User talk:ActivelyDisinterested/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

IPCC AR6 citation error I introduced and you fixed

Thanks for cleaning up after me on attribution of recent climate change. I genuinely stared at W:Citing IPCC (correction:WP:IPCC citation) and its subpages for a long time trying to figure out how that citation format works, but I obviously didn't get it. Can you explain or point me to an explanatory resource? I'd like to be in a position to (competently) update AR5 references to AR6 ones when opportunity and free time arise. Cheers! W.stanovsky (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not an that knowledgeable about WP:IPCC citation myself. I just try to fix the type of error you caused. However these are not the only time I've come across this error with IPCC cites. The issue is when citing a chapter the title used is {{Harvnb|IPCC AR6 WG1|2021}}, the Harvnb template is a link to another cite. If you look at the cite I added it's |ref= field matches the title of your cite. I found it at the climate change article. I'm guessing they were all originally setup like this so that if you quote a chapter, the full report details are included as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

So the pre-constructed chapter citations (which are what I copied in) seem to use both a harvid template in the |ref parameter, for the chapter, and a harvnb template in the |title parameter, for the volume as a whole. When I pull that harvid template by itself outside the |ref parameter of the cite book template, it renders as CITEREFIPCC_AR6_WG1_Ch32021. So it seems that somehow the cite book template in turn knows to take that input string in the |ref parameter and render the detailed chapter citation in the reference list? It's not clear to me how/why that happens.

And then the harvnb template in the |title renders a link that points elsewhere, to whatever source has the same harvnb template in its own |ref parameter--in this case, the overall volume citation that was initially missing, and you added.

If you can explain why the cite book template with the harvid template in its |ref parameter behaves the way it does, that would be helpful. But do I have it right otherwise? Thanks again! W.stanovsky (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of the |ref= field is to link to other {{harvnb}} templates. So if you put <ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR6 WG1|2021}}</ref> elsewhere in the in the article it will link to the cite I added. You could also add |p=31 or |pp=31-35 to show specific page numbers. So <ref>{{harvnb|IPCC AR6 WG1|2021|p=31}}</ref> will display in the References as "[1] IPCC ARG WG1, p. 31" (with the first part acting as a link to the cite). You can also use {{sfn}} which is the same as harvnb, but you don't have to use <ref> tags. That could all probably be explained better, but it's late here. Feel free to ask anymore questions you have. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's super helpful. Thanks! W.stanovsky (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am very grateful for your intervention on the Anat page, and for pointing out my typos earlier. The new batch of template errors was caused by an anonymous user copy pasting from other articles to support an idea which seems to be a product of their own research rather than scholarly consensus. Sadly, it seems the paragraph went back up mere seconds after your intervention. Also, I am not sure if the talk page warning will do much, this user appears to exclusively communicate via edit summaries based on my previous experiences with them. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've left message about proper referencing on their talk page hopefully they'll read it, I'll report them to WP:AN3 if they revert again as they are already past 3RR. They editted Baal as well if you hadn't noticed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not really keep track of every ANE deity page (and I only started editing Ugaritic ones two months ago), so I actually haven't, though I did notice them (or users with oddly similar writing and "referencing" style and similarly loose approach to sources, at least) in multiple other articles about similar topics, with the Nergal article in particular being a frequent target in July, though others, like Erra or Resheph, received similar type of attention. It is definitely a pattern of behavior. I do suspect it's a single person because the type of (dubious) information added is always similar. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

its definitely the same editor with different IPs, but IPs changing could be out of their control. They definitely need to learn more about how Wikipedia works, it's seems more a competence issue than anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I should say I have little idea about the content. I'm just trying to fix reference errors. After several months I've reached 'Bil-', so any new ones for 'a' or 'ba' articles stick out like a sore thumb. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think with regards to content this might also be a competence issue - they seem to use anything they can find on google books or in other wikipedia articles without rhyme or reason, so publications representing recent consensus are twisted to reconcile them with views nobody advocated since the interwar period. I think their persistence would actually make them a good editor with some effort, though. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a common pattern, it's what happens when you have a stance and them go find sources that back it up. Google books is an amazing resource, but it was means people can find a sentence in a book that backs them up and use it out of context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Giles Radice

On 30 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Giles Radice, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 19:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Imported cite to fix no error

Hi. I noticed that you used this as your edit summary in the article of Beaver Dam, Texas. Can you do the same thing for a reference that I used in Oenaville, Texas? Thanks! Colman2000 (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. If you have any questions just let me know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How about Leon Springs, Texas? Colman2000 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Also done. You can just do these yourself, also of you copying text between articles you really should attribute where you copied from. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Boethius Article

Thanks for your notification regarding my source on Boethius. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the article so far? I've been long at work at it for a while now, but I am the only editor diligently working on it and would like to get the opinion of a reader as to how well it currently seems to be written. GuardianH (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

First please know I'm no expert on Boethius, nor am I much of a writer. I usually stick to fixing technical issues. But as an average reader, and being deliberately critical, there where a few things that stuck out to me.

