User talk:ActivelyDisinterested/Archive 4

Grzegorz Braun edit reverssed
You mistaken Roman Warszawski with Roman Warszewski. Warszewski is other person and does not resemble Warszawski from a photo The Wolak (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Aah fair enough, but in that case the ill template should be removed, as no pl:Roman Warszawski article exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden edit
I have been mulling over your edit to references where Antony Beevor was the author. I have found quite a few other articles where short form references do not seem to point to the right work. The most obvious clue is if the page number is higher than the number of pages in the book. Others are simply perplexing, but are either citing the wrong reference or the wrong page. I think the instance we have seen here is a mechanism as to how this happens. The target work does not end up in the bibliography. If there is another reference by the same author, a correcting editor assumes that the short form ref has the wrong date in it, and changes it. From experience, sorting out exactly what reference is intended – some time after the event – is a substantial puzzle, especially with a prolific author. It is even time consuming to fix if you have one work in two different editions, one of which has some extra material which messes up the page numbering.

First step to stop this problem is for people like me to check that sfn references are actually working before moving on to something else.

A second level of protection from this is hard to recommend. In an ideal world, no-one would edit existing text without its references to hand. In many cases that is an unrealistic expectation. Antony Beevor is someone who has his major publications listed here in Wikipedia – looking up publishers' websites is not a complete answer as many academic authors use more than one publisher – but even then that would not help to identify the 2014 published work in this case, as that is the paperback version of the 2012 hardback edition. (Since page numbers can differ, identifying the correct edition is important.)

It seems to me that a high level of caution is needed by a correcting editor who alters the year of a cited work in a short form reference. With a recent edit, the editor who created the problem can be identified and contacted (whilst they still remember what they intended). With older errors, it may be better to flag the discrepancy on the article talk page in the hope that a subject expert will take up the matter.

Perhaps it is just the type of articles in which I do most of my editing (small numbers of published experts, each with several publications), but I see this as a big problem in ensuring verifiability of Wikipedia articles. That is why I tend to avoid short form references as the full citebook template is more resistant to hard-to-correct errors (if you have an ISBN in each inline citation, you can normally identify the correct work).

Sorry to ramble on about this subject. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Usually I go through I lot of checks to try an ensure I get the right work, including times relying on resource exhange. The Wikilibrary is also very useful. In this case I was sure you'd correct me if I was wrong :). I have an incomplete and out of date list of things to check, any additions would be welcomed. There are error messages for this type of reference, but they are off by default. If you want to turn them on you can find the details here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. I've been working though the backlog of such errors with a few other editors, now 8.5k down from 26k articles. If it can be cleared I hope to make a suggestion that the errors are on by default, and a bot to highlight errors similar to CS1 maintenance messages. As to page numbers it's an odd one, I've seen instances where inline refs where converted to short forms, and the cite deleted. So I restore the cite, but the page numbers don't match the page number range in the cite and it was always wrong. Ultimately it can only be as correct as the original referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I will take a look at turning on the template error messages. As an only partially related comment, I do wonder how often editors do check article content against references – yes it happens in any sort of content dispute, but in the ordinary flow of editing I suspect that it is quite rare. I say this as I recently researched some relatively over-cited text and found that none of the multiple references supported it. Some of the refs even directly contradicted the article text. The multiple references are a barrier to checking, as it is difficult to get to read all of them, so in good faith one presumes that the the unconfirmed content is in the source that you cannot access. I do wonder how common this sort of thing might be in Wikipedia. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * From working through many articles, I'd say that in general someone writes or overhauls and article and at that point the referencing can be quite good. Genuinely fake/hoax referencing at that scale is unusual, although it does happen (see the history of History of Hinduism in Afghanistan for instance). However overtime edits are made and the quality of those changes vary a lot. They may improve the article and it's referencing, or they may add/change content without changing the references. Sometimes the references just end up in the wrong place, so they don't cover the detauls they're next to buy do cover part of a section higher up in the article. That's a common result of edits adding unreferenced details in-between referenced details and their references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the overview. The instance I looked at appeared to result from one editor who, in my opinion, allowed their passion for the subject to get in the way of due objectivity. I suspect they were aware they were doing it, as they changed from a very active (and quite aggressive) participant on the article talk page to ceasing any involvement in the article. This was after I pointed out (in as non-confrontational manner as I could) that there was misrepresentation of references. After a one week ban for edit warring on an article content matter elsewhere (in which they appear right on the content issue) they have voluntarily (and bitterly) withdrawn from editing. Since they have been a prolific editor, one has to worry about the huge quantity of material that needs to be checked. Somewhere in all this there is probably a psychology thesis, but not from me :) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The only way to counter this is with editors who know the subject area. Otherwise a knowledgeable editor can run wild. Most of Wikipedia's checks and balances are more generalised, so don't do well against any insidious attempt to misinform. Thankfully in most high visibility articles there's a good balance of editors looking out for such things, but the more minor or esoteric the subject the more likely it can slip by. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Kiev (1941)
Mpnader (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi mate, May I ask you to help me with grammatical correction in Battle of Kiev (1941) article? I'm somewhat inexperienced in writing work to English in Wikipedia. If you are not willing yourself, Would you please recommend someone else for this work? Thanks in advance! Mpnader (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, they are likely much more qualified that I am. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Your recommendation is very helpful. I didn't know there is such a wikiproject. Mpnader (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a very helpful project, you may also be interested in WP:MILHIST an active group of editors interested in all things military history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

