User talk:Anomalocaris/Archive 2019

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Snazdup


A tag has been placed on User:Snazdup requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:United States political divisions economy


A tag has been placed on Template:United States political divisions economy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Zackmann08: I created Template:United States political divisions economy with the intent of appending it to the various Economy of (state) pages, such as Economy of Alaska. But I never got around to it, and someone created Template:Economy of the United States by jurisdiction, duplicating my work, and installing it in the various pages. That is fine. The only thing that bothers me here is that your message says it's giving me a 7-day warning, but in less than 12 hours, the template is already deleted. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , First, please don't take this as any sort of personal attack on you or your work. I have no doubt that you created the template in good faith! It simply was no longer needed. As for the 7 day notice, that is a good point. I'm not really sure what happened there... Please note that I'm not an admin so I cannot delete/restore pages. That being said, if for some reason you want the template back for further work on it, I'm sure that will be happy to WP:REFUND the page.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Restored (log). – Athaenara ✉  19:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I made my template on 27 January 2015‎, but instead of installing it right away, I got busy with other projects. The other template was created later, on 20 March 2015, and was the one that got installed in the various pages. My mistake wasn't good faith or bad faith, it was not installing my template!
 * Thank you for restoring the template, but it really isn't needed anymore, as Template:Economy of the United States by jurisdiction fulfills the same purpose and has been installed on the relevant pages. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Oxygene7-13/Signature
Can I ask you why my page above was changed by you? I'm totally fine with it, I'm just curious why. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I changed it because it was using  tags, which are considered obsolete in HTML5 and are generating Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Even though these are low priority lint errors, it was easy to fix, so I went ahead and did it. For more on lint errors and how you can help, see Linter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanx for answering! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing references
Please do not use "publisher" for website fields; Template:Cite web explicitly discourages that, saying "The publisher is the that publishes the work being cited. Do  use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)". Instead use "website" field. As for Template:Cite news, the field "newspaper" is redundant; instead use "work". -- Kailash29792 (talk)  07:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kailash29792: Thank you for drawing my attention to these issues. You raise two issues: the choice of the "website" or "publisher", and the choice of "newspaper" or "work".
 * I see the point about "website", but the very next article I happened to start to edit has a reference to something published by BBC News, with a URL beginning  I believe that the company publishing the work, BBC News, is more important than the website that BBC News used to post the story, which very likely was also read aloud on radio broadcasts. So, for BBC News, I believe "publisher" and not "website" is usually the correct parameter. Similarly, if Amnesty International publishes something on Amnesty.org, I would list that using , not using  . But if something appears on what some people call Salon.com and Wikipedia disambiguates as Salon (website), I would list that using  . I hope you agree.
 * I do not understand your point about the newspaper field. Template:Cite news says, "None of the cs1|2 parameters is deprecated." I think that means it's OK to use any alias, including "newspaper". I usually use "newspaper" whenever I believe that a news item appeared in an actual newspaper. For example, this article was published in the newspaper, so I would code
 * as
 * using the newspaper parameter. I hope you agree. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You kinda answered the question yourself. When you use Rotten Tomatoes as a source, you do not put RT under "publisher" field; instead you put its parent company Fandango there. As for the "newspaper" field, alright its not deprecated. But when you edit the ref via ProveIt, it will be replaced with "work", which works the exact same way as "newspaper" does. That's why I don't use "newspaper" field since it is 0% different from "work". But I no longer have issues with you using "newspaper" over "work". Kailash29792 (talk)  10:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kailash29792: I agree, a reference to Rotten Tomatoes would use . I took a look at ProveIt. This tool biases   in favor of "website" by hiding "publisher" behind "show all fields".  Yes, Rotten Tomatoes and Salon call for "website", not "publisher". But items published by Amnesty International, Sierra Club, and National Rifle Association on their respective websites should be listed by "publisher" not "website". More specifically, if AIPAC publishes something on its website, it should be coded as , or just  , not  . I hope you agree. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that you followed up my edit of Rishi Kapoor filmography changing (among other things)  to  . NDTV begins by saying, "New Delhi Television Limited (NDTV) is an Indian television media company...." and I believe that here, "publisher" is correct. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kailash29792: I agree, a reference to Rotten Tomatoes would use . I took a look at ProveIt. This tool biases   in favor of "website" by hiding "publisher" behind "show all fields".  Yes, Rotten Tomatoes and Salon call for "website", not "publisher". But items published by Amnesty International, Sierra Club, and National Rifle Association on their respective websites should be listed by "publisher" not "website". More specifically, if AIPAC publishes something on its website, it should be coded as , or just  , not  . I hope you agree. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that you followed up my edit of Rishi Kapoor filmography changing (among other things)  to  . NDTV begins by saying, "New Delhi Television Limited (NDTV) is an Indian television media company...." and I believe that here, "publisher" is correct. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverting my edit
I would like to know the reason due to which my edit on the article Files for deletion/2006 October 9 was reverted by you. Frankly speaking, I didn't understand the reason mentioned by you. Those were detected through WPCleaner (sorry to mention there as AWB). Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Adithyak1997: This article is in a long series with links to the previous day and next day. Other articles in the series nearby consistently use bolding on every entry. This article had consistent bold on every entry, but four items had a bold markup slightly out of place. I reverted and moved the bold markup on those four items. My edit summary began with the usual "Undid revision ..." and I added "... and fix bold correctly; these articles have weird bold that should be preserved." This means that in addition to reverting, I edited the article to solve the actual problem with bold. I hope WPCleaner now approves the article. If not, how does WPCleaner respond to articles for preceding and following days? —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi
idk btw sorr 4 dis — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTongPro GD (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Draft:Raj&Pablo, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". ''Removing 2610 bytes is not a minor edit. It appears that you may have the minor edit flag permanently set. Please unset it.'' Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon: Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, I edited Draft:Raj&Pablo twice. There is nothing in Help:Minor edit that says that an otherwise minor edit stops being minor by virtue of the number of bytes. My edits of the draft article were minor. All of my changes fit into various bullet points of Help:Minor edit such as
 * Spelling, grammatical, and punctuation corrections
 * Simple formatting (e.g., capitalization, or properly adding italics to non-English words, like folie de grandeur, or titles of certain works, like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer)
 * Adding or correcting wikilinks, or fixing broken external links and references already present in the article
 * Changing  to , i.e. changing [(website)|www.bbc.co.uk] to BBC, involves a lot of bytes, but it's minor.
 * In my second edit, I also posted a comment to you in the submission comments; in my view the minorness of a draft edit applies to changes in the draft itself, not to comments in the submission comments. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anomalocaris, You edited Sedimentary Isostasy 12 days ago. Is this submission still under review? Geologician (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

