User talk:Anomalocaris/Archive 2017

Herbert Krey
Hi,

When the author blanks a page, that usually means they want it deleted. I have tagged it for CSD G7. Adam9007 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brand of the Devil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway Theatre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Im Tirtzu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Jewish Journal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sean Spicer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprecation of "publisher" field
Hello

In your contribution to Template:Cite web/doc, you claim that publisher is deprecated. But I am not seeing to that effect in the documentation page.

Not only it is not deprecated, existing literature tells me that the citation style is a matter of optional style. This means that all that Wikipedia has required is consistency and retention, nothing more. Beyond that, it is at editors' discretion as to which citation style they choose and which fields they fill in. Therefore, the "publisher" effectively cannot be deprecated at all.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa: Hello. Thank you for your interest in this issue and communicating with me on my talk page. I didn't say that publisher is deprecated. My edit summary was "use of publishers with newspapers is generally deprecated". And here is a source for this: Template:Cite news/doc, which says, "Not normally used for periodicals." A newspaper is a type of periodical. Therefore, my edit summary was true. When readers read citations, they care that an article was published in the Houston Chronicle, not that the Houston Chronicle is published by Hearst Corporation. I believe examples on template documentation should be entirely consistent with what we want to encourage. We don't want to encourage editors to slap Hearst Corporation (with or without the wikilink) alongside every Houston Chronicle (with or without the wikilink). On the contrary, we want to discourage the publisher parameter, because it is "Not normally used for periodicals." —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if my efforts in this area is any indication, that certain piece of example has not encouraged or discouraged anything. But like I said, Wikipedia policy has left the choice to editors' discretion and has no sanctioned any predefined in house style. You shouldn't be wanting to discourage or encourage the use of publisher's name. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa: This page is a personal page, and as such, I will refrain from editing it, but I have some observations:
 * User:Codename Lisa/Websites and their publishers
 * Despite your piped link anchored to the words "if my efforts in this area is any indication", you have provided evidence neither of your efforts beyond creating the page, nor indications of any sort.
 * Most of the Works are just plain websites and not periodicals.
 * Two of the Works are redirects, viz: MSDN → Microsoft Developer Network; ComputerWeekly → Computer Weekly
 * Two of the Works are print periodicals, viz: PC Gamer, Maximum PC. Some content may be online-only, and this can be determined on a case-by-case basis.
 * One of the Works is a website of a print periodical: theguardian.com is the website of The Guardian. I assume that anything published at theguardian.com appeared in the print edition unless it is obviously online-only, such as a blog, an author page, a "contact us" page, or something like that, and I normally code articles from that website with.
 * One of the Works is a piped link to a redirect to a section of a page, viz: Wired (website) → Wired (magazine). The article lead says it is "published in print and online editions" and, because I don't visit the site, I make no assumptions as to whether articles at wired.com are from the magazine; I would attempt to determine this on a case-by-case basis. If I determined that an article appeared in the magazine, I would code it as . If I determined that an article appeared only on the website, I would code it as . If you code it as I would not say you are wrong. However, I note that some articles at Wired are republished from other publications, and in that case I would mention the original publication and use Wired.
 * Eight of the Works are former print periodicals now published online, viz: PC World, Computerworld, InfoWorld, MacWorld, eWeek, ComputerWeekly → Computer Weekly, InformationWeek, PC Magazine. Some of these have online magazines and probably have non-periodical content also.
 * One of the Works are is an online periodical that never had a print edition, viz: Windows IT Pro. Some of its content may be outside the periodical edition.

I continue to claim that "Not normally used for periodicals" means "don't", at least usually. There are over 4,000 articles on Wikipedia linking to Houston Chronicle, the newspaper that started this discusion. Let's look at the first 10.
 * "Not normally used for periodicals" means "don't", at least usually

Summary: Of the first 10 articles linking to Houston Chronicle, there are 21 citations of that paper, of which only one citation lists the publisher, Hearst Newspapers.

"Hearst Newspapers" is clutter in a citation of an article in the Houston Chronicle. It is more work to enter in the first place, and it doesn't help anybody.

"Not normally used for periodicals" has appeared in Template:Cite news/doc since July 1, 2012, almost 5 years ago. It means, in most cases, don't use this parameter for periodicals. It could be used to add credibility to an obscure paper, but the Houston Chronicle is number 14 on List of newspapers in the United States. Houston Chronicle stands on its own without any need for "Hearst Newspapers".