The lead is a bit long, it contains a lot of details. It's not that these shouldnt be there, just that in general it's a bit verbose.

The De topicis differentiis section could use some more inline citations. Things like "Not only are these texts of paramount importance to the study of Boethius, they are also crucial to the history of topical lore." and "It was also in De Topicis Differentiis that Boethius made a unique contribution to the discourse on dialectic and rhetoric." should really have references , due to the use of paramount, crucial, and unique.

Also the same is true of any big claim, such as "This is the basis for the idea that demonstration (or the construction of arguments) is dependent ultimately upon ideas or proofs that are known so well and are so fundamental to human understanding of logic that no other proofs come before it." I'm guessing editors familiar with Boethius see all this as uncontroversial, but most readers will need some way to verify these statements.
Otherwise the rest of the article looks good, other than the Historical reception section having {{citation needed}} and {{fails verification}} tags, but I don't think you've got that far yet

Technically the referencing is somewhat split between full inline cites, and short form refs. Unlike the writing this is something I could help with I you wish.

Please don't take anything I said as discouragement, as I said you doing something I would struggle at. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. There is still a lot of work to do, and I will get to fixing the lead now that you gave mentioned it. The citations for the claims that you mentioned I definitely agree with — I did not write those paragraphs, so I will need to get to it as soon as I tidy the lead and everything else.

As for the references, I would definitely appreciate your help on those if you would like. I completely agree that the format and structure of the descriptions under his Major works are quite lengthy, and much of it would be better synthesized to form a more coherent paragraph.

Thanks for your observations and critiques, they'll definitely help me in producing a cleaner, more digestible article. GuardianH (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added a section to the talk page saying I'm going to be standardising the referencing, just in case anyone disagrees. If noone objects I'll complete the work in a day or two. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Brian Clough

Thanks, I've fixed it now! MaximumOccupancy (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

few notes on sfn no target error fixing

Hi! Thanks again for going thru these errors so diligently. I have a couple of comments/suggestions:

1. When I fix error, I use edit summary "resolve Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors" -- hoping this will draw user attention to the issue and help prevent future errors.
2. When I can't fix an error, I try contacting user (if they still active) who inserted the short reference. I "advertise" the script to highlight the errors (again, trying to praise awareness and prevent more errors in the future). I use this text:

==Missing cite in [[article name]]== The article cites "ABC 2016" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste {{code|lang=js|importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]]}} to [[Special:MyPage/common.js|your common.js page]]. Thanks, ~~~~

1. What do you do when all efforts fail? E.g. Charles Wood (jockey): "Carr 1986" was added by an IP, doubtful it's a typo in year (way too far off), no other such source found in other wiki articles. Do you replace the citation with {{fact}}?

Thanks, Renata•3 01:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Renata.

1. I'll working that into my edit summary, generally I've been using Fixing no target error. (details), I'll switch in the linked version. Having a more friendly help page would be helpful, but creating one is beyond my current desire to edit.
   
2. If the error is recent, or if I come across a set of error coming from the same users I'll engage them on their talk page. I won't link examples, blame game etc. If it's minor typos I don't bother, I assume editors aren't deliberately making them.
   I'm generally not in favour of standardised user messages, Wikipedia has so many of them that I'm sure most editors have become blind to them. There's a few editors I've convinced the turn on the error messages, mostly new page creators or editors making the same mistake repeatedly (I'm personally of the opinion they should be on by default). Some new editors I've pointed to WP:REFB, and got them to use simpler inline cites instead (far to few realise you can autofill cites).
   
3. I'm absolutely certain that the IP meant Carr 2019, not Carr 1989. That might seem odd given the difference in years, but certain facts point to it being the case. The first instance of the Carr work was added in this edit, notice the username. The IP that editted directly afterwards only ever used the Carr 2019 source, and in the edit in question was changing the Wright 1989 reference to a new one. Now about that username and it's relation to the Carr 2019 work. The work is Our Honest Charlie Wood by Josephine Carr published by Maple Publishing. The Maple Publishing website has a page about Carr, they are the owner of Maple Publishing, and half way down the page there's a picture of them with Charles Wood’s great grandchildren. I would find it rather unlikely they meant anything other than a reference to Carr 2019.
   In other cases where a connection isn't obvious, where searching provided not a hint of a work matching the details, no other accessable work (Google books / Archive.org / WikiLibrary / searching Google for things that shouldn't be there) covers the details, nothing is found from other Wikipedia pages / other Wikipedia languages / the edit history of the editor who added it and there sandboxes / the edit history of the editor and their sandboxes but at foreign language Wikipedias / finding work at other Wikipedia pages and then trying to access them in case it's the right work, (really I just make up ways to try and confirm it on the fly, but that's some of the things I'll try) then I'll remove the reference and added {{CN}} instead. I need to update User:ActivelyDisinterested/No target error causes.
   