is not working for me
Sorry for a remark on a personal discussion page. But for me the table cells, contains the (top) and  (bottom) seems like this: http://i.imgur.com/UFkkxeo.png - and so, "div style" is just not working. Maybe, this is a my system configuration problem (linux? installed fonts? browser version?), but, 勿論, there is not a good result at all. 85.202.228.67 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting review on Mallesham (2019 film)
Hello Anomalocaris, It'd be great help if you could review one of my article. It is such a shame that a film like Mallesham (2019 film) didn't have an article until now.

ArthurCurry70 (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ArthurCurry70: I edited Mallesham (2019 film). Please expand the bare URL references with or . Just because I did it this time doesn't mean I will edit the next article you ask me to edit. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anomalocaris: Sure, noted. Thank youArthurCurry70 (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

SPIs
I've reverted all your changes to various SPIs. If you want to raise this minor technical issue, do so at WT:SPI. What you see is is the way it generates when one follows the instructions at SPI to create a report. If it really needs to be addressed, then the generation needs to be changed for all reports. Please don't continue to do what you've been doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Message stating need for additional links
Hi- Thanks for helping out with "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Maurice". The page is currently in DRAFT and has a message up top that says "This article needs additional citations for verification [...]". How does one remove this label? This page has quite a few citations. Any help would be much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesswartz (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Charlesswartz: The usual way to link to an article in Wikipedia is by putting its name in double brackets, like this:, which displays as Draft:Charles Maurice. The message on top that you're asking about comes from  , which you introduced yourself in your first version of this article. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of draft stamp
Hey User:Anomalocaris- Thanks again for helping out with "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Maurice". I fixed the code that I accidentally copied over from another article that requested more links. But the page is currently in DRAFT state. Do you have any advice on how to get it approved? Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesswartz (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Charlesswartz: Again, the usual way to link to an article in Wikipedia is by putting its name in double brackets, like this:, which displays as Draft:Charles Maurice—not by using an external link or url, like this:  . I edited the article a big more and offered some suggestions there. I am not an "Articles for Creation reviewer" so it's not my role to approve your article. As the box says, there are over 4,000 draft pages waiting for approval, and it's unpredictable when someone will happen to review it. Do your best to improve the article with more information, supported with reliable source references. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

span/div error
Thanks. Changed it. You can try Draft:Template:Diagonal split color box again. 217.162.112.133 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

