Jump to content

User talk:Isaidnoway/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Isaidnoway. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks

Dear Isaidnoway

Thank you for wading in on my entry. It has been wrecked over the years by the Intel Services (especially by Phillip Cross now banned) Anyone Googling can see all the bad stuff. My problem is that all my good work via UK MoD on Pakistan/Afghanistan/The Gulf was removed and due to the nature of my previous work there was no newspaper coverage so hence no way of putting some positive back. Please keep an eye. there has been vandalism in the last 14 days including absured allegations of sexual matter with young men, completely untrue and placed on her by non-editors but students c. 21 yrs of age. Thank you again.62.128.217.99 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Crown Jewels

Re [1], it was already broken and I was trying to fix it. There were TWO big red cite errors, and I managed to get rid of one by making the edit you reverted. Don't be so quick to apportion blame in future. Firebrace (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It was not broken, you made the edit on 2 October that caused it, and edited the article again on 17 November and you didn't fix it then either. I looked at the revision history going back to August and it was stable for that whole month, and on 1 September it was just fine, and again on 5 September it was good, it wasn't until 2 October when you tried to give it a ref name, it's a common mistake I see a lot with these sort of templates. No big deal, it's fixed now, just remember to use the Show preview button after making an edit. Have a nice day. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Did you know that old versions of the article use the current version of the template? I know, it's shocking! Have a great day. Firebrace (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Cool story bro! Isaidnoway (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Clark's grebe

Hi there. It appears you edited something to the section 'Sources' a few seconds after I deleted it (and someone reverted a few minutes later). I deleted it as I had already used the source inline in the references and considered it redundant.

I notice, however, you added a URL to GoogleBooks which has different bibliographic info than I have seen in the references in all the other studies I'm reading. Google states this is a 320 page book published in 1977, whereas I have the same paper as a 13 page journal article from 1979 (the title I copy&pasted from the earlier version of the wiki page was slightly wrong, fixed that)... What's going on? I feel GoogleBooks is likely wrong, otherwise all the citations in 1980s studies are wrong.

And is it wrong to remove redundant citations?

Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo

Yeah, I saw that I made a mistake and wanted to put things wright. If you can, please but it back in the article and last but not least - thank you for a thorough response and explanation.

Mm.srb (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting. I meant to de-capitalise "million" initially. I noticed {{r|FMD}}, but I didn't realise that it was a reference of course. I thought it was an odd template or something. Silly me. Thanks again, and happy editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is an odd template, one of many here on WP that I've learned about recently that exist in my attempt to clear out a backlog in that category with incorrect ref formatting. It functions the same way as <ref name=source/>. Good catch on that million though. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sugar reffix

I was interrupted while editing sugar and left the refs in a mess. Thank you for fixing it. HLHJ (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the kind words, I do appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Wizkid

Isaidnoway, thank you for helping me edit it Oreratile1207 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for your kind words, appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Atheism edit

No way ComeToBesiktas (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Si Cranstoun discog

Hello. Thanks for your message. I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive my lack of knowledge. All I was trying to do was add some missing albums to the Si Cranstoun discog. The info was on the cover to the album so must be correct. Don't really know what to do really.Dean Beatlesfan (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dean Beatlesfan: - If Si Cranstoun recorded and released an album, then there will be sources about that album. Have you tried doing a google search on the name of the album, or his name plus the album? Try that and look for sources, you might also try AllMusic or Discogs and do a search on his name or album there. Once you find a source, follow the instructions at WP:REFB and/or Wikipedia:Citing sources and add it again with a source. Thanks for reaching out. Let me know if you need further help. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

please don't unnecessarily rewrite references

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references, as you did here.

In addition, could you follow the guidelines and only consider removing redlinks when the target is a topic that couldn't reasonably be the topic of a standalone article?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: - All of my edits were in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I improved the references section as can be seen here (scroll to the bottom and look). Compared to the way you left it with your edits seen here (scroll to the bottom and look) - which left cite errors in the references section. Using the Show Preview button helps prevent these common cite errors. And even now, with your revert, the way you have left it as seen here - RED LINKS to articles that already exist on Wikipedia (see below) and a cite error in reference number 11 - line feed character in title at position 73 (help); External link in title (help). So please don't come to my talk page and lecture me when my edit was an improvement and compliant with policies and guidelines, and as can clearly be seen by the diffs above, your edits were not an improvement. And additionally, please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill - as six references cited for the very first sentence is not necessary or desired, see WP:CITEBUNDLE for further help.