The reason I kind of enjoy these errors is that it's part puzzle, and part reading about a vast array of subjects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hi there! I was concerned to read your comments that Wikidata was hard to use and understand, because it suggests that work needs to be done to make it more accessible. You may not be interested, but if you have any free time, would you mind following this tutorial or this one and letting me know if makes any sense? There is also quite a good YouTube video which provides an introduction — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Well first neither actually work. As I edit on mobile neither walkthrough started before I forced the switched to the desktop version. once they start their not bad, but completely miss the point. Many editors will be coming to Wikidata from Wikipedia, and it fails completely to make any link. These are very much like many help screens for business systems I've seen, they describe what each part of a screen does but completely lack any context on why it might be done.
The only time I have been to Wikidata is to fix issue with referencing (see any of my thousands of edits), and this is going to be the same for many new editors (maybe not due to referencing, but they will be coming from Wikipedia). What is a new user presented with? An incomprehensible screen. How do they do what they want to achieve? Again nothing is obviously apparent. What about if they want to search for a specific instance or fact? Again they would have no idea. So what do they do? They give up and go and do something else. This isn't just my user experience, I read through the questions sometimes asked at the teahouse/HELPDESK, and less experienced users go through the same process. Each time Wikidata is failing to retain new editors.
My understanding of Wikidata doesn't need anymore information, I have another 19,586 tasks to already carry out and no desire to deal with such a badly design interface. As I have said elsewhere, Wikidata is a great idea, the current implementation is a travesty, and those who support it don't seem to be able to see that. This also goes for their inability to see the issue with its interface with Wikipedia, any criticism is ignored or worse cast-off as being systematic bias. Fix the interface, listen to concerns being expressed, and maybe you'll have better user buy-in. Till then my concerns are going to remain with the implications Wikidata has on Wikipedia.
tl:dr - The walkthroughs are the most very basic like you'd find in any data system, they need much more work to explain "why Wikidata?" not just "how Wikidata?". Also if it doesn't work on mobile it's becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Revert

My bad for this edit. Rollback buttons are always hard to miss. Sarrail (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Thanks for letting me know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hey @ActivelyDisinterested, I need some help formatting the references in an article I am currently working on (John Hart Ely). I was wondering if you could format the references similar to how you did the article on Boethius? I'm not much very good with all the technical fixes and the way I do them manually takes more time than I think it needs to. GuardianH (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, give me a few minutes it doesn't look like a lot of work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

All done, anything else just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You are a saint! Thanks so much. GuardianH (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Undo at Conversion_therapy

You have Undone my edit at Conversion therapy.

The original text is gibberish which does not make any sense in English. It looks like a speaker of English as a second or foreign language was trying to write "step-mother" but mangled it. I adjusted this so that the sentence made sense.

By Undoing my edit, you have made the article say:

requesting the mother the step back,

which again is complete gibberish. If you don't like my suggested fix, please suggest your own fix. Don't just leave it broken. Thank you. 14.200.84.79 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's asking the mother to (metaphorically) take a (literal) step back. It's a perfectly acceptable English idiom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There are probably better sources, but this s the first one Google gave: take a step back -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, your suggested fix is to change the page to instead say:

requesting the mother take a step back,

If so, that works for me. Having read the rest of your current talk page and seeing "once they start their not bad," I realise now that you might not be sufficiently familiar with English to see there's a syntactic error in "requesting the mother the step back". Would you see a syntax error in "requesting the dog the sit"? That's the same structure. 14.200.84.79 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ha my brain must have autocorrect the "take" into the sentence, yes you right it's missing a word. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI try out {{tq}} templates, if you use them your text becomes "requesting the mother take a step back". And you don't have to break the flow of text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence to read requesting the mother take a step back. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the template tip: good to know! I see your edit improved the article. Good working together!