217.162.112.133, talk: Looks good, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the errors that you mentioned today. Maybe you reported them after I changed the box code? Thanks. 217.162.112.133 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you indeed
Anomalocaris, you're a gift from heaven. I'm not very adept technically, so I have no idea about the HTML things you mention in your edit-summary. If it's a repetitive task, perhaps you could do one to show me, and I'll do the rest? Tony (talk)  08:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Tony1: What article(s) are we talking about here? —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this. Tony (talk)  21:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony1: The edit summary for (which I link using the markup  ), is:
 * → ... ... left 331 obsolete tags, which should be made HTML5 compliant with
 * breaking that into its parts, here is the explanation:
 * Fixed lint errors: See WP:Linter and Lint errors
 * including a missing end tag for bold that leaked to the end of the article and left everything bold after it: I added  to the end of
 * This line is inside the hidden block headed "TYPE 5 (colon plus semicolons, lined and numbered)". The lack of the closing tag meant that everything after this line appeared in bold, as you can verify by going to the page history.
 *  properly closed bold ('''), ,, etc. : I closed every  that lacked a closing  . I closed every   that lacked a closing  . I closed every   that lacked a closing.
 *  ... → ...  : I made many changes like changing
 * . Advice from the Undergraduate Writing Center, University of Texas.
 * to
 * because  must be closed with , not with.
 *  left 331 obsolete tags, which should be made HTML5 compliant with :  tags are obsolete in HTML5; the replacement markup can use  . For example, the replacement for
 * is
 * : This is red
 * But as there were 331  tags, I didn't bother to replace them all with HTML5-compatible markup. Does this explanation answer your question? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is
 * : This is red
 * But as there were 331  tags, I didn't bother to replace them all with HTML5-compatible markup. Does this explanation answer your question? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such detailed information, Ano. You really are generous. I'll try replacing the 331 tags now. Tony (talk)  07:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony1: OK, great! You may find this page helpful: MW:Help:Extension:Linter/obsolete-tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Add me to the "thank you" list. I looked at what you did on my tool page, and I'll install the linter thing in the next day or two. What replaces sample text ? I'll have to read what you wrote to Tony a couple times, but I'll try to get it. Although - I'll likely have questions down the road. TY again. — Ched (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC) (edit) .. just checked "obsolete tag" page linked above .. seems the actually replaces the stuff. Yes? — Ched (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ched: Yes, replaces . —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A little help will be great
Greetings Anomalocaris! I made a draft on a subject mentioned in the reliable media as "noted philosopher". His books have been commented on and referenced by Jean-Luc Nancy, Bernard Stiegler, Robert Bernasconi and many others. There are exclusive articles on him in reliable sources including journals. There is a biographical essay too. Artists too have made works inspired by him. Will you please have a look and help to improve it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shaj_Mohan — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWorringer (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Changed references / citations
Thankls foir your help; I have changed references hope they look better now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Driskel (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again - I have changed all newspaper references so they appear in italics, and can't find any more '&' signs (save Jekyll & Hyde). I can't find any all caps apart from BAFTA and WKD which is how they are spelt in common usage.  Is that al ok?  Thanks for all your help its much appreciated - I'm a novice!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Driskel (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rachel Driskel: Your edits are fine, except that IMDb pages aren't really dated. IMDb is like Wikipedia, it's user-generated content and it can be edited at any time. Like Wikipedia, IMDb is a useful tool for getting information, but because it's user-generated content, it's not considered a reliable source, so it shouldn't be used as a reference on Wikipedia. You should sign talk page comments with four tildes, which will automatically be replaced by your signature and a time stamp when you click "Publish changes". Also, when you reply on a talk page, you should indent each paragraph of your comments with a colon , or one more colon than used in the section you're replying to. When things get too indented, you can use , which draws a symbol indicating that indenting has become too much and you're starting over at the left margin. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rachel Driskel (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC) OK thanks; like this?
 * Rachel Driskel: The four tildes for signing comments should go at the end of a comment, not the beginning. You edited Draft:Liam Gerrard to remove the IMDb dates, which is good, but please try to find a different source, because IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (User talk:Anomalocaris) Ok got it! Yes I will find a better source; it's just that page shows the most detail as well as the award nominations which I was attempting to reference all on 1 page to save multiple citations. Thanks! Rachel the knowledge nerd  (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason my page is taking so long to get published or do I need to do something in order to allow that to happen? Many thanks Rachel the knowledge nerd  (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Rachel Driskel: Thank you for your work on Draft:Liam Gerrard. I edit articles, but I do not review drafts. As you can see, it says,
 * Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,575 pending submissions waiting for review.
 * While you are waiting, you can try to improve this draft, or work on something else. Cheers! Anomalocaris (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but what did you do?
Hi! I've seen that you have edited a draft page I'm working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pan-Romance_language). I'm new in Wikipedia, so any help is very welcome! But I haven't understood what you have done. I'd be thank full if you could briefly explain what I was doing wrong, so I don't need to bother you in the future ;) By the way, it seems that we were both editing at the same time, and when I tried to save my work I lost it. How can that be avoided in the future? Thanks again! Jorcaiba (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Jorcaiba: I write edit summaries intended to describe pretty much all of the changes I made. Usually I use semicolon as descriptor separator. My edit summary was . So here's what it means:
 * : "rm" is short for "remove". A stripped tag is a closing HTML tag that doesn't have a matching opening tag.  is normal usage.   with no closing tag is a missing end tag.   with no opening tag is a stripped tag.
 * : Wikipedia guide MOS:CURLY calls for using straight quotes ("...") and straight apostrophes ('), not curly quotes (“...”) and curly apostrophes (’).
 * : Wikipedia guide MOS:DASH says when and how to use em dash and en dash.
 * : Wikipedia guide WP:REFNAME says other ref names are preferred to names like ":1".
 * : Wikipedia guide MOS:REFPUNCT says "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space.... Any punctuation ... must precede the ref tags."
 * Does this explain my edit?
 * As for simultaneous editing, this does happen, and when you try to save your changes when another Wikipedia editor was working on the same piece, usually the edit software will detect this and give you the opportunity to pick which version of each paragraph you want. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Infantry Studios
As you probably know, I'm very eager to delete promotional material. But this article was almost as neutral as possible for the field. I removed a few words, just to make sure. I don't think there was anything wrong with your nominating it--this is why there should always be two people for a g11--some of my G11 nominations have been declined also by other editors who see it differently. ; DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * DGG: I made a tiny edit of this draft article, but I don't believe I nominated it for anything. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it was indeed another editor. Feeel free to remove this section  DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