RSN
Are you going to chase other editors away from like you tried with me here? The fact that I had already left the discussion doesn't justify you chipping in.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? I'm being serious I have absolutely no clue what you're referring to. I replied to a massively confused thread, that seemed to be veering off into matters not related to the reliability of a source. My comment was in that regard nothing else, it absolutely certainly had nothing to do with you in particular. Because, and I can't make this plain enough, I have no &#$%ing clue who you are?!?!? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You said "go somewhere else". This was aimed at me. Therefore you do not want me to participate in that discussion. Don't pretend otherwise.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't ever remember interacting with you before that thread, please do tell me if I'm wrong. But as I have basically agreed with you argument about the source being reliable, I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion you have. A similarity of words is poor evidence to cast aspersions on my intentions. I'm sorry if I caused offence that was never my purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My apology (Clarence Thomas)
Sorry about that. My prior edit in the caption of the image was reverted, so I added the text to the subsection instead, forgetting about the wrong year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries, easy mistake to make -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Two years
Two years and only 8,000 articles with no target errors left to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Are you glad you made an account, rather sticking with IP editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a user page to store links has been handy, and it's certainly avoided having to fill out an enormous amount of edit requests ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Question
Hello dear one, I have a question. On History of Christianity, the early modern period, the trial of Galileo, I want to add a reference that goes back to an earlier place in the same article: History of Christianity. I've tried every way I can think of, plus I haven't been able to readily find the WP rule. So I am taking the lazy way out and just asking the teacher. :-) How the heck is referencing a section in a WP article properly done please sir? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anchor point links inside an article shouldn't include the articles name, so instead of History of Christianity  use   . You can use a pipe | to hide the #  Roots of scientific revolution . You should only use it as a link though not a reference, as Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. You could include it in a note though.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You will notice harv/sfn warnings for already whitelisted items
Just wanted to give you a heads-up, that you will start to notice harv/sfn warnings for the "no link pointing to this citation" case that are already whitelisted in situ. (For starters, at Ships of ancient Rome, possibly others.) I haven't investigated yet, but just thinking about it I think I know why it's happening, and if I'm not wrong, it's related to harvc/citec and no amount of whitelisting will fix it; it will require a change to the script. I have to run out, but will get to it eventually; in the meantime, don't waste time tracking any of these at Ships of ancient Rome, or other articles, if you happen to see that the citec template is involved. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion to ask Trappist about this case. If you're curious, you can follow along here. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm seeing the same error messages as you, it could be an issue with the script. I've commented at the thread you started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you have to specifically enable them, which I had done, some time ago. Since they are only "warning"-level (that is, no WP:Verifiability is lost if you never fix them), its okay not to enable them. That said, I resolved the issue in this edit using cite whitelink, a template I had created a few months back for this purpose, and either forgot about it, or didn't realize it would handle this situation (with chapters) as well. Anyway, it's fixed, and if you (or someone you're interacting with or trying to explain things to) runs into the "no link pointing here" warning, that's one way to fix it. Trappist is not wrong—generally, a citation generating that warning doesn't belong in "Bibliography"/"Works cited"; it's "cruft", as he said, and should be moved to "Further reading", which will eliminate the error. However, the situation with chapters is different, and generally you *don't* want to move them to "Further reading", a whole, different section remote from the cite book it belongs to, you keep them with it (as Trappist also said). That's a prime situation for cite whitelink: you get to keep the chapters together with their book citation, and you get to avoid unhelpful "no link pointing here" warnings, when you already know that particular chapter isn't cited in the article.
 * The upshot of all this: cite whitelink is just another tool in your toolkit for dealing with false positive error & warning messages related to wrapped citations. This happens far, far, less frequently than the other false positives you are clearing, and I won't blame you if you forget by the time you eventually run into one again. Hey, I forgot, and I wrote it!  Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The solution to this is to use harvc, which you can link to and which links to the full cite book. All without having to hide messages that would help article cleanup at a later date. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The unresolved harvc templates are what are causing the “no link” warning messages in the first place. You can’t fix that by adding yet another one. What you need, is something that does link to it, and that’s what the linked fix does. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello ActivelyDisinterested,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems quite interesting, but can I ask what is supported? I only edit on mobile (android/chrome/desktop site), and I can't find the information anywhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interest! Unfortunately, right now ConvoWizard is implemented as a browser add-on that only supports the desktop versions of Chrome and Firefox. Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry then I won't be able to take part, hope it has good results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