As for missing the error, I wonder if that is related to: "Also if it doesn't work on mobile it's becoming increasingly irrelevant". Such an impoverished interface with a tiny screen and no keyboard doesn't do you any favours when scanning text for errors. I really think that if (for example) a text file doesn't open on a mobile, that isn't ASCII's fault; it's the mobile platform's shortfalling. Or if a JPEG doesn't open to the desired zoom / scaling / orientation on a mobile, that isn't JPEG's responsibility; it's the mobile platform's onus to read the data and present it appropriately. By the same token, if websites (for whatever reason) "don't work on mobile" that isn't the fault of Apache or the W3 consortium; it's the mobile platform's job to retrieve the content and present it sanely, and if it can't do so, it's the mobile which is the inadequate component. I haven't got a solution for trying to fit an entire computing interface onto a postage stamp but I salute you for persevering! 14.200.84.79 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not in the slightest, look at my editting history. I completed thousands of highly detailed and technical fixes without issue. The cause of this error is block reading. As to "Also if it doesn't work on mobile it's becoming increasingly irrelevant", mobile makes up most people reading the site and most editors (although not most edits as script tools only work on a proper desktop). As to images the main problem is editors setting default thumbnail sizes way out of line with policy, the Wikipedia software does a great job of scaling things correctly otherwise. You have to remember the browser running on the operating system of a mobile phone will be very similar to the browser running on a desktop. As to things like a text file, if a text editor can't open a text file the issue is likely one of formatting not whether it's being opened on mobile or desktop. The keyboard issue is also just not an issue, I remember watching someome beat a touch typist on one of the old telephone keypads (and that was decades ago). It's much more to do with what you're used to, and increasing that isn't a full desktop setup. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Also I should note the desktop PC across from where I'm sitting has a screen resolutions the same as my phone. The only time I've used it for editting Wikipedia is when I had to copy a truly huge amount of text in an edit, it's the only time the power of a desktop has been necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Woah! I use a Nokia E72 but without conveniences like Ctrl-Backspace, Shift-Home, insert/overwrite, etc. my typing on it is far slower than it is on a computer. But you make a good point that practice makes perfect (or at least, practice makes one faster!). 14.200.84.79 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing makes one perfect, as the time need to reach perfection must be infinite. Speed means you can correct your mistakes before anyone notices, and if noone notices then you never made a mistake ;). Honestly though things like pinch to zoom and long press to highlight/copy a sentence make many tasks far simpler on mobile. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Cite errors

Hi ActivelyDisinterested: I have installed the template to detect the errors. Sometimes I get distracted. On Caledonia (1807 ship), I remembered that I had to find the Emmons cite I just couldn't remember where I had seen the error. Before I could find it again, you had fixed it. Thanks. I will try to do better. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I don't want you to feel like I'm stalking you, it's just I've cleared this type of error up to "Cor-". So everytime you creatr a new article lower in the alphabet it stand out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Undo at Farnaz Fassihi

Hi @ActivelyDisinterested. Thanks for your review of my addition on Farnaz Fassihi profile about her article on Morality Policy!

Regarding the undo with the note that "I'm doubtful this should be here but as per the last sentence of WP:SPS you can never use twitter for this in a BLP", referring to Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, it notes that "Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence; or is known for their Twitter activity." The cited links on Twitter, in particular those from the official accounts of Nazanin Nour and Masih Alinejad and Yashar Ali are from people who are predominantly active on Twitter.

The reason for including the tweets has been merely to prove their existence to substantiate the claim that "Iranian activists have criticized the article" without drawing any further conclusions, and as such they are the primary source of the info. Furthermore, Masih Alinejad and Yashar Ali are both well-known journalists, which makes them subject matter experts with regards to journalisms (however, despite this, I have carefully avoided directly describing the article published by Fassihi as 'misleading', simply pointing toward the existence of such claims, even though I have seen no contrary defense that it is not misleading either.) 192.80.162.118 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately whoever they are is of no importance, nor their activities on twitter. WP:SPS is part of a policy, WP:External links/Perennial websites is just a explanatory essay and policy trumps everything. The relevant text in full is Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You could use those sources in articles not about a living person, as long as the author was a recognised expert, but they are excluded from BLPs . It is annoying sometimes, but unless you want to try and get policy changed there's no getting round it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I ran into this issue from the other side, which is why I know for sure you can't use them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Assam Movement

Thank you for correcting my errors. I do this manually and introduce man error it seems. Chaipau (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that these errors are off by default, so it's not your fault if you don't know you've made them. They can be activated by adding a script as detailed in the Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors (although the explanation isn't very user friendly). Ask if you have any questions, otherwise don't worry to much there are many other editors causing the same issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I have now installed the scripts. Hopefully, we will see much less of this unforced errors now. Chaipau (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have any question, or issue I can help with, just ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you celebrate Christmas?

I can't tell from your user page and don't want to offend, but I wanted you to know I was thinking of you and wishing you all good things. Bless you for the work you do here - and thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Jenhawk777. I'm not a believer but any reason for joy is a good thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Amen my friend. May you and yours have a prosperous and happy new year. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your impressive efforts fixing harv/sfn errors, both the prodigious quantity and the meticulous thoroughness and care of your work. Wham2001 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Derby Canal

What did I miss? I checked it after the edit (and the old revision) today and I'm not seeing what I got wrong? Can you shed some light so I can rectify/not cause the same issue again? Lewis Cawte (Talk) 15:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The error messages this causes are off by default, you can turn them on by adding a script (details can be found at the top of the category Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors). The issue can be avoided by making sure that |last= and |date= (or |year= as appropriate) are still populated. It's also unadvisable to mass change cites per WP:CITEVAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

date fix

Where did you come up with 2014 editiong dating for The Chinese and the Japanese: Essays in Political and Cultural Interactions for Ding Richang? I click on it, I only see the original 1980 publishing.FourLights (talk) FourLights (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Weird when I go to the Google books URL it has, at the top next to the image of the cover ;
"The Chinese and the Japanese: Essays in Political and Cultural Interactions"
"Akira Iriye"
"Princeton University Press, 14 Jul 2014".
What are you seeing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