— So there's not going to be any new articles created for those RED LINKS, when they already have articles.

Merry Christmas ! — Isaidnoway (talk)

Awww look, those red links are blue now, how appropriate.17:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rotavirus

High. There were no citation errors. You changed two reference names, for which I could have used anything. I haven't a clue why the article was listed. You should retract your comment "how on earth did it comply with the featured article criteria when it had multiple cite errors in the article". Graham Beards (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: — This was the last version of the article where it was edited at 19:01 on November 18, 2018, before I fixed the cite errors. You can see the cite error in the Proteins section, and cite errors here in the Signs and symptons section.
Going back further, here is the version of the page on August 14, 2018 with the cite errors, on May 26, 2018 with the cite errors, on February 5, 2018 with the cite errors. And finally on December 2, 2017, the cite errors are still there. So that's a full year of those cite errors being in that featured article. I didn't go back any further, so who knows how long they had been there, apparently you didn't know, and you edited the article three times in that time period. I just wonder how many of our readers viewed that page and saw those multiple big red cite errors in a featured article that was published in a peer-reviewed journal and thought to themselves, this is what passes as criteria for a featured article? So no, I will not be retracting that statement.—— Isaidnoway (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Please accept my apology. Graham Beards (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Graham Beards: - Sure, no problem. Just so you know, I cleared the backlog in that category several weeks ago and it wasn't listed in that category at the time when I cleared the backlog. It was recently, in fact, the day I edited the article that it was added to that category. My understanding is that the tracking software automatically places an article in that category at the time when an edit creates a cite error like that, judging by what I've seen with other articles being listed in that category within minutes of a cite error being created. I don't know if featured articles are excluded from that tracking software or if it's just periodically checking featured articles. But I have observed other featured and even good articles that have been belatedly added in that category when they've had cite errors for months or years at a time. Maybe it's something worth looking into, my opinion is that featured and good articles should be a high priority for the tracking software.—— Isaidnoway (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeated references making an article bulky

Hi, I would like to say something. Normally, if a reference is used more than once, I would use the "ref name=""" tag, but because of one user's insistence, I agreed to keep the "Liwa reference" split up as it is in Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and thus the page is littered with the same reference being used here and there in full detail, just because the pages for specific pieces of information were different, such as:

Sheikh Shakhbut became the next Ruler of Abu Dhabi and appointed Hazza as his wali or Representative to the Western Region. Well-versed in tribal affairs and commanding widespread respect, Hazza was keen on falconry, a love for the sport that was shared by his younger brother, Zayed, who was the Ruler's Representative in the Eastern Region. Hazza led a mission to Saudi Arabia in 1922, representing his brother and earning a rebuke from the British as they reserved to themselves all foreign relations of the Trucial States, the result of the 'Exclusive Agreement' of 1892.

Do you agree that I should condense the information like this, so that the space in this article can be drastically reduced? Leo1pard (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC); edited 12:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Leo1pard: - I read over the talk page at the article and I agree with the other editor's that a page range is not ideal, we shouldn't expect our readers to have to search for the information, specific page numbers are always better. However, if you're just trying to avoid and reduce the "bulkiness", because that reference is used so often, you could use the shortened footnote template {{sfn|authors last name|year|p=}}, illustrated below. Make a separate section for the source, just use the citation template without the <ref> tags and add ref=harv at the end of the citation. Then use the template like this — {{sfn|Al-Dhahiri|2014|p=29}} — with the separate page numbers as needed and place the template at the end of the sentence it is supporting. When the reader clicks on the citation (try it), it will take them straight to the bottom of the page where the source is located at and they will know what page number to look for to verify the content being referenced, and you can see what it looks like in the "References" section. You could also use it for the book by Heard-Bay as well, following the same instructions, it's illustrated below as well. That's one possible and easy solution to reduce the clutter in the article, you might ask the other editors if this would be a reasonable compromise. FYI - you can't use the sfn template enclosed inside of ref tags like this <ref>{{sfn|last name|2018|p=1}}</ref> - it won't work and creates a cite error, just use the template by itself as shown above. Hope this helps. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Stanley Kubrick

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: RfC at Red (Taylor Swift album)