LCU
What does it stand for? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Limited Contact Unit -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a science fiction reference that I'm surprised more editors havent got. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read The Wasp Factory but I don't recall reading anything else by Iain Banks or Iain M. Banks. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The works under Iain M. Banks are quite different, possibly some of the best science fiction work I've ever read. User of Weapons, Feersum Endjinn, Look to Windward, and of course Excession, all brilliant works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahh! Now I get it. Interesting for science fiction, but for me it's irrelevant as I don't see civilization surviving for much longer than this century as we descend into vast chaos because of climate change. Some will survive, but at what cost? Only the wealthy will be able to protect themselves, and only by keeping slaves to work and produce for them. Capitalism as a functioning system will collapse as there will be no working class that can afford to be consumers. Capitalism requires a consumer base. Extreme vulture greed-driven capitalism will indeed survive by using slaves. I'm sure there are types of science fiction that describe these future scenarios, and as we've seen in the past, they soon cease to be "fiction" but become harsh realities. I doubt our planet and societies will be able to advance to the space exploration stages envisioned by many science fiction writers. Only the extremely wealthy will be able to protect themselves from the extreme heat, pollution, and noxious fumes from rotting oceans.

Our best bet is to devote all excess wealth to saving this planet, stopping pollution, and creating societies where "few have too much and fewer too little" (the motto of the current Scandinavian model societies), with huge, well-educated, and prosperous middle classes that can float extremely successful capitalistic businesses while keeping the Social Democratic balance of ensuring the welfare of all citizens. In them, education and health care are human rights. America is the lone exception among modern developed nations, and its citizens and businesses are paying a heavy price for that greed. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately climate change is a gotcha for human perceptional bias. There is nothing you can do about the climate as it currently is, as any change will take decades to have an impact. Each individual will only start to affect any change once the climate has shifted enough for them to take it seriously. But that amount of climate change has already happened and the climate will continue to change for decades after people start trying to undo the damage. We see climate change as a cause to take action, but it is instead an effect of our own actions. The failure to correctly see the nature of the situation will be a costly mistake. I'm sure there are those who believe they can do nothing and continue to exploit in the future, they are painfully wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Advice
I started the Rfc with the question 'Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer?'. The sources speak of Columbus both ways and the editors will decide which is correct. However, now in the article after Italian there is a note and an additional explanation:  'the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity'. By starting Rfc, I don't want to give legitimacy to that information if the editors decide to keep the current state because I don't know if this information is in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. In fact, this information is not part of my Rfc question so I don't know if I can check it on some noticeboard without violating neutrality? Mikola22 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The note appears to come from note #1 of the History of Italy article, but it's reference has been dropped off. It was referenced to Pliny Letters 9.23, were Pliny uses "Italicus es an provincialis?". As to the note it wouldn't work very well if the RFC results in the lead changing to Genoese, but it could be altered to explain that although Genoese his contemporaries my have referred to him as Italian and where that comes from. Modern Italians are also Europeans, the specific and the general are not mutually exclusive. So I would think it's something to worry about after the RFC has been closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My Rfc question is neutral, however, some of the editors are for other option which is in fact 3rd option(keep the information as it is, which is legitimate). However, we are not discussing that option because the Rfc has a specific question. When the admin closes this Rfc he may not see the problems in the third option because we didn't discuss it and so my Rfc could be legitimation of that fact in context of Christopher Columbus and possibly an example for other articles. But this information is not in any source that talks about Columbus as far as I know, nor is it in any relevant context with Columbus so it could be WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and information in note itself may be WP:SYNTH because it is a combination of information from several sources. I am now interested in whether I saw it wrong and what should I do in this case so that this information can be checked? I thought I'd check on fringe noticeboard etc, but as I said, I don't know if I am violating neutrality of Rfc. If you don't know the answer, you can recommend some editor and I will ask him. Mikola22 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand when you say that it is a concern when the Rfc ends, but there is a possibility that the third option will gain legitimacy if the admin decide in that direction, but without discussion in this Rfc and then starting a new Rfc on that matter is almost an impossible mission. At least not within a year. Mikola22 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not everything has to be resolved by RFC, discussion is always preferable. I wouldn't suggest having a separate RFC on this unless you've used the other options per WP:Dispute resolution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether it's SYNTH to say that Italicus was used during the time period would likely need a better reading of the sources than I have (I don't think it would be OR or FRINGE as there are sources saying it was used, the question would be if that is relevant to Columbus). It's likely best to wait until the RFC has been closed. Maybe asking if a non-primary source can be shown to attest for Italicus being used during the period is a place to start, a single mention by Pliny may not be due for inclusion. I wouldn't personally start another discussion until it's closed, not due to it being non-neutral but you may start to wear down the communities patience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up a separate matter the RFC may not be closed by an admin, that's not necessary for an RFC. It just has to be an uninvoly editor with experience bog closing discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. As for OR or FRINGE, the mention of information: Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity is not a fringe per se (although I haven't seen a secondary source where it says that, I guess it says somewhere), FRINGE or OR would be in my opinion, because it is not written in the sources that talk about Columbus, directly or in some context. And as for the synthesis, this is note information: Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa, it is probably two information from two side of the sources bought into one context behind Italian. (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.) Maybe it's allowed to use more information in the note for some clarification but in this case 'Italian' is a conclusion although one piece of information say he is born in the Republic of Genoa(Italy is probably also mentioned there), and other part of information say: 'modern state of Italy had yet to be established'. For information that he is from the Republic of Genoa we know that there are sources in Columbus context, but for the other part of the information we neither have the source in this note, nor the context in which it is mentioned this information, we have nothing. Mikola22 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd still suggest waiting until the RFC is closed. Once that's done ask for reliable secondary sourcing to back up the note, and use of Italicus in relation in Columbus. It's not necessary to get everything right immediately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