pathological markup
That's the phrase for it! When I took a look at the raw markup, I shuddered in horror. I did attempt to clear it out before it got moved to draft but chickened out partway through. Great job cleaning it up! edited to add this is about Draft:Kwesi Wilson...just in case you're dealing with multiple pathological markup articles Schazjmd   (talk)  00:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Schazjmd: It wasn't that hard. I put in an empty infobox and copied the info from the article display, and deleted the original markup in the pathological section. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
PS: thank you for fixing my errors! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you !
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Anomalocaris: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Devopam (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Punctuation.
The period, comma and the like go inside the quotation marks. Beg2625 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Beg2625: That is not the Wikipedia standard. See MOS:LQUOTE: "On the English Wikipedia, use the 'logical quotation' style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence. Examples are given below...." Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that might make your signature-fixing activities more effective
Would you like to hear it? EEng 10:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * EEng: In the words of Ross Perot, "I'm all ears." —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that your initial approach be very much what mine was here i.e. "I believe there's a technical problem with your signature. Would you mind if I explained it?" and go from there. As I suspect I don't have to tell you, otherwise you'll often find yourself about as welcome as the enforcement officer who goes around telling people that the town requires them to cut their lawns and so on. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * EEng: Thank you for your suggestion. I will consider it, but I probably won't follow it, considering the usual reaction and the rarity of displeasure. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe only around the holidays, when nerves are frayed. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)