I was right to remove Hearst Newspapers from the examples in Template:Cite web/doc. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First, that link wasn't supposed to be evidence. The burden of evidence is with the person proposes a change; that's you.
 * Second, you seem to repeatedly not get the message: This issue is a matter of optional style. The domain of optional style does not concern itself with what is dominant; the non-dominant form is still has the right to exist. (Why don't you study WP:MOS and the ArbCom ruling mentioned in it?) An example of the optional style worthy of notes is the MDY date style.
 * Third, Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody is allowed to remove any single piece of information just because "no one likes it". To remove a piece of info, you need to cite a policy that says it is forbidden. And there is no policy saying "adding publisher's name to citations of periodicals is forbidden."
 * Fourth, the example whose publisher you removed was an online source, not a paper periodical. So, all your arguments so far, regardless of their validity, were inapplicable.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Codename Lisa: "First, that link wasn't supposed to be evidence." Excuse me. You presented it as evidence. You wrote, "if my efforts in this area is any indication," which means "click this link for evidence that indicates something." Thank you for sending me down that rabbit hole.
 * You are correct that some aspects of referencing are not mandatory. However, avoiding listing the publishers of major newspapers is mandatory. See, for example, Help:Citation Style 1: "The 'publisher' parameter should not be included ... for mainstream, widely-known newspapers ..."
 * I won't debate your point about what nobody is allowed to remove, because it is irrelevant here, as my basis for removing the publisher is what Wikipedia says to do for widely-known newspapers; what readers don't like is not essential to my reason.
 * You are correct that the example in Template:Cite web/doc listing an article in the Houston Chronicle actually appeared online and not in print. Thank you for pointing this out. As the item didn't appear in the Houston Chronicle, the example is wrong and should be changed. Either we need an example that appeared in print, or we need to avoid implying that this piece did appear in print. Either way, anything sourced to Houston Chronicle should not also list as publisher the corporation that owns it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We are wandering off the topic too much. The bottom line is:
 * If a parameter is not deprecated, don't say it is deprecated.
 * Do not remove examples of non-deprecated parameters. If you want to change the example to something more suitable, I am fine. I call that a compromise.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''Please use the talk page before another revert. You're already pushing the 3RR'' Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop looking for excuses to put Trump in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop edit warring. Gain consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My response should be above the reference. You made it a ref instead of a simple link, so it created a ref below. It will always stay at the bottom of the page Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please engage in discussion
Please stop your edit warring and try actually discussing some edits. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts
Your reverts are also changing edits made to links etc. Please stop just clicking undo. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrapping bugs
I just undid (by accident) your edit at because the page was still showing up in the paragraph wrapping error list. Any ideas about the actual fix? --Izno (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Izno: I am perplexed by most remaining instances of Paragraph wrapping bug workaround and I don't have any ideas about the actual fix. By the way, did you know that the edit link could be coded as, resulting in  ...? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just lazy regarding diffs. I left a note at Template talk:Geobox, and plan to submit the footballbox collapsible to TFD (because WP:MOSCOLLAPSE--we should not collapse information if it's important enough to be in the main editing space on Wikipedia), which should take care of the majority of the rest. I think we're going to have a couple of these just like there's a couple in the Tidy whitespace bug error that also perplex me. --Izno (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Close Tag
I see you made an edit the WCWC Pacific Northwest Championship in which you slight changed the center HTML close tag. The way it was was fine. I know I'm splitting hairs, but unless I am missing something, it was redundant. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fishhead2100: I WCWC Pacific Northwest Championship, changing   to  . HTML tags are cancelled by a slash at the beginning, not the end. For example,   is used to bold the word "bold". (In Wikipedia, it is preferred to 3 apostrophes instead of HTML tags for bolding.) So the   tag is closed by , not  . Trailing slash is used to open and close a tag all at once. For example,   can be simplified to  . Or,   can be simplified to  . So, again, leading slash means "This is the end of the region of influence of the corresponding tag without the slash", while trailing slash means "opening and closing this tag in one operation". So,   is incorrect, and   is correct, for closing the preceding   tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I know about the Wikipedia bolding format. I know about the reference tag. Thanks for the explanation. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Spurious
= dashes ==

