Jump to content

User talk:85.238.102.237

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Lionel Robbins. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (85.238.102.237) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Thank you for your welcome, but I prefer not to be registered as I still never found any wikipedian community matching my ideas about what it has to be (including way rules are [however, mostly not or even otherwise - strictly violated] followed there). Sure I still never tried much english wikipedia, so - I'll think about your proposition ) - so then, again: thank you Drmies! ) 85.238.102.237 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem. If you looked behind the curtain you might see that this is one of a set of standard welcomes for IPs; there's one called "encourage editors to register", and I purposely didn't use that here; I figured that you (like many other constructive IP editors) had a good reason not to register, and I'm not going to push anyone into registering. I see now that the template is actually more pushy than I thought, and I'm going to have a look at it. Thanks for your note, and for your edits. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies:I see you not pushing me (and that's just a template) and I'm pleased you still (as you choosed to place that template here) think I'm constructive editor. Case is if you will follow (trace) my IP history (including blocking) on some other wiki-projects - you'll see I'm being perceived as a "very bad guy" who "disrupts" something, despite all I was doing - just following the rules. Now I'm trying to do the same here and, for now, I see quite different (mostly positive) community attitude to what I'm doing, that is vice versa to what I felt on 3 (mostly 2) other wiki-projects. That's why I told you I will think about your proposition of registering here ). However I'd prefer to be registered NOT globally but exactly locally (only at current wiki-project without any linking to other ones) - is it possible?
  • About template noting - you are welcome - you can also, if you wish to, join to some "discussion" about how have I comment my current 'cite'-template edits, as someone dissatisfied with my current comment as irrelevant. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Patience

[edit]

Hi,

I'm not sure if I understood everything that you said on my talk page, but in the cite web, cite book, cite news, and other types of citations, the "last" parameter is for the last name of the author, not the last author. If there is more than one author, the parameters to add manually are "last1" for the last name of the first author, "first1" for the first name of the first author, "last2" for the last name of the second author, "first2" for the first name of the second author, and so on, each followed by an equal sign. If there's only one author, the last name should simply go in the "last" parameter and the first name in the "first" parameter.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ira Leviton: Thank you, as of my on your page message - I just was admired by your manual edit work. As of others - I will gladly use your advices in future trying not to make articles falling into errorous categories.

Just me

85.238.102.237 (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid citation template edits

[edit]

I have reverted some of your citation template edits. The proper fix is like this. Please go back and fix the articles that you have modified incorrectly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95:dear, if you making WP:STEPS to ban me finally, you doing a right way by "just reverting" my constructive edits and clinging to whatever I do wrong, as you see it. On the other hand, if you making Wikipedia:Steps to prevent content from degrading, then your reverts of EXACT action descripted at my edit comments ("Removing improper Template:Citation parameters information"), that exactly have place at my edits, then you doing wrong way. My main goal now os to DELETE such information. As the next step I or you or whoever could really do what you want - poking around in the template fields to move (where it have place) last name from "first" field to where it have to be. For now it's still quite HARD TO FIND such imrpoer information, and what you do by JUST REVERTING edits is non-constructive activity at all. So please do one of the following:
  1. Stop reverting my edits. Just fix what you want to fix with already my edits done.
  2. If you have wish and time - revert my edits and do both removing improper information and moving last name (where it have place) to "last" field from "first" field on your own.
Thank you.
P.S. EVen if talking about FURTHER such "moving last name" activity by me - it will be much more easier to find the articles containing "By, " text (that is, if case sensitive, qute rare one) to deploy edits on exact number of articles I already proceeded by removing improper information then AGAIN to search articles you "just like that" (without any valuable reason) reverted.
P.P.S. STEP-By-STEP activity is BEST from the view of edit effectiveness. so please don't try to push me make whole fixes with ONLY edit. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95:Btw, if you have any comments regarding what am I doing now exactly you'd better join much earlier discussion. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you could have fixed Ryder Jones in the time it took you to make the flag edit. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:'cause I already (just for now, that's not final number) have over 1000 occurrences of articles with above mentioned improper information contained to proceed and I use (manually editing) fastest for about 10 seconds of time for each article to delete such information (both with adding "By" to "last" field, when "first" field filled, or just deleting such parameter value, when there's no "first parameter" filled). I do it manually, which means that I need about 3 hours to finish all of such removings if I will act-like-a-bot, but I'm not, so my average time to do it is about up to minute for each article, which means I will already need about 18 hours clear time (or 3-4 days) of time to remove all of it improper information. If I will also do what you want me to do - I will spend, i.e. from your words, 3 minutes for each article, which will slow down whole process to 3 times more - or 2 weeks... What a purpose of it? Isn't Wikipedia's sense is MULTIPLE editor's editing? One can remove improper information when another one can move some information between fields. Don't you think it's much wiser to act like this and not "pull the blanket over yourself only" or push someone to do the same? 85.238.102.237 (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use visual editor too, but it "eats" so many memory... Anyone use something other to edit? I don't see any such editing options. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add "By" or "-" to |last=. It is invalid. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's will even make full process much faster, thank you. @Oculi:I hope you don't mind I will fill Category:CS1 errors: missing name that way you, in fact, asked me not to. I have no more options as your wishes with Jonesey95 some way interfere each other. 85.238.102.237 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95:paragraph above? and 2 above? and 3 above? STOP REVERTING MY EDITS of DELETING improper information. if you have some proposition to FIX after such DELETIONs - make it. but DON'T MAKE SH IT. Otherwise - ban me already - I saw people like you, who don't listen, just speak. in the coffin. Have a good day, churk! What can you except using templates, reverting and banning? Curious to see ) 85.238.102.237 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going through all this effort to fix citations, why not just do it the right way, that Oculi suggested here? Politanvm talk 14:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Politanvm:#because 85.238.102.237 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no deadline. It would be so much more helpful to do fewer correct edits than an incredible bulk of edits that replace one incorrect template value with another incorrect template value, that will eventually take someone the same amount of time to fix that it would have taken to fix in the first place. A bunch of people have told you the way you're making bulk edits is unhelpful, so when the block expires, please take it into consideration. Politanvm talk 15:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

