User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2020/November

Greetings and...
Greetings Mikeblas, I just thanked you for covering my back at the Azores article, but on reviewing my edits, I see that I didn't actually commit that particular crime. What is possibly worse is that I hadn't detected the existing problem myself... Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there! No worries -- there's no crime here. Fortunately, editing Wikipedia isn't (yet) illegal. At least, not where I live!
 * Looking at this version of the article before your edits, I don't see any errors in the "References" section. After your last edit, there is an error in the reference section in red letters that says "Cite error: The named reference Machado, et al., 2008, p. 14 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."
 * If we look at, we see that you made some changes to the name of a reference. Before your edits, the article had , and you changed it to  . I can see why you might want to format et al. in italics in the rendered page, but using the tick marks in the name of a reference anchor won't make a visible change in the formatting of the article.
 * Instead, it changed the name of the reference definition. Other parts of the article still used  (without the italic ticks in the name) to invoke the reference; but a reference with that name was no longer defined. That's the cause of the red error message, and I'm pretty certain it's due to your edits in those diffs.
 * Sorry if I got the attribution wrong ... but at any rate it's fixed and the article references render correctly now without error. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Crime meme
Huh? No... Ahah!

This does illustrate why I (nearly) always do "Show Changes" and why _that_ fellow _should_ have done "Show preview" with their large changes. Though I don't know if anybody would think to check the reference notes section. But they should if they update refs.

Perhaps you could ask them to figure out what that ref was supposed to be? Shenme (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry about that. I get the attribution wrong every once in a while :( But thanks for having a look! Indeed, lots of edits happen that add referencing errors and make trouble. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert
Regarding Air Mail scandal accidents and incidents, arlingtoncemetery.net is not RS. The website is SPS and has WP:LINKVIO. Please joint the discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thing was, whoever removed the definition of the reference didn't remove all uses of the reference, which leaves an error. Also, it seems like that site is being reviewed at the notice board, but consensus hasn't been reached just yet. Isn't that true? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mistake fixed
Thanks for tagging me here. Had you not tagged me, I wouldn't have noticed my mistake. I have fixed it now.VR talk 23:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks!! -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

GSTF Journal of Engineering Technology
That journal is not a reliable source, see for example. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I guess you're asking me to fix or undo some edit I made. Maybe you can narrow it down a bit? Where was it used? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you not to restore this. To be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong the first time (I did fail to remove all instances of that reference). Just letting you know why it was removed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. I think I misunderstood your intention., you removed the reference; but replaced a repeat of that reference with a new, named reference invocation. If the intention was to remove 'em both, then let's do that. There's no need to need a named-reference invocation behind. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)