User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2024/March

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Best of The J. Geils Band (2006 album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Give It to Me.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Slow down, you move too fast
I went to see what reference I broke at List of companies involved in the Holocaust because I could barely remember even being there. I now remember trying to look something up and being defeated by the formatting. Apparently I made a couple of driveby improvements to the entries I did read.

I am not certain why this would make me responsible for *other* improvements that needed to be made to an article that doesn't display properly on my device, but I see in your history that you seem to be casting a lot of blame in a semi-automated manner. I can only hope that most of it has more basis than what we are discussing here.

If I may make a suggestion: make improvements or do not. But making them with angry edit summaries is probably counterproductive unless you are really really certain they are warranted. And feel free to reformat this page, which my your logic you are now responsible for.Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you read Hey! Why did you ping me in an edit summary? There's nothing angry here. I'm certain pinging you is warranted because I wanted you to see how I revised the changes you made to the article. Wikipedia is about collaboration an dtelling you that I've changed what you changed is one way to collaborate.
 * The problem at the article was introduced by that removed an in-use reference definition. Your claim was that the source wasn't reliable, but you didn't remove all the references that used that source. One of the robots actually restored the unreliable reference you wanted to delete in order to fix the undefined reference you left behind. I undid that, then cleaned up the other links to this site that you did not delete.
 * I pinged you so that you know I fixed, redid, and expanded your edits. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesnt sound like you are getting it. The article is unnavigable on mobile. I am under no obligation to fix all errors on every page I touch. I think you might be saying that these were sfn references throwing a CS1 error and you felt a need to chide me about this. I don't remember the edit and you aren't being very clear. Again, the full page does not display on mobile so it has bigger problems than that. For which you are now responsible by your logic. The unreliable reference was removed and assuming I understand you correctly you have now done what I couldn't, so hurray for collaboration. I didn't need to know about any of this and barely remember the article let alone the edit.

You might not be mad, bro but you do sound mad. Don't ping me again, please, unless you need my help with something. And no, I haven't read your subpage, I didn't see your subpage, and I have no intention of clicking that link. I'm here complaining that you wasted my time as it is, why would I accept a reading assignment from you? Have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Try fixing reference names rather than just adding templates
Rather than adding a fact template, you could have realised there was a minor issue with the reference name on Emma Wilson (sailor). Adding a template and pinging me made it more effort to fox than just seeing there was a typo on the reference name, when it was clearly not a fact but sourced content. Please think before tagging articles erroneously. Do not ping me in a reply to this, as you've already needleas pinged me once instead of helpfully fixing a ref name typo. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I usually fix references screwed up by other editors, if I can suss out what was intended. Here, I couldn't find the "ES4" reference in the history of the article. In turn, you might think of reviewing your edits to look for errors before publishing them (with preview), or at least after publishing (by reading the article and checking it for error tracking categories). I don't think there's a way for me to reply without sending a ping; that's good, because communication is required. If you insist on not receiving pings from me, feel free to squelch them. And thanks for fixing the article! -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter characters
Hi there! In your recent edit to List of Harry Potter characters, you used the edit summary "fix referencing error introduced by User:GoingBatty". I reviewed the four edits I made to the article and none of them seem to be related to the reference you fixed. Could you please show me where I made the error, so I can learn from my mistake? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry, this one was a trick to untangle because of the merge. Turns out it was the first edit after the merge. You wrote the first edit before the merge from List of supporting Harry Potter characters, and I picked out the wrong diff. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Gosh, thanks! :) -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed reference name
Thanks again for the heads-up on my naming error in the Founding Fathers article. But I do have a question, a minor technical one. I believe you pinged me in your edit summary. How'd you do that? In fixing my error, I entered your user name in wiki brackets in my edit summary, which I knew I could do but didn't know whether that would result in a ping. Care to give me a lesson? Allreet (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * hi there! Sorry, you added your question to my user page rather than my talk page, and I didn't notice it until now. I've moved it to my talk page, since that's the right place for conversations. You can ping someone from an edit summary by including a link in the edit summary that mentions their user name. It would be this code: . You can put links in edit summaries to articles, too -- that doesn't cause any notification, but it can be handy for finding other related articles. You can read more about notifications at Help:Notifications. Hope that helps! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference request on Circassian beauty
Hello Mikeblas! You placed a tag in the article Circassian beauty; "verify inline: Presumptive fix for missing reference" regarding the text: "It was commonly known that Circassian girls were mainly bought to become wives or concubines to rich men, which made the Circassian slave trade to be viewed as a form of marriage market, and it was commonly claimed that Circassian girls were eager to be enslaved, and asked their parents to sell them to the traders, because it was the only way for them to enhance their class status". I am not sure why you felt you needed to verify this, but I believe I can help. This information comes from page 126-127 in the book ''Zilfi, M. (2010). Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire: The Design of Difference. Storbritannien: Cambridge University Press.''. The book is digitilazed, and you may want to look up the information yourself imediately (it will save time). Here is one link: All you need to do, is scroll down to the page 126 and 127. Of course the text in the article here is simply a summary in the editor's own words, but spread out on the page 126 and 127 is indeed the information that a common appologetism for this slavery was that Circassian girls asked to be sold by their parents because to be a wife or concubine to a rich man was the only way for them to leave poverty. Of course: we can take for granted that this was merely slavery appologetism from the Ottomans to excuse the enslavement of these girls, but such appologetism is relevant to mention, and was indeed common in many slavery societies. I hope this was of help. Since this piece of information, as you can see, indeed has both book and page number and are available online, I hope it is alright with you if I remove the tag? Of course the text can be rephrased in other words or be expanded; there is plenty more information were that came from, as you can see. Happy editing! My best wishes--Aciram (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi! I tagged the reference for verification because I completely fabricated the reference out of thin air. The article previously had the code  . But a reference of that name was never defined. A reference from the same author name with the same date appeared elsewhere in the article, so I figured it probably (but not certainly) referred to the same work and built the reference. I don't have access to the title, so I couldn't verify it myself. If you're satisfied that the reference I placed does work and you've verified it, please do feel free to remove the tag. Getting someone familiar with the subject matter and access to the references is, after all, the point of the request tag. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuing with the Split
Hi there,

I'd be interested in aiding with the continued splitting of the list article List of Glagolitic manuscripts. I've already notified @Onetwothreeip about my interest in this. Would it be okay for me to split off the next section in a sandbox?

I've read through the edit history and will keep in mind citations that are used throughout the list, as to not break anything. My current sandbox page for this can be found at User:Sink_Cat/List of Glagolitic manuscripts (1500 – 1599)

Thanks! Sink Cat (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You should go for it! The article should be split and it's relatively low-risk. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just submitted a draft for review. Once it's through, I'll work on cleaning up the refs on the main list (and hopefully not break everything in the meanwhile). Sink Cat (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unforunately, the draft is full of broken references. Did you want to sort those out as a draft first? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made some edits to your draft that copy in the missing references. There are still several referencing problems, but at least there are no undefined references now. I guess more improvements are not in our scope, so I'd approve this draft to be published. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course! My only concern is that the referencing doesn't get any worse. Let me know if you need help with that part. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm working on Draft:List of Glagolitic manuscripts (1600 – 1699), how were you able to rescue so many references so quickly? Sink Cat (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I turn on the visible error messages, which shows all the missing references. Then, I went to an old version of the article to find the definitions which existed before the split. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UTC Climate, Controls & Security, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed! -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)