List of amphibians and reptiles of Saint Barthélemy
Hi. Could you please review this recent edit of yours? It removed the short description, added a redlinked category, and other changes not mentioned in your edit summary. Just wondering if the edit wasn't executed properly? -- DB 1729 talk 20:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Err.. Not sure what's happened there, I'll fix now. Thanks for catching that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, all fixed now. I had been looking through the article history and must have editted an old revision. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It happens. Thanks for taking care of that:) DB 1729 talk 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternate account?
You state on your userpage that I have an undisclosed single purpose account used to maintain privacy. Its work is completely unrelated to this account. Per WP:SOCKLEGIT and WP:ALTACCN, you should consider notifying the Arbitration Committee about this account, if you haven't already; the latter policy also states that those who maintain single purpose accounts [...] are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. The reason I came across your account in the first place was due to a comment you made on a disruptive user's talk page about "chang[ing]... the established truth" on Wikipedia, so you'll have to forgive me if I have some questions as to the nature of your SPA in light of that - of course, you don't have to answer to me personally as I am not an arb and have no interest in the private matters of editors, although I would politely suggest that you do make a declaration to the Committee. Patient Zerotalk 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's being used to create a single article, which I should have been able to do by now but haven't had the time. It makes no edits outside of that single userspace draft, which would be passed through AfC when created and the account password scrambled afterwards. It exists because people in my personal life know I'm working on that draft, so connecting it to this account would be doxing (but in reverse). If you wish to look at any of my editing before creating this account, then this old revision of my userpage includes a limited history of my IP editting. If there are ever any concerns about my editting, or any other legitimate reasons to disclose the connection I would do so. My comment to the editor in question was similar to ones I've had with other such editors whatevers their personal persuasions. See the LTA page I've been working on for instance. They are concerned about highlighting issues in Indonesian New Guinea, and I've tried to explain to them in the past that Wikipedia isn't for activism regardless of its nature (in that case with no effect). Wikipedia reflects society, so if you wish to change that you must make societal change first. Ultimately it was an attempt to engage with an editor (who was obviously on their way out) in a natural language way, rather than the wikispeak and templates so commonly used. A fruitless one as they simply blanked their talkpage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I appreciate the explanations and provision of evidence, and as far as I can see, your usage of such an account is legitimate, and now that you have clarified what you meant in this statement to the disruptive editor, I no longer have the aforementioned concerns. Take care, Patient Zerotalk 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for any third party, the comment that caused this question was this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your transparency in this matter, also. Thank you once again, --Patient Zerotalk 01:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, sorry!
Hey, here's a belated apology–– I didn't mean to malign your work on Logical form (linguistics). I just saw references turning into "citation needed" tags and assumed something was going wrong. I can help repair the others at some point, though honestly that article could use a thorough rewrite. Botterweg14 (talk)  01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries. Many of these non-references have been around for decades. I'm hoping once the category is cleared down to get the error messages turned on by default, so the issue is properly highlighted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Archival of AJ at RSN
Hi there, I've just noticed that you archived the discussion on AJ English on the RSN. While I agree that there was no consensus, about 50% of the editors believed AJ is unreliable for the conflict, with plenty of backing information. Does that mean that the AJE should be normally marked as reliable with no comment whatsoever? What is the solution in this case? Bar Harel (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The archiving happens automatically, I 'hatted' the discussion awhile ago because it wasn't productive. The status of AJE is unchanged from what is listed at WP:RSP, Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned news organization considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.