Hi, thank you for helping clean up the Balfour Declaration article with this edit. In part of the edit you removed the ===== dashes. I didn’t like them either. But they were serving a purpose - this is to illustrate the deletion of a large amount of text from the previous draft of the declaration. We do need to illustrate this, as without it the representation of the changes is incorrect. Can you think of anything we could replace it with? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile: I had no idea that's what ====== was supposed to mean. Take a look at what I did there. If you don't like it, feel free to put back the ======, although that is rather sucky. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that’s a very elegant solution. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello
hgvj How you are? UserUSA (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Double colons and WP 1.0 bot logs
Hello Anomalocaris. I had to revert your edit at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skepticism articles by quality log but have applied change instead. I've unfortunately not received a response about my bug report yet, but the bot appears to mislink Draft: space articles. If you are using a script to do those edits, I suggest to either add an exception for 1.0 logs to add the Draft: prefix, or to skip those, perhaps... Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 04:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Another complication was that the Draft_talk links were also broken (starting with a single colon and must be differentiated from legitimate Category links starting with a colon): . — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: editing html tag on my user talk page
Please abstain from making corrections to the html-code on my user profile talk page. Your adding a missing DIV tag may strictly speaking be a correction, and possibly you meant well.. But it does give abit of the impression of 'poking' at me, and meddling in beeswax that's none of yours. Thus seeming like a provocation attempt; calling on memories of past unpleasent experiences, and facilitating anxiety. ... If what you're trying is to get my attention then I suggest you try something like a friendly "Hey" in stead. RP Nielsen (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Trivial but unhelpful wikicode spacing changes
Please do not change double to single spacing after sentences in the wikicode. It makes it much harder to visually parse the code. The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence for a reason – the same reason the same style has been used for typed manuscripts for over a century. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:SMcCandlish: The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The proof is in the wikitext. Please stop doing that.  Robotically making pointless changes to wikicode is considered disruptive because it triggers watchlists and wastes people's time for no t benefit to the project. And you dodged the actually substantive rationale above with a silly "cn"; this is not an article and there is no external source for internal WP matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish: If you want to convince me that I have an editing practice I should change, I suggest that you identify one or more edits I have done that involve the objectionable practice, and identify and quote from a Wikipedia page that says not to do what I did. What you have written so far is not succeeding in convincing me that I have done anything contrary to Wikipedia policies or norms:
 * "The proof is in the wikitext." I don't know what you mean. ( You probably know that the English words proof has a somewhat-forgotten meaning relating to test; "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" means that it is in eating the pudding that its quality is assessed. I don't know if this is relevant to the point you were trying to make. )
 * "Robotically making pointless changes to wikicode" does not engage with me because I feel myself to be an organic intelligent living being and not a robot, because I expend mental energy on every edit, and because I believe my edits serve a useful purpose.
 * " If you do not, this will result in swift noticeboard action. " Thank you for removing this threat, which you may have realized would not be very effective and might even be counter-productive in persuading me that I had done something wrong.
 * "is considered disruptive" uses the passive voice with no implied actor. If it is considered disruptive by Wikipedia, please identify a page on Wikipedia saying so.
 * "because it triggers watchlists" raises the question of whether my edits contain any unquestionably good changes or not. If I edit an article and make at least one unquestionably good change, this edit will trigger watchlists, and users who review every edit will have to inspect my work whether or not I also make other changes at the same time.
 * "and wastes people's time for not [sic] benefit to the project." How other editors choose to spend their time is their business, not mine. I believe my edits do benefit Wikipedia.
 * "And you dodged the actually substantive rationale above with a silly 'cn: I wasn't being silly at all. You made an assertion, viz: "The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence." I challenged you to support that assertion. If your assertion is true, there are several ways it could be supported:
 * Something on or off Wikipedia that says this.
 * A survey of articles selected in some manner, such as a selection of most-viewed articles or featured articles, could be conducted and one could see if the current Wikitext of those articles is as you say, or if edits tend to be in the direction you claim is that of the vast majority of editors.
 * In any case, my use of was intended to prompt you to either provide some evidence for your claim or admit that you were making stuff up. I believe you were making stuff up, but I'm open to evidence in support of your claim.
 * "this is not an article and there is no external source for internal WP matters." So, present a source from Wikipedia.
 * Except when I need to make a null edit, I never edit articles just to adjust white space. Sometimes, when I am editing an article for other reasons, I change multiple spaces to single spaces for reasons including:
 * I find it distracting when the wikitext has "bumpy" spacing, such as multiple spacing between words in the middle of sentences.
 * I find it useful to highlight a snip of wikitext without markup and search for it in the body of the article. This will not work if the wikitext has multiple blanks.
 * I have seen other editors remove spaces here and there, so let's just get it done all at once and not bit by bit.
 * I am willing to engage with you further on this. Please remember that reasons that are equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT aren't likely to work. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's mostly reasonable, at least on an individual point basis (more so that my self-reverted fist-shaking, for which I could offer an explanation that wouldn't be much of an excuse). However, please consider that when people object to something it's a good idea to put that something on hold pending resolution. That, too, is reasonable.  You've asked for a lot of things that would take quite a bit of time and effort to assemble if you actually insist on them.  If I were to go to this much trouble, I'd probably do this in the form of an RfC, not a user talk discussion. In the interim: What "useful purpose" you allude to is served by changing "This is sentence 1.  This is sentence 2." into "This is sentence 1. This is sentence 2."?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: Thank you for acknowledging my reasonability. You wrote, "You've asked for a lot of things that would take quite a bit of time and effort to assemble if you actually insist on them." You probably didn't intend it that way, but what that says to me is "the time of SMcCandlish is more valuable than the time of Anomalocaris." That's another example of SMcCandlish arguments notable for being not only unpersuasive but also counterproductive.

Above, I suggested featured articles as a place to investigate Wikipedia whitespace markup practices. Well, since my time is less valuable than yours, here goes. Starting at Portal:Featured_content, look at the newest featured articles. We are looking for multiple spacing in ordinary running text, not in infoboxes, not in places where templates have one line per parameter, plus trailing blanks at the ends of paragraphs. I counted the numbers of multi-spaces in mid-sentence, at ends of sentence, after the template, at paragraph ends, at end of lines that start with , inside  templates, plus the total number of sentences in the article. At paragraph ends, single blanks count the same as multiple blanks.