Industry award categories and record charts are not a reliable, third-party source for aesthetic opinions on music; public and scholarly critiques are (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Kenny G's Breathless appeared on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, but that doesn't make it an appropriate source to cite "hip hop" as its genre. Context of a source matters. It is poor judgement on your part to suggest those types of sources are reliable and appropriate for citing opinions or interpretations of music. Dan56 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dan56: - It's my opinion that accoclades/awards and charts (along with reliable sources) are a good indicator of what best describes a particular album's music genre. I read the article, I read the sources for the reviews. Starting in the lead of the article:
Red was generally well received by critics...but were divided on the incorporation of various genres...It received nominations for...Best Country Album at the 56th Annual Grammy Awards...It was also nominated for Album of the Year at the 2013 Country Music Association Awards.
So already in the lead it states various genres and is linked to the country music genre.
From the article itself, and just a few quotes from a handful (because there are more) of reliable sources used in the article:
"Red", the album's title track, was released to Country radio on June 24, 2013 as the third Country single...Taylor now has two of the three biggest one week sales totals for any Country album in the SoundScan era...That's not to say Red completely strays from the country sounds of works past: Songs like "Stay Stay Stay" and "I Almost Do" are very much the sonic bread and butter of Swift's repertoire....even if half of “Red” will still work perfectly well on commercial country radio playlists....Is it country? Country fans and country radio seem to think so....just like that, Swift snaps back to her core demographic: "All Too Well" is sumptuous country...Stay Stay Stay - Boasting one of "Red's" most straightforward country arrangements...Strikingly, though, each moment of pure pop breakthrough is tempered immediately afterward by a contemplative country moment....The music is pure power country, but Ms. Swift’s vocal is chirpy and thin.
This is all further linkage to the country music genre, and the general consensus of the nominations/wins in accolades is that the most common music genre it is associated with is country music. Additionally, the album being #1 for two years in a row on the US Top Country Albums Chart also supports the country music genre. So in my opinion, the album is a mixture of pop, rock, country, which is why I support the country music genre in the infobox.
Finally, and most importantly, you can keep your snarky comments about my judgement off my talk page. I did my due diligence before commenting at the RfC. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
They're not independent sources. Both are branches of the record industry's marketing of their product. Billboard's charts are based on radio programming, retail outlets, and their relationship with demographics and target audience (which in Swift's case had been country radio up to the point of this album). The generic chart titles and categorizations are not based on critical thinking or journalistic critiques, which are our standards as an encyclopedia. The Recording Academy is made up of industry insiders and musicians who stand to gain in the industry by being good members of the Academy. & award shows are just that: shows, meant to further promote the product; that is why news outlets report on album-sales increases immediately after the Grammys. All these things are interconnected ("Understanding the Music Industry"). Industry award titles and record chart names are not reliable as sources for aesthetic opinions and nuanced interpretations of creative works, because they have a stake in the product they are helping put out there. These are not impartial sources. Your thinking is uninformed and lazy, as you are not taking into account that context of the sources and the information matters in how we are to judge reliability. A record chart is reliable for measuring a record's commercial success; a critic's review is reliable for evaluating a record's aesthetic. Context matters. And I have cited enough relevant Wikipedia guidelines for my point to stand, so if it's not registering with you still, perhaps it's a problem of competence on your part. And if you don't like my "snarky" comments, don't ping me. Dan56 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Just right above, I cited multiple quotes from multiple independent sources (included in the article) that are reliable as sources for aesthetic opinions and nuanced interpretations of creative works. They all agree that country music is an adequate descriptor for some songs on this album, along with pop for some songs, and rock for some songs. Hence - pop, rock, country in the infobox, which best describes the album, and is in compliance with Template:Infobox album#Genre, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. For the Grammy's, a screening committee of more than 350 experts decide which music genre the albums are. For the year end Billboard charts, placement is determined by combined sales, airplay from all radio formats and streaming data. So again, since you can't seem to get it through your hard head, my opinion is based on nuanced interpretations and aesthetic opinions of creative works, more than 350 experts, and compiled data. If you wish to have the last word, feel free, but I'm done here. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Bored with your personal attacks
Hey! Are you calling me hard-headed? Dan56 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Air Force Space Command