 * If you think the discussion could change that you can always unhat, unarchive and ask for a formal close at WP:Closure requests (if you're unsure of how to go about unhatting and unarchiving, I can do so for you, how to request a close is explained on the Closure Request page), but I'm not of the opinion that that will achieve anything. The discussion is very flawed, starting with that it was never a formal RFC. Closes' are based on consensus not by vote count, so those editor posting unreliable/reliable without any comment or reasoning of why that is the case will have very little impact on the final consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I appreciate the explanation.
 * I think that the current consensus is certainly not what is written on the RSP - as "some editors say that Al Jazeera Arabic is impartial" is very different from "50% of the editors on the latest discussion believe Al Jazeera English is impartial and unreliable/additional considerations apply regarding the conflict" (of course, worded better and in a neutral language)
 * Bar Harel (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you believe that's the case you will need to get a proper close for the discussion, I doubt the other 50% will agree. The current wording comes from the close of the last RFC, rather than anyone involved in the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit at the RSN Header
Hi, I disagree with the added words in this edit. In 6 months, I never seen a off-topic discussion in RSN, just misguided ones about biases. I think the added note takes away attention from the more important note about RfCs. In case of an off-topic discussion, a link to WP:NOTFORUM is a possibility. Ca talk to me!  05:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * In any case, I appreciate the work you've done to turn this monstrosity of a header to what it is right now. Ca talk to me!  05:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think it's an ongoing issue, especially with aspersions and accusations against other editors. I let it go when you removed it, but I do believe it should be there and the changes to the header were the result of this discussion WT:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know my edits have been WP:BOLD, so I didn't want to be belligerent with reversions. Can you provide examples where there were aspersions and accusations against other editors? I saw some editors filing a report about another editor's addition of unreliable sources, but the wording "This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources" permits that. Ca talk to me!  12:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Go look for the latest discussion of Al-Jazeera in the last archive, or see the discussion on Marquis De Sade that's currently on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the linked discussions, and I see your concern - discussions are heated to the point that accusations are thrown about. But I think you can just direct them to the heading, which says "Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!". From it, it's clear that RSN is not the place to hold conduct issues. It is easy to remind people to go elsewhere like you did in the Marquis.
 * For me, I don't think type of editor who would cast aspersions would be deterred by the small note in the banner. Ca talk to me!  14:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but it's useful to have because such editors are also the most likely to say "well who says this isn't the right forum?" -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. How about making that point more explicit by changing the wording to something like "This page is not for discussing user conduct"? Ca talk to me!  14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The more general form covers that, the regular discussions that turn out to be about DUE rather than reliablity, and any other way that discussions might drift off course that can't be immediately be thought of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As to the separation of the different notes it was a deliberate decision. It's less about tidiness and more about try to guide behaviour with design. By putting that specific statement about context and previous discussions in a separate box, it's pointing to "if you're going to read anything - read this" (its subtle but the area inside the box is also a slightly different shade, it help to make it standout a little bit from the other parts). Most of the header is going to be ignored, that's just how modern ui design has trained people, so providing design clues to what is most important is a way to try and overcome that behaviour. The other three statements are additions to the core statement of the board, so having them separate highlights the context statement further. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