After looking at 4 articles, I feel I have done enough. Only one article has period space space at the end of a sentence, and that article has only one such occurrence. I stand by my theory that when you said "The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence" you were making stuff up. I was right to quote that claim and append. You should have either offered some evidence to support your claim, or admitted that you were making stuff up, or just gone away. Instead you accused me of dodging a valid complaint with something allegedly silly, and you alleged that I waste other people's time. I am the one who has wasted time here in order to create thoughtful detailed responses and investigate a bogus theory. The burden of investigating should have fallen on the one making the claim. I consider the matter closed, but if you want to spend your time gathering, organizing, and presenting evidence, I will consider it. Cheers! (P.S. the answer to your question is in the three bullet points directly above it.) —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I offered one reason that didn't pan out, among other reasons. The rest will take time to dig into. Of course I didn't mean your time's worth less than mine; rather that doing this much work for a two-editor dispute in user talk isn't a good use of anyone's time. Actually, MOS:STYLEVAR should be sufficient for you to retire that particular editing pattern.  Code readability improvement is a substantial reason for using the two spaces; I'd asked you for one in favor of reducing them to a single space, and you've not provided one.  You're correct that I should have provided a clearer rationale up front, but I've provided one now, with STYLEVAR.  Even if consensus were to reject the idea that those who prefer the two spaces have a "substantial reason" for it, lack of one for reducing it to single is sufficient reason to stop doing that – even if no other evidence or rationale is ever provided to you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  21:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, SMcCandlish. It is not OK put forth a made-up "fact", viz: "The vast majority of editors double-space after the end of a sentence". It is not OK, when properly asked to support that made up "fact", to put the editor asking for support in the wrong. When a body of evidence is presented that the "fact" was indeed made-up, it's pretty lame to say that the reason "didn't pan out". "Didn't pan out" is something else altogether. "Didn't pan out" is for something like, "let's ask other editors what they think" and after a long wait, nobody answers. "Didn't pan out" is for "I'll check that book out from the public library" only to find that the public library disposed of its only copy last year. "Didn't pan out" is not a proper way of acknowledging "I made stuff up and acted improperly when challenged on it."
 * MOS:STYLEVAR relates to articles that have a style, not to articles that lack a style. If an article has random multiple spaces scattered throughout the wikitext and not uniformly at the ends of sentences, it lacks a style, or maybe it had a style that some editors didn't follow, and it is OK to clean up the jumble.
 * Your claim of code readability is equally unsupported and equally made-up. There may be editors who benefit from double spaces at the end of every sentence, but I benefit from uniformity, and I believe (without proof) that other editors benefit from uniformity too. One thing I do know, though, is that, in a wikitext, it's easier to eliminate multiple spaces uniformly than to eliminate multiple spaces uniformly except at the ends of sentences and have uniformly exactly two spaces there and only there.
 * I provided my rationale two edits ago. You ignored it. I pointed to it at the end of my previous response. You ignored it again. I've suffered enough. Let's hope that our next interaction is on the same side, and not one of us making the other waste a lot of time debunking made-up "facts". —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going back to your "I consider the matter closed, but if you want to spend your time gathering, organizing, and presenting evidence, I will consider it." The enhanced readability in monospaced text of two spaces between sentences, and the fact that a bunch of style guides recommend it, is something I can source, though it's mostly dead-trees style guide research, so will take some time.  But made up? Not off-wiki, and not on, though giving you a diff-pile for the latter would also take time and likely wouldn't be as productive (I'm sure you can diff people agreeing with you, to counter it).  What's weird to me is that that high frequency of double I see in articles isn't mirrored in your FA results, which means: a coincidental blip due to small sample size; or someone or someones at FAC share your view and are acting as "spacing enforcers" before passing articles; or despite the relative breadth of my editing I'm coincidentally running into cluster after cluster of double-style articles, but they're statistical outliers.  Hard to say right this moment, but my money's on "FAC enforcer(s)". Your rede on STYLEVAR is excessively literal, and not tenable when taken together with WP:COSMETICBOT and MEATBOT. The MOS wording is taking a "broad strokes" approach to style, and is perhaps poorly written in that regard; but we know for a fact from COSMETICBOT (which was recently made even more stringent) that people really, really hate it when their watchlists get pointlessly triggered by space-twiddling and other tweaks that do not affect the displayed output or fix a genuine bug – even though the watchlist allows them to filter out bot edits.  It's the trivial edits they hate, not the fact that bots are doing it.  Isn't that worth considering? (And, yes, that means I shouldn't go around changing stuff to use two spaces, either.)  I apologize again for the blustering; several days of sustained personal attacks from a tagteam had me in a bared-teeth frame of mind and I hadn't chilled out from it yet. Not an excuse, but that's what the deal was.
 * SMcCandlish:
 * Even if you can source that one or more style guides recommend two spaces between sentences in markup text, I presume those would be in-house recommendations and not generally applicable. But even if someone wrote a style guide saying that it's best to prepare HTML or other markup copy with two spaces at the end of sentences for any web host or service, even though it will display as a single space, I question whether that style guide would apply to Wikipedia markup.
 * My read on WP:STYLEVAR is correct. It says to retain styles. Even if this applies to spacing at the end of sentences, which has not been established, how do we know if there is a style to retain? Well, at WP:CITEVAR, it says, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. ... If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.... If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data." And surely, if an article has compete citations, but the style is mixed, sometimes author (date). title. publication., sometimes author, title, date, publication. , and sometimes still other styles, an editor can see it doesn't have a consistent style and impose one. (I do this all the time, by converting everything to templates.) By analogy, if a wikitext has random double spaces scattered in the middle of sentences, in the middle of  templates, and other random locations, it doesn't have a consistent spacing style, and an editor is free to impose a style of no multiple spacing in running text, even if WP:STYLEVAR does apply to the use of double spaces.
 * WP:COSMETICBOT supports what I do. It says, "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext ... should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." I don't edit articles just to change white space, but once I am editing for other reasons, I often change the white space as well. Sometimes (in the spirit of WP:STYLEVAR) I line up the equals signs in an infobox for consistency.
 * WP:MEATBOT says "disruptive editing must stop", but doesn't say what editing is disruptive. I agree that disruptive editing must stop. I don't agree that my editing is disruptive.
 * "It's the trivial edits they hate": That's why I don't make cosmetic changes to the wikitext unless I also make substantive changes at the same time.
 * "What's weird to me is that that high frequency of double I see in articles isn't mirrored in your FA results, which means: a coincidental blip due to small sample size; or someone or someones at FAC share your view and are acting as 'spacing enforcers' before passing articles; or despite the relative breadth of my editing I'm coincidentally running into cluster after cluster of double-style articles, but they're statistical outliers. Hard to say right this moment, but my money's on 'FAC enforcer(s)'.": OK, let's test that theory. Instead of examining new featured articles, let's start at Portal:Contents/Portals and examine the first article in each portal. If that article happens to be a featured article, go on to the next one also. Here are the results:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Portal || Article || mid-sent || end-sent || after /&lt;ref> || end¶ || end &#124; line || in /[extlink] || # sentences || Featured?
 * Portal:Contents/Culture and the arts || Celebrity    || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3 || 0 || 2 || >100 || No
 * Portal:Contents/Geography and places || Atlas        || 4 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 ||  ~20 || No
 * Portal:Contents/Health and fitness  || Health care   || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 1 ||  >50 || No
 * Portal:Contents/History and events  || Ancient Egypt || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || >100 || Yes
 * Portal:Contents/History and events  || Ancient Greece|| 0 || 7 ||37 || 0 || 0 || 0 || >250 || No
 * }
 * Conclusions:
 * Among both featured articles and portal content, all wikitexts examined have no, or only a small minority, of sentences ending period space space.
 * Whatever the applicability of WP:STYLEVAR, WP:COSMETICBOT, and WP:MEATBOT, editing an article to clean up white space along with substantive changes is OK if there is not a clear white space style, or if the editing moves toward the existing clear style.
 * Anomalocaris (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * Conclusions:
 * Among both featured articles and portal content, all wikitexts examined have no, or only a small minority, of sentences ending period space space.
 * Whatever the applicability of WP:STYLEVAR, WP:COSMETICBOT, and WP:MEATBOT, editing an article to clean up white space along with substantive changes is OK if there is not a clear white space style, or if the editing moves toward the existing clear style.
 * Anomalocaris (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Anomalocaris (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and Anomalocaris, I hope you don't mind my interjecting a comment here. I haven't read all of the above, but I would like to say that, for me, it is easier to read articles in edit mode when there there is only one space after a period/full stop. As you know, I spend my time on WP mainly copy-editing articles, so I read articles mainly in edit mode. To me, the extra space after a period/full stop spreads the sentences out more. There is already enough other material (references, etc.) in between text that spreads the text of a sentence or paragraph out, and the less additional space the better. I can grasp the meaning and flow of sentences better when the sentences are compact. I don't spend time solely removing that extra space after periods/full stops, but if I am copy-editing an entire article, I do remove the extra space. I have found that by far the majority of articles do not have the extra space, so that must mean that most editors do not add it when they are adding new material to articles. I certainly hope that no one is going around deliberately adding an extra space after periods/full stops. I wouldn't encourage anyone to go around removing them, either, but if, in the course of making other edits, an editor removes some extra spaces, I don't think he or she should be criticized. – Corinne (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "spreads the sentences out more" – which is why it increases parseability. There're inconclusive studies that seem to have about a 50/50 rate that single-spacing enhances reading speed of normal prose in a proportional font. But that's "automatic reading" scanning of text; what we do as source-mode editors is almost entirely very conscious parsing of a complex combination of text and code, and the more distinct each bit of material is the easier it is to do this.  I can't speak to your experience, but someone doing traditional copyediting who happens to be doing it in source mode is primarily absorbing the material as natural language, i.e. reading, not parsing. I do tremendous amounts of copyediting myself, but I'm also doing code cleanup at the same time, and the difference between well-spaced and more run-together material is palpable. There are many other examples of this, like citations templates done as   instead of , putting hatnotes and images code on the same line as regular text, using vertical-formatted citations in running prose instead of in WP:LDRs (it wrecks the ability to easily tell what is and isn't a paragraph), inserting bogus single line breaks in mid-paragraph (ditto), and many others.  That said, I repeat what was probably lost above in the pile: I don't think anything's going to be resolved by arguing on Anomalocaris's talk page about it; this will require research and broader input, and this isn't the venue for it.  I was in a shite mood and wasn't thinking critically (in the positive sense) when I opened this thread, and apologize for it again.  There's a real issue to hash out, eventually, but a squabble between two editors (perhaps now three) isn't the useful way to do it.  I do appreciate Anomalocaris's time in hosing down some of what I said.  It's not a joyous experience, but I'd rather be corrected than continue obliviously needing correction.