Isaidnoway, I hope you are doing well! So the source using facebook actually is a RS in this very particular case, because it was published directly on the U.S. Space Force page (formerly the Air Force Space Command page) and has been verified. It would be the exception listed under WP:FACEBOOK and is a primary source in this case. Please let me know when you read this so I can revert, or you can if you don't disagree with the rational.Garuda28 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Garuda28: - You edited the article Air Force Space Command, and it says right underneath the title of that article Not to be confused with United States Space Force. We already have an article titled United States Space Force, and it says right underneath their title - Not to be confused with United States Space Command or Air Force Space Command. All that facebook page says is that United States Space Force updated their cover photo, so what am I missing here, they updated their photo, so what. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Isaidnoway part of that is on me - I put the wrong reference in. Here is the reference to the "our story" section which states the establishment date and details there "https://www.facebook.com/pg/USSpaceForceDoD/about/?ref=page_internal" In essence the NDAA from this year ( https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191209/CRPT-116hrpt333.pdf) basically is having Air Force Space Command become the Space Force like the Army Air Forces became the U.S. Air Force. I added the "not to be confused with" headers months ago when the Space Force was still in the proposal stage. Garuda28 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Garuda28: - Well then there should be plenty of reliable sources reporting on this then, right? Instead of using facebook. Regardless, if you want to revert, I don't care, just format the references right. As you can see here, it wasn't formatted correctly. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

George Hamilton (French soldier)

Dear Isaidnoways. Your repeated edits seem to tell me that I should separate explanatory notes (heading: "Notes") from the citation footnotes (heading:"References") and even separate the full citations (heading: "Sources") from the short citations. I am still a novice and struggling to learn the "dos" and "don'ts" of how to cite sources. I tried to keep this all under one heading because I felt that the headers detailing the appendices distract from the content of the main body in the Contents box. I looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS/Layout), which seems to allows us to keep notes, short citation footnotes and long reference descriptions together under one heading. The MOS says "this section or series of sections" and gives considerable freedom in the choice of the heading "Editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose", perhaps too much. Probably, as a novice, I should not insist on my own ideas but follow the generally accepted patterns developed by more experienced editors like you. I would be very much interested to learn about your point of view, either here or in the MOS.Layout Talk Page or similar WP, H or MOS talk page, where everybody could profit from your wisdom. With many thanks! Johannes Schade (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: - I believe it really is just a personal preference of who happens to create the section headings. My personal opinion is that notes, references, sources, bibliography should all have their own sections, it looks cleaner to me, and is easier to navigate to the section you want from the table of contents. When they are all placed under one heading, it looks cluttered and messy to me, but that's just my opinion. If you prefer the cluttered and messy look, then by all means, change them back. I mainly work on articles that are listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting (which has a backlog), and various articles you have previously edited have been listed in that category due to incorrect ref formatting. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear Isaidnoways. Thanks for your quick answer. I will think a bit about it. I looked at the "Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting" and found "John Butler, 15th Earl of Oemonde", another of the Irish biographies that threw cite errors due to the bug affecting list-defined explanatory footnotes citing references; so I fixed it. Learned something from you! With many thanks! Johannes Schade (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

re ANI

Hi Isaidnoway. I feel like I've not properly said what I meant to say in response to your comment at ANI, and I feel badly for that. I was not trying to justify the actions I took, I understand that they were mistakes and I would certainly do it differently now. I would sincerely like to go back to the firm commitment where I will not make any splits until I am sure that the resulting content does not have any errors. I wasn't trying to say what I did there was right, I was just trying to make the point that I was acting in good faith. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

PS When I said that I did not anticipate the errors, I am saying that I did not take enough care to make sure there were no errors. I am not claiming for a second that I made sure there weren't errors. I certainly realise this and I regret my actions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: List of Supernanny (American TV series) episodes

Hello, I just saw your edit on the page. Just wanted to let you know some info regarding the, "and BTW season 8 table format doesn't match other seasons" comment. The wikitables being used for S1-7 right now is actually completely incorrect, as they are just tables being labeled with the info. The season 8 table right now is the only one correct, as it uses the tables properly, instead of just labeling the headers of each section like 1-7. I am currently working on fixing seasons 1-7 (as well as missing episodes) so that the entire page/all tables will be correct. Hopefully I can get this all done soon and everything will be all good. Just wanted to let you know! Magitroopa (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping out with the unused references in open access. I was unsure whether they were used but undefined or defined but unused! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert at [2], but please don't create new 'External links' sections that just contain the Commons category link. That doesn't follow the general rules described at {{Commons category}} (put it in the last section, but don't create one only for the commons category link), plus Commons isn't an external link, it's a sister project link. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the manual of style and Wikimedia sister projects — Links to Wikimedia sister projects should generally appear in "External links, and even {{Commons category}} says it is allowed as well — Do not place this template in a section all by itself without floating left. So I guess my mistake really was, I should have floated it left using {{Commons category-inline}} — which is intended for use in the "External links" section of an article. Regardless of what it's technically described as, it's usually placed in the external links section (from what I've seen in thousands of articles). Next time I'll slow down and use the inline template when I encounter an issue like that. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I think those pages should be changed at some point - 'see also' is the natural home for it. Anyway, if there is no external links section, please don't add one just to link to commons, regardless of which template variant you use - as MOS says, 'place sister links at the top of the last section in the article'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You Do You and I’ll Do Me. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Costelloe