columns

Hello dear one! After months I have finally finished Christianization! YAY!! Whooohhoo!! OMG it was terrible! It is so long! It really needs its notes, references and bibliography to be in columns. How does one go about doing such a thing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing the notes and references in columns, the {{notelist}} and {{reflist}} template should do this automatically. The bibliography section can be formatted using {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}, I've added them to the section. This diff shows how it's done. Using "|2}}" with refbegin doesn't actually force two columns, but instead sets the text size to 30em which makes columns much more likely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like I can convert all the refs to {{sfn}}, which would shorten the references section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid of taking advantage of your good nature. It is truly wonderful of you to offer, and I won't say no ... If you have the time and inclination, your help would be tremendous. Then I could be truly done with this long and difficult article.

When I am researching and writing at the same time, putting the reference in the text using the cite form is just faster and easier. I tell myself to go back through later and change them all, but I have spent so much time on this article already that I probably never will.

You make such a difference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Never a problem, I'll post a message to the talk page and start work tomorrow. I can understand not wanting to go back over something when you have spent so much time on it. Go and find something new, I'll do what I can :). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I did one! All by myself! It wasn't too awful - shiver - but now I will follow your advice and look for something new! Thank you! Please do call on me if there is ever anything I can do for you. I am in your debt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Odd wikilinking

Hello! Something about this edit of yours: you replaced a permanent link to a section in an old version of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calque&oldid=979327627#Semantic_calque:_mouse 

with a wikilink to a non-existent article with the name of that section as a title, which produced a redlink:

[[Semantic calque: mouse]]

Perhaps that was caused by using the visual editor. You can have a look at WP:ANCHOR if you are not familiar with linking to sections. Anyway, the point is moot, as I've removed the references that contained that link - Wikipedia can't be used as a source in that manner (WP:CIRCULAR). Thank you for your time. Daggerstab (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I just converted the weblink to a wikilink using the name name from the weblink, I should have checked whether it was valid. Either way links to old version of articles should'nt be in article space. I was removing links to wikipedia.org, most of which were being used as attempts at referencing (check any of the other 100 or so edits I was making at the same time). I left in in place for someone with subject matter experience, as I most deal with V issue arising from referencing errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Footnote template

Thank you for fixing my error on the footnotes on the 1975–76 Australia rugby union tour of Britain and Ireland article, I was trying to work out how to link to a cite where the book has an editor rather than an author. I've noticed now though that the citation in the References section doesn't link to the book cite in the Sources section - compared to the sfn for Howell 2005, where the citation does link to the book cite. Would you have an idea how to fix that? Bcp67 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore the above - it does work correctly. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Awarded for your unending efforts in tidying up citations in articles. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 28 February 2023

Cdjp1 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Cura Annonae

Yes, maybe. efn? I was about to check what I'd written. It was supposed to be couched in a footnote.

Probably.

I do find this mark-ups-and-templates business confusing. After all these years, even more so. Haploidavey (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries, and sorry if I trod on any toes. {{efn}} works with {{notelist}} as a simple way to create notes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You've been helpful, and that's always a good thing. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

al-Biruni

Thanks for your edit on the article. I'm working to sort out all the ref issues today, and so if you could come back once this task is completed, it would help me get less confused. Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry hope I haven't caused any issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Foundation for Intentional Community

I have been expanding and updating the Foundation for Intentional Community Wikipedia page, and in March you deleted my contribution saying that it has "errors and issues." I stand by my narrative and sources. Please talk with me before you delete or make any changes in what I have contributed. Allen Butcher, School of Intentioneering, www.intentioneering.net AllenInUtopia (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi AllenInUtopia. No one editor WP:OWNS any article on Wikipedia. You content is a complete mess, it doesn't matter one jot if you stand by you narrative. I seriously suggest you read WP:REFB on how to correctly reference your additions. Also I suggest you read WP:BRD and discussion your changes on the article talk page rather than reverting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Actively Disinterested, I included all of the material that was in your version in what I wrote. All of my information is verifyable, with sources stated. As to my method for references I found in the material that you recommend that I read, the following: "sometimes you will find other styles being used in an article. This is acceptable, and you shouldn't change it or mix styles." So I do not need to follow your preference of using links for references as mine is perfectly acceptable.

I appreciate the opportunity to work things out with you, yet I will not accept you deleting my entire post and reverting to your totally inadequate, minimalist history of the FIC.

What is your real name? Why do you think my material has "errors and issues"?