Redirects
Please stop "fixing" redirects. See WP:NOTBROKEN. James (talk/contribs) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * James: Thank you for your comment. I have made made over 1,500 edits in the past month, and it's not immediately obvious what you mean. For example, I recently San Bruno station (BART), changing   to  . I believe this is correct because, even though San Mateo County redirects to San Mateo County, California, and is therefore "not broken", it is helpful to some readers to be able to mouse over the wikilink and see that the linked article is, in fact, San Mateo County, California. Moreover, if there ever is anything other than a redirect at San Mateo County, it will almost certainly be a disambiguation, and not an article page more useful and relevant than San Mateo County, California. In that same article, I changed   to   because, on the display side, the official name of the station inside and outside Wikipedia does not have spaces around the slash, and on the link side, once a link is piped, it's usually best to have the link as the real Wikipedia location of the article, unless, for example, there is reason to believe that some other link, now redirected, might eventually have an article of its own. So I believe this change was also correct. In that same article, I made a several more changes like this one, changing   to  . As with Pittsburg/Bay Point, this is based on the theory that once a link is piped, it's usually best to have the link as the real Wikipedia location of the article. So, I believe that my edits to San Bruno station (BART) were correct, and not in conflict with WP:NOTBROKEN. If you want to comment on this particular edit, or anything I've said here, or any other edit I have made that you feel does conflict with WP:NOTBROKEN, please continue, and I will consider what you have to say. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits to userspace MGWR Class D
Thankyou for your recent edits to userspace User:Djm-leighpark/MGWR Class D. Please be aware I copy/pasted this into the MGWR Class D article (Which was redirect following the move of MGWR Class D to MGWR Class D-bogie. This has removed the attribution history and it is likely I will nominate userspace User:Djm-leighpark/MGWR Class D for speedy delete at some point.  I have made an attribution of your work in Talk:MGWR Class D.  I hope this is sufficient.  Thanks.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark: I took the liberty of inserting Wikilinks in your comment here. Ordinarily users don't edit each other's comments, but I think it's helpful in this case, and in any event it doesn't distort your intent. Anyway it's my own talk page.
 * There was no need to mention me at Talk:MGWR Class D, but no harm either. I made a minor edit in MGWR Class D. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