Hi there, can you please refrain from changing the Paul Costelloe wiki page? We are writing to you from his HQ here in London. Much of your information is wrong. We will be changing it again now. Any questions,let me know. Jessica Costelloe JACNY86 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Admission of connection to subject of article → Paul Costelloe. Standard welcome COI template left on editor's talk page along with a note. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help expanding the article on Joshua Atherton. I have researched 2 other historical people bearing the same last name. They are “John McDougall Atherton“ (currently sitting in draft) and Joseph Ballard Atherton (previously published but now back in draft). I have included many citations but am Very new to this. I would appreciate your feedback in trying to expand these article and their eventual publication. Thanks again. Adin-Atherton (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adin-Atherton:, Sure, I can took a look at them later on in the week. See if they are notable enough for publication. Do you know of any public domain photographs of Joshua Atherton that we can use in his article? Note, they must be in the public domain, and free to use on WP, see → Wikipedia:Image use policy for more info. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I’ve been improving some articles. Thanks again for looking at Joshua Atherton. I have been working on 2 drafts Joseph Ballard Atherton of Hawaii (lived in the 19th century) as well as a pre-prohibition sour mash distiller John McDougall Atherton. Feel free to read them ! Cheers Adin-Atherton (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

Greetings. Thanks for the suggestion to use preview. I often do series edits that are not complete at each publish. I edit within sections to make editing more manageable and with doing refs that means errors pop up. I regret if this causes notifications on watchlists. I also edit with AWB if I am leaving errors I hope someone lets me know what articles. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrBill3: — All the articles I ran across with ref errors, around 7 or 8 probably, were Florida related and the ref errors were in relation to National Historic Sites citations. They get placed in CAT:REF because of incorrect ref formatting, where I've been working on clearing the backlog. No biggie, and on second thought, I probably shouldn't have left that obnoxious and huge reminder, and instead should have left a more personalized message. My apologies. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Isaidnoway, no worries. Thanks for letting me know. If you can ping me on the talk page of an article you find a problem remains on. I may be making some errors with AWB and I want to know how I am screwing up so I don't do it anymore. I am doing reference work on the National Register of Historic Places in Florida. I appreciate the input. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Vintage scuba refs

You edit conflicted me on the ref recovery edit at Vintage scuba, but thanks all the same. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the thanks! Feel free to join the talkpage discussion if you are interested. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Provinces of Algeria

I just want you to understand that there are now 58 provinces in Algeria and not 48. I have added the sources however they mess the description of the article and I know there is a way to fix that but I don't know how. Would you be able to fix the context of the article with still having the new sources and context instead of undoing it? Thanks for your help. Otis the Texan (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Otis the Texan: - Sure, just type the content here on my talk page you want to change, and put the sources here too, I will change it for you. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: - Add the new provinces into the list including the correcting ordering(notice the ordering is different because of the Arabic alphabet and some type of numerical code making the list non-alphabetical), code, Arabic name, number of districts, number of municipalities, area both in metric and imperial (remember to cut off the pre-2019 area of the older provinces and put in the older provinces' current area), population and density from 2008 census (remember to cut off the populations and densities of older provinces, and put the 2008 populations and densities of the older provinces within current boundaries. Also I know Algeria just had a census in 2018 but I don't think the populations have yet publically been released yet. If you are able to find 2018 data that would be great but no worries if you can't. ). Also change the first 2 numerical maps and in the new provinces with their numbers. I will probably create the articles about the new provinces over the following weeks but you are more than welcome to also create them.