Allen Butcher 2601:282:1C81:3E90:102:E99B:7768:93EC (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope read WP:PAREN as I stated in my original reverted, and at the article talk page (where this conversation should be taking place). Parenthetical referencing is deprecated because it becomes a mess that ends up being incredibly difficult to verify. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested - Because you quoted Sandra Gurvis' "Where Have All The Flower Children Gone?" which misrepresents FIC origins, you propagated erroneous information on Wikipedia. This shows that you have inadequate understanding of the subject about which you write, and therefore you are not qualified to write about the FIC, and must stand aside and let a person who knows the subject better write the FIC Wikipedia entry.

Further, your concerns about my use of the style of references placed at the end of paragraphs involves your preference, not a Wikipedia policy. I refuse to use your style preference in my writing.

As to the length of my FIC entry, there are other Wikipedia entries just as long and longer. The criticism that my article is "long winded" is subjective and irrelevant. Readers choose how much they want to read, while how much readers have available to read is the writer's discretion.

I request that you end your concerns about my rewritten FIC Wikipedia page, and defer to a person who knows the subject better than you: A. Allen Butcher 2601:282:1C81:3E90:29F0:DAB0:DD10:F4FF (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Because you quoted Sandra Gurvis' "Where Have All The Flower Children Gone?" I have no idea what your talking about, and I'm pretty sure I didn't. If that has something to do with the article before your changes you should really note that I have never editted the article before. I'm starting to think you have a WP:COI with FIC, do you have any relationship with FIC? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Scrap that you obviously do have a WP:COI given your own identification. Stop editting the article and read WP:COI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

ActDis (short version of your assumed name), first of all, if you did not write that about Sandra Gurvis, did you write any of the FIC Wikipedia page? If you are not the author, why are you so concerned about this wiki entry?

I am a FIC SME, as explained on the WP:COI page to which you directed me: "Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

I was involved in the FIC only in the 1980s (1985-89) and have not been engaged with the organization since 1990. Ask anyone on the FIC board and they will tell you that I have not been involved in the organization since 1990.

Yet I am active in the IC movement, and I think that qualifies me as a SME.

I will however, go over what I have been posting on the FIC Wikipedia page and remove any comments that may make it appear that I'm currently involved in the FIC, as that would be an error. I am a critic of some of the FIC's policies just as I affirm the positive aspects of its other policies, yet I do not think that constitutes a conflict-of-interest when I write about criticisms as well as accomplishments of the FIC. AllenInUtopia (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/FAQ

Hello. You mentioned some additions I made to the page mentioned in the title of this section, but I don't recall them. Could you elaborate more on the comment? Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disregard this message. I have worked out that you must have referenced someone else. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, again my apologies I mixed up you and another users. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Notes with references in the notelist

Since you are well on the way to putting me out of business in the sfn no-target error department, I have been spending a bit of time enjoying CAT:REF instead. I've been looking into 2020 AFF Championship, and found your note that "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page).", this cannot be avoided as notes defined in the notelist that have refs always cause this error. Is that true? I have mocked up a simple case in my sandbox (please excuse the silliness) and it seems fine. Can it be something more complex to do with the transclusions? Or is there some other difference I'm missing? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It's only an issue with transclusion, the software is getting confused in the same way it does with no target false positives. It can't see that the refs are used in notes, as it can't see the notes, and notelist is just a specialised reflist, so it has a bit of a breakdown. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to try and find a solution, the message was there mostly to stop people from deleting the notes as a way of fixing the error. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see – I will have a look at it, but I can't imagine that I'll come up with anything that you haven't already tried. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in

I read this comment [1] and it prompted me to think about something you might find interesting. Essentially, there is something in the works that's along the lines of what you're thinking. This is a recording of the WMF meeting I attended that discusses it [2]. If you're interested in this sort of thing, I'd suggest keeping up with what the Wikipedia:Growth team is doing. You don't have to virtually attend meetings if you're not comfortable with that, the associated talk page is always welcome to more perspectives. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Your comments re Factorial Experiments

You have left editorial comments in the revision history of Factorial experiment, which I believe were directed to my own insertions -- in particular, two new sections (Factorial_experiment#Main_effects_and_interactions and Factorial_experiment#Components_of_interaction) and the last paragraph of Factorial_experiment#Notation. I've made a number of revisions to this material, but in the process I fear I have overwritten any editorial changes you made. Could I ask you to kindly look over those parts and either tell me what to change or make the changes now? I will be careful to preserve any changes going forward. Johsebb (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Johsebb. My changes will have been to fix no target errors, when a short form ref (such as {{sfn}}) doesn't have a matching cite in the article. The error messages are off by default but can be turn on using the details found here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. Everything books right in the article at the moment, so it's all fine with me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -- I appreciation your looking out for this. Johsebb (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Aliasing (factorial experiments)

In addition to editing my additions to Factorial experiments, you had also made some corrections on my proposed article Aliasing (factorial experiments), and I'm writing for two reasons. First, I may again have inadvertently overwritten your corrections in this case, and I hope you would be kind enough to check this and let me know, as you did previously.