wordwrap
This should work. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/wbr Polygnotus (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, second new thing I've learned today. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Khosrow II
I saw your reversion of my edit to this article. Please explain further – I don't think you're correct. Both the comma and the "b" cause date formatting errors that result in the article appearing on the the list at Category:CS1 errors: dates for correction, and even though the title appears in ALLCAPS in its source, it should be reduced to title case according to Wikipedia's style manual at Manual of Style/Capital letters.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The 'b' does not cause a CS1 error, see the documentation for sfn and harv templates and the category mentioned. This is standard disambiguation used when more than one cite exists for author/year combination. No issue if you won't to change the capitalisation, but the disambiguation in the year must stay. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

An answer to your question
You asked why, this is why. Messing with broad organization like that in an active discussion is going to create EC friction, I wouldn't be shocked about it in the future and its probably happened hundreds of time before you just haven't noticed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes but all I did was put my comment back where it originally was, I didn't mess with the original placement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Inserting new replies above old replies of the same or lower indentying makes a complete mess of the thread. Your comments should have come below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Modifying headers
Hi there,

I find the idea of trimming down on headers pretty good, and I've already done some work on it (NPOVN, FTN and Resource Exchange). Is there any other area where you think that such changes may be warranted? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Much like some articles good faith additions are made until at some point the result needs to be condensed and consolidated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Different but very similar editions.
Thank you so much for sorting out the tangle of editions, dates and page numbers used in the Caligula article. Barrett produced several near-identical versions of his '89 original, then a more drastic re-evalution, using old and new material in paper and online versions. Another editor has been using the '89 edition plus some changes (several and all highly significant and I've been using the much more recently published second, more heavily revised online edition. I'll keep an eye out for any further difficulties with the sources. Thanks again, Haploidavey (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem Haploidavey. If I can help in anyway please just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Aror
Hello. Do check the talk page of Battle of Aror, the problem is still not resolved. A user randomly came, removed some cited information and added another cited information which contradicts earlier info, and even though the noticeboard accepted the reliability, the user continued removing it claiming him/herself it is not reliable. Not to involve in edit warring, I kept myself away from adding the source again and used talk page. The reliability reviewer said that "Take it up at ANI or some other dramaboard. This is no longer a RSN issue, it's editor conduct." and surprisingly when I took that to ANI, they said the discussion is going on, so finish it first. They made that comment because you have involved there by making a comment related to AGEMATTERS and the un reliability of Cambridge source because it is outdated. I agreed to it and listed multiple modern sources for that information. Please solve the issue or it will affect the faith of readers of Wikipedia seeing different data being displayed within some matter of time, and for me I felt like edit warring really worked here. Imperial [AFCND]  05:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added a thread at WP:MILHIST asking for some help. Sorry I've been busy the last few days and missed your ping. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh. You don't have to say sorry if that wasn't intentional. And thanks for your help. Imperial  [AFCND]  12:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested, can't see any action being taken. I have requested WP:MILHIST several times for much issues earlier, and I barely gets help from there. Is there anything else we could do? Imperial  [AFCND]  12:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

🎄🎄🎄

 * Merry Christmas Ca. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry
Hello, I must have annoyed you with those errors due to my edits, I often forget about refs, my apologies. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You may find it easier if you turn on the error messages associated with short form refs, they are off by default. Category:Harv and Sfn template errors details how to turn them on. Overwise don't worry to much, I'll just keep leaving you reminders ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Lister
Hi, I've reverted that because your changing it when the article is still be written. That format is the the only way to view all the images that need to go into the article, in that densitity. It may be a bit error'd at the moment but it will get fixed. But that format you put it into, is entirely unsuitable for this article, that gallery are junk. Don't revert it. If its need slimmed, post to the talk page.  scope_creep Talk  22:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment at the article talk page that I have already started. Also either reduce the width of you multi-image template, use less images, or use a gallery. Your current format is over wide on mobile, the format of most of Wikipedia's readers. I'm sure it formats fine on desktop, but that really becoming a niche experience. I will be adding back my changes, if you wish to revert the change to the gallery do so. But mass reverting other changes that include error fixes because IDONTLIKETHAT of one change, and doing so with any edit summary, is disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another editor has already re-implemented fixes for the errors you kept blindly re-introducing to the article, so nevermind. I've reduced the width of you multi-image instead of converting it to a gallery. If you have any questions ask them at the talk page, not here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas! ''Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส!'' ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete! Hello, ActivelyDisinterested! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas Jenhawk777, hope you have a lovely time and happy New Year. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


User:A.S. BrownUser talk:A.S. Brown is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

History of the PhilippinesHistory of the Philippines
Thanks for this fix. I committed that error six months ago and it has gone unnoticed since then. Merry Xmas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That's an easy error, autocorrect can even cause it, and it's even easier for it to go unnoticed. I've saved a search to check on it time to time. Merry Christmas -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK credit for Cote
The DYK was not a bot error. I asked admin to do that, because we all had to make a big effort, and promptly, to prevent the article from being deleted on the grounds of notability. In my opinion, in this case, all edits counted, including single edits. If you want to be modest about it, that is your choice, but please know that your effort did make a difference, and was appreciated. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