italicizing language templates
You just fixed the italics in Shaqe Çoba, but when I do the same in Praskovia Arian the Russian names aren't italicized. What's going on with that?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My interest is actually in correcting lint errors, in this case Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4, which result from (among many other things) putting around  templates, and I wasn't focusing on how things are displayed. I simply assume that the  templates work correctly without surrounding them with double apostrophes, and I take the double apostrophes out. But since you have raised the issue, let's talk about it. In Wikipedia, generally we italicize non-English words written in the Roman alphabet, but not non-English words written in other alphabets or in non-alphabetic languages. I assume that the  templates handle this correctly. For example:
 * → She said yes (Ajo tha po)
 * → She said yes (Она сказала да)
 * The documentation for how things should appear is on those template pages themselves. Shaqe Çoba uses, which is used to indicate to readers the original form of a term or phrase in Albanian language. The Albanian language uses the Roman alphabet, and displays in italic. The Russian language uses the Cyrillic alphabet, and  displays in roman (non-italic). I don't think there is any mystery here beyond that. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But I'm using transliterated Russian, not Cyrillic. Should I drop the lang-ru template and just italicize the terms myself?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sturmvogel 66: Well, I'm not a big user of the templates, but template:lang-ru is where to find out more. The documentation on this page is somewhat confusing; it's not immediately obvious (to me, anyway) if parameters need to be named or if it goes by sequence. But anyway, it says,
 * The parametertranslit enables a transliteration (of the original text with the Latin alphabet) to be given.
 * So in my example, it could be something like
 * → She said yes (Она сказала да)
 * But if you omit the Cyrillic,
 * → She said yes
 * it looks messed up, because it's trying to display non-existent Russian-language text. This reveals the meaning of "required" for the text parameter. The whole point of this template is to display Russian characters in the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet, and if you don't want to do that, don't use this template. That's my analysis. Hope this helps. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that your article, Praskovia Arian, as well as the First Women's Calendar she created, doesn't seem to be in any other language Wikipedia. If you have Russian-language skills, it would be great to create those articles in Russian Wikipedia! —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my Russian is limited to a few words and phrases only. But thanks for the advice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the signature advice
I just modified my signature per the advice you left on my talk page and it looks great. Thanks!

-- KNHaw  (talk)  20:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ...and thanks from me, too!  PK  T (alk)  20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Same here. I wasn't aware it was causing problems, so I'm glad you notified me. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Cheers for the advice on my signature's obsolete font tags. They're good now ;)  ronaz Talk! 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Sig
Thanks for the note. I've just fixed it. Graham 87 02:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

My sig
Thanks very much for letting me know! Changed it so it causes no further issues :).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing signature
Thanks for the information, how do I do change it? Yours, Quis separabit? 06:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Go to Preferences, scroll down to Signature. Make changes there. SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * →  SilkTork  ✔Tea time 

to
 * →  SilkTork   ✔Tea time 

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Anomalocaris. I understand what you are doing, and it is useful. However, please ensure you check that the folks you are messaging have a signature that uses deprecated tags. I changed my signature over a month ago, which you can see on the very talkpage on which you posted your notice. Up to you what you do, but I suggest you at the very least glance at people's talkpages for their current signature before posting your message. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffrey Lloyd Leonard (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