Thanks for your help. Otis the Texan (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Nat Law

   Tnx 4 yr attn to Natural law, which I hadn’t gotten down to proofreading. (Hope I’ve returned the favor by fixing our colleague’s broke syntax above on this tk pg.Cheers!
--JerzyA (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

LGBTQ animation pages and improvements

Good afternoon. So, I just finished adding sources to all the entries on the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s, List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s, List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s, and List of animated series with LGBT characters pages. My thought was that the pages could be improved by eliminating some entries of Japanese anime could be eliminated on the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s pages, as many of those pages have many more anime shows than those created in Canada, U.S., etc., but you may have another method instead. In any case, I'm also gathering sources for a future page, tentatively titled History of LGBT and animated series, so any suggestions on that would be helpful. Thanks!--Historyday01 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you read it?

Did you read what the author said? He came to Wikipedia to tell us that (a) the source is a [blind/confidential] review of someone else's paper instead of an actual paper, and (b) that [apparently defunct] journal didn't have any permission to publish it at all. I therefore don't think this is a reliable source at all, but we definitely shouldn't include a link to the original. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing – Yes, I read what that user posted on the talk page, and it doesn't look like they got any responses from anyone, including you, or a third opinion either. In fact, they haven't edited under that username since that time. They have a COI notice on their talk page and another warning about adding inappropriate external links, to which they responded — What I will do now is what all those with resources do when they wish to add material to Wikipedia -- add it through someone else's computer. Organizations with money pay people to do that; I'll ask friends and colleagues to do it. It's kind of hard to assume good faith with the user when they admit to asking other people to edit on their behalf, which is forbidden. And it appears they were already engaged in self-promotion through an IP editor adding external links to the author/website they claimed to be — diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9, diff 10, diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14, diff 15, and then they register an account and start doing the same thing and get busted and warned, and then they have the nerve to chastise Thomas W for calling them out on adding inappropriate external links, when they were already gaming the system. Who knows if they are still at it under a different account or a different IP. Sorry, I'm not buying into their pity party about personal character assassination.
If you are hellbent on acquiescing to their three year old demands, I can't stop you, but as I noted in my edit summary, the original link is dead, so there isn't any WP:LINKVIO, and LINKVIO states that It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. The content in question is not controversial and the source does support the statement, you added it back in July 2009, so you must have thought it was a reliable source. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I did add it, but now that I know that it was published without permission, I think it's a bad idea to cite it. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article. It is perhaps as reliable a source as someone's private e-mail message getting posted on the internet. It's also the second of two citations on that sentence, so it's unnecessary. Why do you want to keep it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know that it was published without permission, I'm not willing to WP:AGF with someone who admits he'll circumvent WP policy by having other people edit for him by proxy. The journal is peer-reviewed and according to WorldCat, that journal is available in 150+ university libraries worldwide. It is a reliable source for the content it supports, you know it, I know it, and so does the guy who wrote it, as he admitted on the talk page that he wants to update the reference with a different version he published. He also claims that he has requested multiple times that anything to do with me be removed from that "journal", but yet at — his publications indexed by Google Scholar, he hasn't bothered himself to remove anything from his profile page that he wrote for "that journal". He has dropped the issue (3 years old), I don't know why you are reviving it. And it's not that I want to keep it, I object that it be removed for spurious reasoning like LINKVIO and/or not a reliable source, both of which are not true, and his claims about "personal character assassination", in my view, are dubious as well. If you want to remove it as being "unnecessary", that's fine with me, but on the other hand, I also wouldn't object if another editor came along and reverted your removal. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Ginn

Thanks for getting that! I was still in the process of tidying up the refs after using the automatic tool, but you beat me to it. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 18:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the notification you left on my userpage. I apologize for the haphazard edits and will pay closer attention to list format in the future. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I did not think it was a good idea [3]. Thank you for cleaning up. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you – 14:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my citation's format - I appreciate it and I'm sure readers will too. --StevenMichaelFlanagan (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I would have spotted the error but I appreciate the help. Quick question, do you think it is appropriate to describe it as a "sleeper hit"? I'm not so sure but the article has been that way for nearly a decade. -- 109.76.197.66 (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources (not blogs, IMDb or crap sources) calling it a sleeper hit, then yeah, it would be appropriate, like Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Star Tribune.–06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

sketchy?