History of Christianity
Hey you! Are you ready for the holidays? I am getting there... very slowly. I am hoping you have time in spite of all the holiday partying to answer a question for me. There is a notice that comes up that says there are problems in some of my cite journal refs, but I can't see them. How do I identify them and get rid of that notification? It is not welcome to stay at my house for Christmas! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas Jenhawk777. I've already had a one big family do, due to family members having odd work schedules in the run up to Christmas. So I had to do half my preparation last month. You can make the CS1 maintenance messages appear by copying the code below to your common.css page.
 * Once you save it should look the same as the first two lines of my common.css page. The specific message on History of Christianity is an inactive doi related to 'Arnold 2018' - "Persecution and Power in Medieval Europe: The Formation of a Persecuting Society, by R. I. Moore". The doi is no longer being maintained, the link it creates just takes you to a page saying "DOI NOT FOUND". Sometimes a new doi has been issued, but not in this case. You can leave it, or remove it from the template and add text after the template stating it was originally issued with that doi. Remember all the information in the cite is only there to help readers find the source and this cite already includes a link to Academic OUP, so the doi is just another added nicety. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dearest one, I'm afraid this assumes I am not as stupid as I actually am. What the heck is a common.css page and where and how do I find it???? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have made it clearer in my comment, the "to your common.css" includes the link Special:MyPage/common.css. Anyone using it is taken to their own personal common.css page. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know you must want to pull out your hair, but I cannot find Mypage/common.css. I have looked for it everywhere and every way I can think of and WP keeps telling me it doesn't exist, so I am guessing it isn't titled that way??
 * And thank you. I noted when I went to fix the broken doi that you had already done so.
 * Do you know anything about how to apply for an A-rating for an article? Do you want me to go away? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't exist until you create it, sorry I should have explained that. Go to User:Jenhawk777/common.css choose create source and copy the code above into the page. I've no knowledge of article assessment but Content assessment appears to set out the details of what's required. And finally no, your always welcome on my talk page. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So I appreciated you showing up and fixing those changes on HofC. They weren't mine. Another editor is going through the sources which I am very, very grateful for but it does give me more confidence to know that you are keeping an eye on what they are doing. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey I have a question about what this other editor is doing. He has added author-links, but I am concerned these are duplicated in links within the text. Does that matter? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:LINKONCE says this is acceptable, and it's only for the first mention of the author. I personally try not to overlink in cites, I don't think it's always helpful but that personal opinion. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF merge
User-talk might be more efficient for getting past this impasse. Can you help me understand what your objection is, to exactly what wording, and on exactly what basis/bases? "Agree to disagree" doesn't really work when someone has erected a vague stonewall but will neither clearly explain their point nor budge from their stance. I'm trying to find a substantive rationale in "is[n't] necessary" and your earlier "dislike". These seem to resolve to purely subjective "I don't like it" feelings. I've presented a rather detailed syntactical analysis (more than once) of what is provably wrong with the original construction of the opening sentence. Fixing it is trivial copy-editing that makes no substantive change to the intended meaning (or the predominant interpretation) of the material. No one has presented a counter-analysis showing that my analysis is incorrect. We can invite people from WT:LINGUISTICS to check my work if you want to.

People have repeatedly used the inclarity to wikilawyer that the meaning of the rule is that a self-published source can only be used for a claim about that source (publication) not about the author of the source, and this is clearly (by broad consensus) not the meaning of the policy (indeed, the original point of it was the use of a self-published source for a non-controversial statement about the author of the source). But "publication only" is what the original sentence implies because of its confused structure. That is to say, "isn't necessary" is demonstrably not accurate; any time a policy can be easily wikilawyered due to wording inclarity, it needs to be repaired. The simple and obvious way to patch that crack forever is to fix the syntax errors in the sentence – something that comes at no cost of any kind.

There is no WP:CREEP in this at all. Maybe it's been a long time since you read that page.

So, please tell me where you think the CREEP essay is somehow being failed. Then why following your own interpretation of an essay is more important than one of our core content policies actually making sense (and making to everyone who reads it).
 * 1) CREEP exhorts us to avoid complication. A sentence that can easily be interpreted at least two very different, conflicting ways is a serious complication, but easily fixed.
 * 2) "Principles: Keep policies and guidelines to the point." There is nothing more to-the-point than writing clearly in a way that cannot be misinterpreted as the opposite of the point.
 * 3) "Before publishing your edit, review the text for potential unintended consequences ..." was clearly not done by the author of the original opening-sentence wording, "... and rewrite as appropriate" is what we're doing here.
 * 4) "Even longstanding instructions should be subject to review": Doing that now.
 * 5) "If you feel that a change is needed, either make your case on the talk page or boldly make your changes, giving your rationale .... If you meet with disagreement, discuss the matter further": That's what we're doing. "Those who oppose ... may still be willing to consider changes": I've done everything I can to take everyone's input into consideration and re-re-re-draft as needed; but this compromise part seems to not be happening from your direction, at all. Why?
 * 6) "Additional instruction can be helpful when it succinctly states community consensus regarding a significant point": That's what we're doing here. Such instruction "is harmful when the point is trivial, redundant, or unclear." The "unclear" part is what is wrong with the old opening sentence, and "redundant" is what was wrong with the RS codicil we've agreed to leave out; nothing in the material is trivial.
 * 7) Even the "above" clarification in the opening sentence complies with CREEP: "Nobody reads the directions from beginning to end", i.e. we cannot depend upon anyone arriving at this material to know already where the "experts" rule is and to have understood it, yet it is important that they do so.
 * 8) "If someone cited this page [i.e. WP:CREEP] ... they think the rule is at least unnecessary and unimportant, if not downright harmful ... because it prevents editors from writing good articles. It's rare that what Wikipedia really needs is yet another rule." This is not a new rule, has no effect but positive on writing good articles, and nothing in this entire discussion is in any way a referendum on even one single aspect of what the rule actually means. It's a merge and copyedit thread.
 * 9) "Do not make substantive additions to a policy or guideline unless the addition solves a real and significant problem": These are not substantive changes, so CREEP isn't really applicable in the first place, but both the merge and the copyedit address genuine and serious interpretation problems.