My signature
Thanks for the heads up. As a nifty bonus, my signature renders exactly the same now as it did before, except it causes nobody any glitches! Yay! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

RE: List of Australian Academy Award winners and nominees
Thanks for the heads up :) DonEd (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete elements
Do you know the who/what/where of the control of the output of Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag? It should be looking for  as well as  and , but I don't see any results indicating that it is doing so. That deprecated element should usually be replaced with  but in some circumstances with , , or .... I run into it frequently in old template and "Help:" namespace documentation, and in some "Wikipedia:" namespace pages, userpages, talk pages (especially older ones), and occasionally in articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish: I have edited hundreds of lint error articles. Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag is finding four obsolete tags, in order of most frequent first, &lt;font>, &lt;center>, &lt;tt>, &lt;strike>. This ordering is based on my experience, not a rigorous survey. When I find &lt;tt>, I replace it with &lt;kbd>, to preserve appearances. &lt;code> is usually not the best replacement for &lt;tt>. If you want to work on lint errors, you should install LintHint, if you have not done so already. By default, LintHint works only in the article space. There is a workaround, but I haven't installed the workaround. Instead, if I need LintHint in a non-article, I copy and paste replacing an article's wikitext, run LintHint there, make changes as needed and copy back to the source item, and of course I don't save the article I was using as a test bed. Crude but it works. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as is being handled, I won't complain, other than to suggest that doing  automatically isn't the best option; the semantic markup most appropriate for the use-case in question is what should be used, or it defeats the purpose of semantic markup.  User input like a user name or the answer Y to a prompt is </kbd>. Output, like a filename or a directory listing, an error message, etc. is ; same goes for presentation of function and tag names, names of commandline utilities. Source code (even if the block contains some output or input) is, whether compiled or interpreted (including Linux/Unix and DOS commandlines), while purely typographic use of monospace that has nothing to do with these "computerese semantics" should use the styled .  Working on lint: I've been doing it manually with Special:LintErrors, a little, and also doing custom stuff like this one to track down abuse of <em ></em> for italics that are not emphasis but purely typographic, like italicization of non-English and of titles of works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish: Well, you inspired me to greatly enhance mw:Help:Extension:Linter/obsolete-tag. I fear that this level of detail may scare off users by giving too many choices, but there it is. Here in Wikipedia, we don't care much about semantic markup, using  and   where HTML markup would prefer   and   markup respectively. And I for one don't care much either; there are gray areas between   and , and also between   and  . If I had my druthers, HTML would not care about why and just focus on how it looks, but that's not what the deciders decided. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well,  just turns into <i ></i>; we only need that one explicitly in rare cases (mostly templates where the markup in the code italicizes input; we don't want input like "politicians to combine with a following   in the template code to form a   that turns on accidental boldface.  Myself, I don't see why they kept, since  does the same thing, and if there's ever a case of strike-through that doesn't represent deletion, it can be done with CSS.  But oh well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Changed signature tags per your request...
Now I have a request. I am not program 'savvey' and often copy desired tags from other entries when adding or editing. This mostly works - but sometimes doesn't. May I ask for your help on this subject in future? Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  07:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating your signature. It's usually best to reply on the same talk page. To make sure the reply is seen, link to that user's name (like Anomalocaris), or use, or use or one of the other aliases of . Yes, feel free to leave messages on my talk page asking for help. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yes it's convenient to converse on the same page, but I like to be polite and contact the person directly. I also appreciate the tags but don't know how or where to place them. {BTW the letters 'tlx' were once short for 'telex' or teleprinter. TKS! :) } All the Best, <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  12:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

