User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2021/March

Why delete every revision of mine on Arnold Mathew?
It was my bad I deleted the references, I didn't notice that while updating the template sorry, but I added more bishops that he consecrated and that he was consecrated a second time upon other things which is useful information. KEleison (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That information wasn't referenced; it needs to be. Because you didn't enter any summaries in your edits, removed and replaced referenced material, and deleted reference definitions, replacing the deleted reference wouldn't completely recover the article and I felt like it was best to reset the article back to it's last state. Your revisions weren't actually deleted; they can be restored with a couple of clicks. Sorry, kind of harsh; but we want to keep visible errors and make sure everything is verifiable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Fire service
Love what you did at Tyne & Wear. Every UK fire & service article has the same section of pointless original research. I'd be happy to support you in getting rid of it. It's like a flame to the moths of irrelevance (a.k.a. fire engine spotters). --10mmsocket (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See what I just did in response to your edit. --10mmsocket (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It does seem like many of the fire service articles have this OR. Is there a way to build concensus for removing all the OR sections? The articles don't seem to be part of any common project. Or, maybe just removing OR is a site-wide policy decision and expected without consensus? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OR I think gives us a mandate to remove non-verifiable content. I did just that at Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service which is again a properly sourced list. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Mikeblas. Thanks for re-adding the content on Ahmedabad International Literature Festival. I mistakenly removed the content of the 4th edition. Thanks for the correction. Imfarhad7 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help! :) -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

idk why you revert without any discussion
this is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betta_splendens&oldid=1014003039 before this guy edit also the page move without any discussion, this person Antony_Willianson claming that the fish originating in mekhong river is not really the truth Talk:Siamese_fighting_fish and i can't revert anymore Lalalulilalia (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted without discussion because, in this case, no discussion is necessary. The edits that I reverted are unreferenced, and also delete referenced material. The edits I reverted were done in such a way that they introduce new "undefined reference" errors to the article. There is no question that the edits I reverted mkae the article worse, and must be rewritten and implemented correctly before they're acceptable. Now, you know why. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lalalulilalia (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's have only one conversation about this instead of two -- please move to the article's talk page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Aligarh Muslim University
Mikeblas, why are you reverting my edits of Aligarh Muslim University multiple times? The Aligarh_Muslim_University is ranked both in the ARWU World Universisty Rankings 2020 (with 801-900) as well the THE World University Rankings 2021 (with 801–1000), see and. The Template: Infobox India university ranking is accommodated with the parameters ARWU_W_2020 and THE_W_2021 linking to the sources for reference, so why are you reverting my edits every time? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. The changes you made aren't referenced -- you're relying on a reference named "Rankings_THE_W_2020" which isn't defined. After your edits, the article has a visible red error message that says so: "Cite error: The named reference  was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."  I don't think it's appropriate for an update to rely on an undefined reference, and shouldn't be introducing error messages to the rendered article. Since we're better off with older, referenced data that doesn't show error messages, I reverted the changes that caused those errors. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit I made was in the Template: Infobox India university ranking, which correctly links to the sources for reference. The visible red error message "Cite error" was an error reference in the text itself (not my edit). Anyway, I fixed that too. It wasn't difficult, you could have fixed that easily too, instead of rigorously reverting back all my edits, including the ones that worked correctly (i.e. ARWU ranking). Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article referenced without error before your edits, so I don't think there can be any question that your change caused the new error messages. Now that you know you need to check for existing uses of references in an article before changing reference definitions, I think you're in a better position to avoid causing problems in the articles you edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)