User talk:TheReferenceProvider

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, TheReferenceProvider. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Murph 9000 (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

TheReferenceProvider, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Edit summaries
Hi, thank you for your edits to the Steinway article. In the future, could you please enter Edit Summaries for your edits so others can tell what you're doing? Thanks. ~Awilley (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for asking. My goal is to add references and to change the company website references to more reliable references.

January 2016
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Steinway & Sons does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Diving cylinder
Hi "TheReferenceProvider", You have tagged Diving cylinder with Format footnotes, referring to specific instances. Please explain what is wrong with those citations, and how you propose they should be correctly formatted. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, for example reference 11, it has a raw web link (http://www.leisurepro.com/p-fbrhp/faber-high-pressure-steel-tank) but reference 10 has not a raw web link (it has "A Consumer's Guide to Scuba Tanks"). The raw web links in the references should be changed to the same style as the rest af the references. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you could please take care before tagging a whole article on the basis of one or two minor formatting errors, that would be much appreciated. If there are only a few, you could consider either fixing the formats, or if real doubt remains, just tagging the individual items or subsections concerned. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Chiswick Chap, the Format footnotes is the best template I know to show the editors of an article that there is something wrong with some of the references. If you know a better template, please let me know. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not try to live up to your chosen user name and provide some references (or fix them) instead of tagging with a notice that provides very little useful information, and in many cases gives a very distorted impression of the tagged article. If you explain what the problem with each reference is, it is usually easy to fix. If you don't, you force somebody else to spend a lot of time and effort trying to guess what you already know, which is unfriendly and disrespectful of other contributors. The use of this template in an article where most of the references are good is basically saying to the world that your time is worth more than theirs, as you couldn't be bothered to take a few minutes to save them wasted hours. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your opinion – or disrespectful comment – is irrelevant to me. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But do note that it is exactly the same opinion as just about everybody else's here. Meanwhile it looks like you have learned how to fix some of the problems, so we expect you to wp:SOFIXIT of course. Cheers and thanks for caring. - DVdm (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But that is because much people don't understand what the templates (like Format footnotes) actually says. And if Peter would like to know more, he can simply read my comments to you in the section User talk:TheReferenceProvider below. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that we all agree that it says that the inline citations are not properly formatted:  Right? - DVdm (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For your information: "Template documentation: Usage: Use Format footnotes to alert editors to articles with improperly formatted or non-formatted citations." according to Template:Format footnotes. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop tagging articles that are mostly ok with the Format footnotes template. If you find a bad footnote in an article, then feel free to make it better. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: I think I have undone all your additions. If you find some more (Special:Contributions/TheReferenceProvider), please feel free to remove them as well. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not fix the problems instead of removing the templates that I used correct? I don't see any reason for removing the templates. And why should you decide? --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Format footnotes is the best template I know to show the editors of an article that there is something wrong with some of the references. And when I am not an editor of an article with reference problems I will not correct the references because I could make a mistake in the article. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You found the problem, so you fix it, so to speak—see wp:SOFIXIT. Tagging an article with that template gives the impression that the article is —overall— in bad shape. When there's one or two problems and 67 perfect citations, the article is in pretty good shape and doesn't deserve that tag. See the messages in the section preceding this one. - DVdm (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You found the problem, so you fix it is incorrect, that is why we have templates. And "I will not correct the references because I could make a mistake in the article." For your information, the templates are not a critique but a help for these articles that are on the GA nominations list. And why should you decide? --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Template:Format footnotes: "Use Format footnotes to alert editors to articles with improperly formatted or non-formatted citations." It doesn't say anything about the number of citations or "overall in bad shape". --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And please do not alter other peoples's messages, not even the title of a section, and not even on your own tlak page—see wp:TALKO. I have changed the title to what it was. - DVdm (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is invalid. See what I wrote above. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The template inserts a banner that says: "This article includes inline citations, but they are not properly formatted." That gives the impression that none of the inline citations are properly formatted. - DVdm (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, correct the template says that. What impression it gives you, I don't know. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Had the banner been like "This article includes inline citations, but some of these  are not properly formatted", or if another optional parameter would be available to specify exactly which citations are bad, and why or how, then there would be no problem using it as abundantly as you have been doing. With the way you have been using it up to now, it can be hard to find out which citation is bad, and what is exactly wrong with it, even when you specify the numbers in your edit summaries. You cannot expect from others to go look in the edit history for an edit summary that specifies this. Your tagging could have been a long time ago, beyond the 50-edits pseudo-threshold of the edit history.
 * perhaps you could go to the template talk page and propose a modification to it, by allowing for an optional parameter. That way it would always be clear where the problems are, and other users, after having fixed one or more problems, could then amend the banner text to reflect the new situation. - DVdm (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Eureka: try something like The banner text then becomes   The second parameter gets inserted between "This" and "includes".
 * If the bad citations are confined to one section, you can say something like immediately under the section header, and that would give:    I guess that we all could live with that. - DVdm (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I will try your two banner suggestions. Thank you. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The reference numbers aren't very stable: they change as soon as a reference is added or removed. Uanfala (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Uanfala: Here are two example: List of Caribbean membranophones and Pipe organ. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello TheReferenceProvider, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. I think general practice is that article templates are best used only when there is a significant issue with the article, as the templates detract from the impact and aesthetics of articles. I have to agree with other comments that is almost always preferable to try to fix a problem rather than templating an article.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Mojo Hand, The two articles (a featured one and a good one) are here: List of Caribbean membranophones and Pipe organ. Feel free to edit the articles if you like. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Putting the template in the notes section is much better - thank you for working towards a compromise. I am confident that articles up for FA or GA status will have reference issue addressed (or they won't pass).-- Mojo Hand (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you consider reference 61 is malformed in the Pipe organ article I can find nothing wrong with it? Theroadislong (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Because of the raw link "http://books.google.com/books?id=cgDJaeFFUPoC&lpg=PA327&ots=nPL05keO3O&pg=PA327#v=onepage&q&f=false". --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The reference also contains "Douglas Bush and Richard Kassel eds., "The Organ, an Encyclopedia." Routledge. 2006. p. 327" How else would you format the link to Google Books? Theroadislong (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the "problem" at Pipe organ . - DVdm (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please can you check that I have fixed the references correctly at List of Caribbean membranophones thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To me it looks like the reference problems in the featured article List of Caribbean membranophones have been solved. Thank you for helping. --TheReferenceProvider (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Some problems that can be fixed
Hi TheReferenceProvider,