Eponymous link spam. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's sketchy.14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for helping me edit by giving me a tip on editing. Firestar9990 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] : Isaidnoway (talk)

to

[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue">''(talk)''</b>]] : Isaidnoway (talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Thank you — Isaidnoway (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncited references

I think that a way to avoid edit errors like this would be to check how recently a reference has become uncited. If it has only become uncited recently (where "recent" depends on the editing intensity/sensitivity of the article), and if there's no obvious explanation in the edit summaries, that tends to be a hint that the removal of the cite to the reference might be a little bit suspicious... Boud (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There are so many of those pandemic articles that end up in categories that I always work on and try to keep up with - Category:Pages with citations using unnamed parameters and Pages with incorrect ref formatting, and all of those article are heavily edited, so I usually wait a day or two before I fix the citation errors. The cause for the majority of those errors is editor's removing outdated information and/or updating the information, and they don't check for citation errors, or leave edit summaries to indicate what they did, so checking the article history really doesn't help that much. It looks like in this case it was a random IP editor who removed the content and the list-defined reference. Thanks for restoring the content, I'll keep any eye out for that particular reference/citation.— Isaidnoway (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

False information

By reverting my edit, you have restored FALSE INFORMATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE REFERENCES.

Both of the referenced articles make it perfectly clear that they are 2 separate issues: weapon in a DLC and drug a mission.

Congratulations on making wikipedia less accurate. User452 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User452 — Let me break this down for you. Here is the sentence in its entirety. The game was originally refused ratings classification and effectively banned in Australia, but was later accepted when modified to remove an optional mission that involved an anal probe weapon and incentivized drug use. Now let's analyze each part of that sentence that is supported by a reference.
The game was originally refused ratings classification and effectively banned in Australia,
Reference that supports this portion of the sentence → Saints Row IV has been refused classification in Australia
but was later accepted when modified to remove an optional mission
Reference that supports this portion of the sentence → A single, optional side mission has been removed in order to comply with Australia’s classification guidelines
that involved an anal probe weapon and incentivized drug use.
Reference that supports this portion of the sentence → An alien anal probe weapon and a side-mission that featured the use of “alien narcotics”
So that sentence is accurate and supported by 3 different references. And like I said in my edit summary when I reverted you — that amount of detail is not necessary, restoring to previous version which has been in the article for the last year and has consensus. I stand behind my reversion of your edit 100%, as the sentence I restored is factually accurate, reliably sourced, and not chocked full of irrelevant details that you added. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Can you even read?
THE WEAPON IS NOT IN THE MISSION, AND NONE OF THOSE REFERENCES SAY THAT IT IS.
User452 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"An alien anal probe weapon and a side-mission that featured the use of “alien narcotics”"
"An alien anal probe weapon and a side-mission that featured the use of “alien narcotics”"
"An alien anal probe weapon and a side-mission that featured the use of “alien narcotics”"
"An alien anal probe weapon and a side-mission that featured the use of “alien narcotics”"
"An alien anal probe weapon AND a side-mission that featured the use of “alien narcotics”"
Do you know what the word AND means?
User452 (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
User452 — Started a discussion on the talk page of the article. You can make your case there, instead of shouting at me here → Discussion can be found here. Do not reply anymore on my talk page. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron Hernandez/GA1

Hey, Isaidnoway. Alerting you to the above in case there is anything you want to say there since you were very vocal about the state of the article. We've been the most vocal about its state, I think. It has improved somewhat. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Revising

I would much appreciate it if you stopped collapsing multiline citations, like

|author=
|title=
|year=

into runon citations without carriage returns, as you did recently on Glenwood Inn (Hornellsville, New York). It makes the text less readable, not more. I cannot see anything accomplished by this collapsing. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The bot I ran on the page did it. Please respect the foundations guidelines on accessibility, not only for editors with vision issues, but also for readers with vision issues of the encyclopedia as well. I can see something now. So no, I won't stop making the encyclopedia more accessible for everyone. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Castiel section

On editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_television_programs_with_LGBT_characters#Characters

Hi. Castiel section on this page is misleading, source is not reliable. Castiel can't be called gay. As stated by the show itself, by Castiel himself on the show - angel is not man nor woman. We have seen Castiel in both vessels male and female. Also while he was in love with a man, he was shown kissing/being attracted/having sex with a few women.

Misha Collins falsely claimed Castiel being gay and erased Cas' bisexuality.

User:Apollsa--Apollsa (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Apollsa:, The source is reliable, please see reliable sources and also verifiable. There are also multiple sources that say the same thing, that's what we use. We do not use your personal interpretation of the show and what you believe Misha Collins falsely claimed. You are welcome though to join the discussion on the talk page of that article about Castiel. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isaidnoway/Archive_3&oldid=1065968195"