CREEP does not mean "never change old wording". It does not mean "never make a sentence clearer if the sentence would end up slightly longer". It does not mean "never add a clarification to something confusing or misinterpreted".

CREEP mean don't add new rules, or over-complicate existing rules, in ways that we do not need. We do need clarity, that clarity complications, and nothing at all in this is any kind of new rule.

Hell, I wrote an essay about instruction creep myself at WP:AJR, and contributed a lot to another, at WP:MOSBLOAT. Most of what I do at WT:MOS and related pages is head off people trying to add new pet-peeve rules, or complicated alleged "exceptions" to existing rules, to suit their personal writing preferences. I am in no way your enemy on such concerns. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have replied at the original discussion, I'm not willing to split it across multiple pages. I understand and appreciate your note that we are not enemies, I certainly don't see you that way. It's just we see the use of language quite differently. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How do I make two columns?
Hello dear heart, I hope you had a wonderful holiday as I am putting you back to work immediately!! My references at History of Christianity were in two columns at one time, and I can't find when or how they were changed back to one. There are too many for one column I think. What do I need to type in to change to two columns? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been lazing to long, so it's good to have a call back to action. The reflist template should automatically format the section to your display, so I'm unsure why your seeing a single column. I'm seeing two columns of references at History of Christianity, which is what I would expect. Have you change the aspect of your browser window? If not or your still seeing a single column you can force it by adding '|2' into the template . It's not something I would normally suggest though, as it's not always the right choice for all screen formats but I don't think it would be an issue in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for GA about an hour ago and a reviewer has already shown up, so I better ask them before doing anything else - I guess... Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good luck, and if I can help in anyway please just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It must be something I have done.  I added the bar-2 and nothing changed. Could you look? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very weird. Ok two other things to try. First try changing the |2 to |20em, and if that still doesn't work try logging out of Wikipedia and see if the issue persists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * YES!! You are brilliant you are!  It worked, thank you and thank you!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with the not RfC
I appreciate the help, starting out can be difficult :) FortunateSons (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries, it can all be a bit to much when you first start out. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. If I can help at all, just ask here. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Britannia Village
The Kirby reference published in 1967 is not the reference that I want to put into the article. The hardcover book that I wish to reference was published in 2012 to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the Britannia Yacht Club; this book has an extensive section on the construction of the main and inner harbours with many pictures. Google Books makes reference to this book at: https://books.google.ca/books/about/Britannia_Yacht_Club.html?id=ndlfzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

I would appreciate if you could put the correct reference back into the article, i.e. Britannia Yacht Club, A History of Water, Place and People, 1887 - 2012. Britannia Yacht Club, 72p, 2013 (pages 25 - 31).

Thank you for your consideration.

Bob Reichert Robert Neustadter (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing you mean this edit to Britannia Village, Ottawa. If you wish to reference a particular work in the article go right ahead, you seem to have misunderstood why I restored the cite. The reference currently numbered #38 is for "Kirby 1967, p. 30". That reference is being created by a sfn template. That template does nothing but create a hyperlink to a matching cite, you can try this now in the article. If you go to reference #38 and click on "Kirby 1967" your browser focus will be taken to Sources setting and the Kirby reference highlighted. You removed the cite that the reference links with causing a no target error, see the tracking category for such errors Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Finally I didn't remove anything as the link diff above shows, I restored a cite you removed. If you wish to add a different cite, or wish to remove the "Kirby 1967" cite and reference go ahead. But if you remove the cite without removing or changing the reference it will be put back in the tracking category, and someone will come along and fix it again. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks...okay, I'll let you remove the Kirby 1967 reference in both Sources and reference #38 because I do not want it in the article. I tried to remove reference #38 however I couldn't.  I have already added the reference that I wanted and it's reference 41.
 * I appreciate your help!
 * Bob Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the reference for you in this edit. It was hidden inside a gallery template. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding error message
Hi! I saw you fix a citation at Demon Attack for me. How do I enable this error message so I can catch it myself? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There a couple of options. The first is to go here User:Andrzejbanas/common.css choose create source and copy the following before saving: The second option is to go User:Andrzejbanas/common.js choose edit source and copy the following before saving:  The first will give you basic error messages, while the later will enable extended messages and extra detail (it's just a matter of preference). If you ever have a question about the error messages feel free to ask me. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)