Second, another editor took it upon themself to re-order the sections of my Aliasing (factorial experiments) article over my objection. I requested that they undo the changes but perhaps tag the article in some way so that I could seek other opinion. They haven't done so, and in fact the article now appears to be published, even though I have not finished responding to other editorial comments. (I don't know who pressed the button to give the article final approval, but I'm assuming it's the same editor.) So, several questions:

I can certainly undo the changes myself, but I also think that this editor needs to be, ah, mentored. They describe themself as a teenager and "mathematics enthusiast". Shall I give you their ID here, or is there a less-public way to do that?

I also would like advice on whether to leave the article public at this point and continue to work on it that way. (Again, I don't know who controls this decision.)

Finally, is there a way to determine a small set of editors (perhaps just one) with whom I can work on this article? This is my first Wikipedia article (I have previously merely modified existing ones), and I'm not sure how things work. I'm used to writing a book and academic papers, and this is a very different experience.

Thank you. I hope you are not really disinterested.:) Johsebb (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Johsebb. Aliasing (factorial experiments) looks fine for no target errors. You started the article in main space, so it was published the moment you posted the first edit. Articles belong to Wikipedia and can be edited by any editor, no one editor has any ownership of it. If you want to create articles without other editors interfering you need to create them as a WP:DRAFT and move to main space once you are ready. You can move the article yourself, I doubt any editor will complain as it's just been started (doing this for an established article isn't suggested).

When editting articles the best way to resolve differences is by discussion, I suggest reading WP:BRD. The basics are Bold, Revert, Discuss. So in this case if you believe their Bold edit is wrong you can Revert it, but should then open a Discuss with the editor (just drop on their talk page as to why you reverted their edit). If they revert you revert trying talking with them, edit warring over reverts is not a good idea.

If you are looking for advice on the article I would suggest WP:WikiProject Mathematics, which is a group of editors interested in mathematics and has a talk page where you can post questions. Academic's can have a hard time starting on Wikipedia, it has many characteristics that may seem familiar but the way Wikipedia does them can be confusing. There is an essay that may be useful WP:EXPERT.

If you ever have any questions just ask someone, most editors genuinely only want to be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -- this is extremely helpful. There must have been a choice that I missed in creating the article where I would have kept it as a draft -- I thought that was the default.

Is there any problem with reverting the unwanted changes before moving my article to draft? That is my inclination. Johsebb (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but you could also move to draft and then revert the changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Aliasing (factorial experiments) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Aliasing (factorial experiments). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because Needs editorial assistance from WikiProject Mathematics. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Johsebb (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

New message from NotReallySoroka

Hello, ActivelyDisinterested. You have new messages at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.
Message added 03:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not·Really·Soroka 03:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hey @ActivelyDisinterested, do you think you would be able to format the citations again like you did at Boethius and John Hart Ely? The article in question is Patricia Wald, I intend to work on it in the coming months. GuardianH (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course, never a problem. I'll drop a notice on the talk page tonight, and as long as no-one objects I'll get started on Sunday. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You're a saint! Thanks. GuardianH (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Heheya Kingdom

Hello sir, sorry to disturb you but i have a question, why did you revert my recent edit 😢? I was making it better and i also added the source from Srimad Bhagwatam you can check it. Ayushvarman7 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I was reverting the recent additions by Ayushsinghrajputbanafar, who is an editor who had been banned under a different account. Unfortunately you edits were caught up with edits of the banned editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

can you please revert back to mine edit i can make it better with sources just give me 30 minutes. Ayushvarman7 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not reverting back to the version by the banned editor, and I would very much suggest not doing so yourself. Banned editors are banned, if they want to edit they need to go back to there origin account and ask to be unbanned. For details see WP:BANREVERT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok sir but can i take some part of his previous edit? Like genelogy and history I can't make it new but I can write in better version and better source! Oki? Ayushvarman7 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can reference changes, then make small changes and provide the references as you do so. I suggest not relying on any part of the banned editors work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sir why did you revert, i changed lots of refference and give source from Srimad Bhagwatam and Linga Purana etc used my word. sir I'm unable to cancel whole puran sources coz it's pauranik dynasty please understand. Ayushvarman7 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I very much suspect that you are just the same sock puppet. I'm uninterested in the details, you've been reverted by multiple editors and have socket once banned. Why should I believe you are here to edit in good faith, if you do not act in good faith. I'll let the sock investigation play out, just like the last one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sir, i just want to spread info about Haihaya dynasty in Hindusim and it's close to my clan so I just want to give write info. You can check my last edit and the refference i mentioned. All are mentioned in that refference. I didn't even edit any thing without source or does any voilence to admin or page Ayushvarman7 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussion. If you are the same sock again, you will be blocked again. If I am wrong and the sock investigation clears you I will restore the content and apologise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

ok but when? Ayushvarman7 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure an admin will have looked into it by tomorrow. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Higgins

Hi, thank you for the message. I see Burrows was listed in Further Reading but it is moved to the Bibliography now. Is this ok? Cheers. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The cite is Borrows, not Burrows. Sorry I usually spot those, but I missed that one. I've corrected the refs to match the cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Kings and Generals as a source