My Signature
Thanks! I wasn't aware of the issue. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Echo what he said. Thanks for bringing this up. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Strike code
Hi, Could I ask what the issue is with the strike code positions ?, Either position works fine so I'm somewhat confused (and plus I've done it this way since the age of dawn and have never had any complaints), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Davey2010, cc: Izno: HTML tags are closed with identical tags except preceded by a slash, for example:
 * : normal small normal
 * : normal superscript normal
 * : normal strikeout normal
 * Some tags can be self-closing. For example, if italics are opened and closed with two apostrophes, and the text right after the italics begins with apostrophe, the software has to guess whether the third apostrophe at the end is inside or outside the italics. To mark that the third apostrophe is outside italics, one could use
 * : Casablanca 's
 * which can be shortened to
 * : Casablanca 's
 * which can be further shortened to
 * : Casablanca's
 * Another very common example is  can be shortened to.
 * For some tags, self-closing is a high-priority lint error, specifically Self-closed tags. Prohibited self-closed tags include . If one of these is used with the intent of closing a corresponding opening tag, for example, , there are actually two lint errors: a Missing end tag (  and a self-closed tag (.
 * Even if it looks like it worked, it's bad markup. Things that look OK on the screen now may look bad as we move to HTML5, and that is why Wikipedians are working busily to eliminate lint errors from Wikipedia. You can help! for more information, see WP:Linter. But even if you have higher priorities than eliminating existing lint errors, at least, you should avoid creating new ones. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sorry I didn't realise you replied, Thank you for the detailed analysis of it but for me I've always used the strike code in that way and will continue to do because that's what I'm used too, The same goes for the bullet point - That apparently goes a certain way but again I do it my own way as again that's what I'm used too, so although you're helping by fixing that issue you're technically not helping because if I strike something out I'll use the same code or layout as the one at Zoe Quinn, I honestly don't mean to be pedantic or awkward (and I apologise if I'm coming across that way) but like everyone here we all have our way of doing things and rightly or wrongly that's how I do my strikeouts, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Davey2010: When a Wikipedian informs another that they are doing something contrary to Wikipedia policies, the second Wikipedian should pay attention. If User A uses smart quotes (“...”), and User B tells User A that MOS:CURLY says to use straight quotes ("...") instead, User A should follow the instructions at MOS:CURLY, or provide an explanation why in this special case, curly quotes are needed. Explanations that are not acceptable include,
 * I've always done it that way.
 * Don't fix it because I'm just going to keep doing it wrong anyway.
 * It looks fine, so who cares?
 * I provided links to lint errors, Self-closed tags, Missing end tag, and WP:Linter. Wikipedia is telling you something, but you're not listening. That is madness.—Anomalocaris (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've since self reverted, Obviously we don't want the website to look mishmashed in 10 years time but at the same time I dislike anyone changing any part of my comments that's just me but then again you yourself may of changed my comment and I would never have known so it seems kinda pointless in resisting something that's probably already been done to my comments .... suppose I'll just have to grin and bear it lol :), Anyway thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 03:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's my point it's about what we're used too .... If I've been doing things a certain way for coming on 5 years I'm not alls a sudden going to do it the new way am I and chances are I'll probably forgot to do it the new way because I'm so used to doing it the old way ..... Anyway as I said I've self reverted, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 03:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad your signature edit
How'd this happen? The edits on either side of it are accurate... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=814073272 -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan: Well, if you must know, I ...
 * searched for Special:Contributions/Masem
 * found the most recent talk page, which happened to be ... User talk:Eric Corbett
 * clicked the "diff" link, taking me to
 * copied the signature markup
 * skipped the step of clicking on talk just below the "Revision" line at the top of the page
 * clicked on the talk in the very top of the page
 * clicked "new section"
 * pasted the signature markup
 * pasted boilerplate
 * edited the signature to new standards
 * previewed, looked OK! Saved!
 * Any more questions? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Signature thanks
Been away from Wiki for so long, I was unaware of the deprecated markups you told me about. I appreciate your help immensely. Have a great day. Man way   22:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Help please...
Just added section "Recent study" to Man flu and the reference names appear in the text instead of next to the links. What am I doing wrong? Many thanks! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  11:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: got the links out of the text, but the links are still in full in the reference list. Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  11:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Shir-El too: Take a look at it now, and see what I did. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SEASON'S GREETINGS!!!

Wonderful! Will look at the edits to learn for next time. Really appreciate it. <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  12:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Further question: both sentences of the last para. are quotes. Why did you remove the "" from the first one? <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  12:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Shir-El too: Well, a subsequent editor has removed four edits from the editing history, so I can't look at it, but here's probably what I thought. To use a quote with quotation marks, it has to be attributed. You can say,
 * Near the end of his inaugural address, the new president said, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
 * But you can't just leave that quote by itself. You probably had the quote free-standing without saying that someone said it, so I removed the quotation marks and put it in the voice of Wikipedia itself. A subsequent editor saw it as a copyright violation and removed these four edits from the edit history. Anomalocaris (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)—
 * Dear Shrimp (if you will forgive me the levity): thank you for charging to my defense. Diannaa's edit forced me to review the main article in full and made me realize I only needed the one reference to cover three points:
 * 1) that "Man flu" has a physiological basis, 2) that it hasn't been reserched or defined, and 3) ignorance of it may be causing real harm.
 * I revised the text accordingly. Again, many thanks for your help. All the Best, <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  19:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * PS Another user claimed the item was a spoof, citing another website. So I contacted The BMJ directly and got confirmation that it was NOT, and revised the item accordingly (again). Cheers! <b style="color: #F64A8A;">Shir-El</b> too  17:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Signature heads up on 11 Dec
Thanks for the heads up on the redundant tags. Was unaware that this would impact sigs as well. Again, thank you. lavender &#124;(formerly HMSSolent )&#124; lambast 08:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ... but if you hadn't archived my original posting on your talk page, you could have thanked me there ... and I could have thanked you there too ... Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polysulfone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ICI and Pore ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Polysulfone check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Polysulfone?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas box
Hi Anomalocaris, I've since updated my xmas box and just wanted to know if it now produces any lint (or other) errors ?, The }} has been added to the end of the sentences too, If there are errors you've spotted then by all means please update it but just wanted to see if there were errors as I'd rather avoid all of this next year if possible :), Hope you had a lovely Christmas :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There were two obsolete HTML tags (&lt;center>...&lt;/center>), which I replaced with HTML5-compliant markup. Thank you for your support for keeping the lint out of Wikipedia! Best wishes for 2018. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah brilliant thanks so much! :), No worries exactly the less errors here the better so thanks for your contributions and for keeping Wikipedia lint-free :), Thanks and I hope you and yours have a very Happy and Healthy New Year :), – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Signature
Thanks for the heads up... --Sam uelWantman 07:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)