You are running into problems with other editors. Most of these can be avoided. I have just checked your edit records and see that for practical purposes you appear to be new to Wikipedia, and do not seem to have developed a feel for how things work here. This is a stage we all go through, some more smoothly than others. You have chosen to do a number of things which will not ease your passage.

For a start, your chosen username is a pseudonym, therefore people will be less likely to treat you as a real person. The name you use will colour other people's perception of you. Many can live with this, and after a while the names are associated with an editing personality, and you become a real person again to those familiar with your work. So far almost all of your real work has been on a single article, which most of us do not edit. This in itself is not a problem, but it means that almost nobody knows you yet.

Then, your chosen username could project one of several impressions. It could indicate a dedication to improving references on Wikipedia - a noble and worthy cause which would be praised and supported by almost everyone here, if you produce evidence of actually providing references.

If you are not seen to provide the references that your username implies we should expect, people are likely to think you meant it as a joke, or are simply being pretentious. Neither of these will help get you respect. Tagging articles to indicate that in your opinion the references are poorly formatted, without specifying exactly what is wrong with them is not seen by the editing community as improving references.

You have leaped into making yourself noticed in a campaign of tagging articles with a notice which is controversial at the best of times, as it does not actually provide much useful information that allows anyone else to fix the problem which you state exists. Using reference numbers is not particularly useful because if someone adds another reference, the numbering is automatically changed, which makes it necessary to refer to the historical version where you added the tag, then check the specified reference, then try to work out what you thought was wrong with it, which you considered was important enough to flag, but not important enough to specify. The other editor has by now spent more time trying to work out what you meant than you spent tagging. Their time is valuable to them as yours is to you. At the end of this, they may still not know what to do to fix it, so that time is wasted, which could have been spent doing something productive. This does not usually fill one with quiet satisfaction and enthusiasm to do more of the same. As a result, most instances of this tag will be ignored by most editors, making it a pointless exercise in annoying people.

If you want to improve the general standard of references, it will be more productive to fix them yourself where you can, and where you can't fix them, to specify exactly what you think is wrong with them, individually, bearing in mind that there is not really any one fixed format that is 'right' - there are many formats that are accepted, and if you tag one as faulty that is not, your credibility is not improved either.

It would probably help if you could get some clarity on the use of notices to tag articles, and the differences between policy and guidelines and personal opinion. Not all templates are approved by policy. Defending their use requires the use of discretion and logic, and varies from case to case. If you can't tell the difference, you probably should not be tagging. Other editors may expect you to explain your tags. You made them, no-one else knows exactly why. It is not unreasonable to expect you to clarify. Rushing in with large numbers of the same tags on a wide range of subjects is also inviting a lot of notice, and you have been duly noticed.

Your best way out of this is to fix what you have done. Go back over the articles you tagged, and either remove the tags, or leave sufficient explanation that other people know what needs to be done. Best option of all is to actually fix the references. This will gain you thanks in place of criticism. If you do this enough your username will be respected as your calling. It is your choice how you go forward from here.

Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldnewnew and Fanoftheworld?
your first edit here was this. To me that does not look like a newcomer's edit. So I did some checking. I wonder if by any chance you might be the same person who used the username before, who was indefinitely blocked as one of the many sockpuppets of user ). See Sockpuppet investigations/Fanoftheworld/Archive. I noticed some striking similarities in the nature of your edits, comments and habits. Please comment? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and opened another SPI-case: Sockpuppet investigations/Fanoftheworld. - DVdm (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)