Hi, I see you've removed references to several Kings and Generals documentaries in several articles, saying it is Not a reliable source. Why do you think so? Cheer, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would you consider it a reliable source? I watch a few YouTube history channels, and have watched KaGs in the past, but I wouldn't consider any of them a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Because they are a team of historians, consult specialised historians when needed, always base themselves on multiple scholarly sources for historical events, situations or developments, have a strong commitment to accuracy and fact-checking rather than giving hot takes, or repeating old urban legends (which they frequently debunk), indicate when the primary sources are conflicting and (re)construct multiple possibilities if it is unclear what happened historically, strive for nuance and impartiality, have editorial oversight, can make corrections for mistakes, etc. In other words, I would say that per WP:SOURCE, Kings and Generals documentaries are reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find any of that anywhere do you have a sources I could look into? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Andi Stix, Frank Hrbek, Walking Through History: Constitution & the New Government, Westward, and Civil War (2023) Taylor & Francis. A standard work for the education of U.S. students, and Kings and Generals is one of the recommended YouTube educational channels that can teach students about history.
• Martin Nikolov, Is YouTube History an Effective tool for Teaching History to Secondary Schoolers? (2022). Tilburg University. A bachelor thesis comparing the educational value of 5 popular YouTube channels, with K&G as the most popular one. Nikolov wrote: In the field of accuracy Kings and Generals make sure to research their videos by having the writers of each piece be also the ones who research it, as shown by them often answering questions in the video comments. In case of the artwork, the content creators present the art team with historical information so that they are able to make it in the most accurate manner possible. This can be confirmed by comparing it to depictions of clothing, armour and other in encyclopaedias and academic papers. (...)

Furthermore, it is important to mention the fact that Kings and Generals attempt to portray both sides in cases of wars. This may take place in a single video or by making several videos on the same topic from different points of view. An example for the latter would be their series on the first crusade, in which they give the western, Muslim and Byzantine sides of the conflict with their respective accents in the same manner and detail. (...) When a contradiction in sources is apparent, they specifically state all alternative interpretations while stating which is which in an attempt to give viewers all possible sides and allow them to weigh the elements for themselves. They also motivate their own chosen version of events with an explanation to why. (...)

Stemming from the previous point about accuracy, arises K&G’s biggest problem – their lack of sourcing. This is especially visible in cases where they compare contradicting sourcing or cite a researcher as these are usually the only moments when viewers get the opportunity to know where the information comes from. Besides them, there are no in-video sources provided in the form of annotations or pop-ups, and no sources in the video descriptions. (...) One other case where sources can be discovered are when their research team go into a video’s comments to answer questions or to give additional information or corrections to the video itself. (..)

This is in line with my experience of K&G. They don't always say where they got their information from, but when they do and you look it up, it's accurate. If you compare what they say without mentioning their sources to a reputable source, it's usually also very accurate (with some mistakes here and there, of course). I've never caught them making a big error. I only sometimes find them basing themselves on otherwise reliable sources that may not have faithfully translated the primary sources into English. Like, Urban's Letter to His Supporters in Bologna, September 1096 First Crusade in Bologna was quoted as saying : Nor should young married men rashly set out on the journey without the consent of their spouses. This is evidently quoted from University of Pennsylvania emeritus professor Edward Peters (scholar), The First Crusade: "The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres" and Other Source Materials (1998) [1971] I knew that the words "consent" and "spouses" would probably be an anachronism that wouldn't be used in 11th-century Latin, so I checked the original source, which is actually on Latin Wikisource, s:la:Epistolae_et_privilegia_(Urbanus_II)/5 ("CCX"), and it said: Juvenibus etiam conjugatis providendum est ne temere tantum iter sine conniventia uxorum suarum aggrediantur. Being the Wikipedian-historian that I am, I went to create s:Translation:Pope Urban II's letter to Bologna to make it more accurate just for this sentence alone, which I translated as: Care must also be taken for young married men not to rashly embark on such a journey while turning a blind eye to their wives. "Wives" rather than "spouses", "not turning a blind eye to" rather than "without the consent of". That means: women didn't get a say, husbands didn't need their "consent" (approval, permission) to go on Crusade, they just need to arrange that they be looked after if they went on Crusade anyway.

That's it. All these years, this is one of the biggest errors I managed to find in all of Kings and Generals documentaries. And it's not even directly their fault, they trusted a translation of an emeritus professor of history who we find so important that we've dedicated a BLP to him: Edward Peters (scholar). It's only because I know Latin and have specialised so much in the term "consent" that I happened to spot this error. That K&G should better indicate their sources is something Nikolov and I agree on, but that the content itself is reliable, accurate, NPOV, educational, etc. is not really in doubt. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I've open at thread at WP:RSN#Kings and Generals YouTube channel, I think more input might be useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)