Your edit warring continues. You have reverted nearly 100 edits that reverted your invalid changes to citation templates. You are just creating more work for editors who will need to clean up your erroneous edits. Expect to be blocked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95:If you still didn't get it, it's more easy to find such articles with filled SAME value (as By or -) then to make numerous different searches by different emails (each of have from 1 to 4 article occurences only) That's why I asked you to NOT REVERT it and just make proposition about fixing (both future - changing edit process - and current - already done - edits). That way such deletions of both unwanted by you symbols there (at articles with already done edits) can be even automated WITHOUT cancelling initial CORRECT GOAL - REMOVING IMPROPER INFORMATION. 195.138.94.101 (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  firefly ( t · c ) 15:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
In addition this sort of thing is entirely unacceptable - see our policy on personal attacks. firefly ( t · c ) 15:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly:you do not look at the origins (of such behaviour), and it's sad. As a rule you had to block both users of conflict and not only one 195.138.94.101 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only you have said things like don't make it shit and made bizarre references to coffins in discussions with other users. If you wish to appeal the block, please follow the directions in the message above and an uninvolved admin will review the appeal. firefly ( t · c ) 16:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! 2nd of WP:STEPS, told about here, is here! 7 more to go! English wikipedia community rules! 195.138.94.101 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good fix - changing first to author

[edit]

This edit was a good fix! I wish you had done more of these instead of introducing |last=By and other errors that productive editors will have to spend their time fixing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonesey95...Told pal who forced my long-time blocking widely ))) That is quite rare event when it's possible as author need to have both last and first name that usually stay unknown. "By" was used mostly to prevent error appearing (by adding to appropriate list of errorous tags' articles) when first name filled and last is not. Also it's quite time consuming - so if no bot owner want to do it I won't too - much simpler to just delete 'last' field or to fill it with "By" that in fact not making citation meaning worse.85.238.101.64 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your method is an invalid change that introduces invalid citation data and hides the error instead of fixing it. It's like covering your car's "check engine" light with a piece of black tape – the error message is gone, but you haven't fixed anything. Methods for actually fixing this type of error are shown at Category:CS1 errors: missing name and Template:Cite book#Authors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95:You are wrong, I fixed project's policy violattion (you just didn't mention) that, in act exactly was goal I followed to. Letting designers make further design fixes. Collaboration! 85.238.101.64 (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We tried. Enjoy your block. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What block? You are so funny when unreasonably angry. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: in addition to above - and who "we"? You personally as "we-king"? )) 85.238.103.38 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.238.102.237&oldid=1114461613"