from you regarding your reversion, as mentioned here on your talk page:. I would consider it a friendly gesture and be most grateful if you could help me understand your rationale. (On the other hand, if it was just an error, that would be great to know also.) Many thanks. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Identified as unknown user.
Your username has not been identified. You don't even had a tag name. Sorry for your public apology. Please report if you're not identified as user. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser ExpandD2003 (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Or I'll block you at this time. ExpandD2003 (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

For your information, please visit the help page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people. ExpandD2003 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is to assume good faith on the part of others and accord them the respect we expect for ourselves. The link above is an essay written by an editor/editors and is purely their opinion. This does not meet consensus and is not policy at Wikipedia. I happen to believe that anyone that edits on Wikipedia is a human being and deserves to be treated with the same dignity. From what I have read I hope the above editor never gains the power to block others until they understand what Wikipedia actually is. -- A Rose Wolf  12:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ex posted a not-really apology/apology on own Talk page. David notMD (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)