Jump to content

User talk:MarnetteD/archive58

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


Rangeblock

I've blocked 2a00:1fa0::/33 (talk · contribs) - it's not for the first time. My block's for 72 hours. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Acroterion. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your fill ins at List of Australian pro wrestling promotions

When you did this fill ins, you broke the search links that were essential to the original link. I reverted them back to the correct links. Please don't use the fill in tool for this as it breaks these sorts of links and renders them useless. Thanks for the good faith to avoid link rot, but on this occasion it was incorrect. Addicted4517 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Search links are not useful as they do not support the info that they are referencing. You could try adding them as external links though I don't see what good that does a reader. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Check the links. They go directly to the ABN that shows the owner's name. Your reversion takes that away and renders the links I gave useless and they might as well not be there at all. Please leave it as my links are right. Check them, please. You'll see what I mean. Addicted4517 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
You need to check things. Take a look at what happens to the Adrian Manera ref. Your edit breaks the cite template. That is not useful. MarnetteD|Talk 21:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't revert the Manera ref. That one was fine. It's the others to the ABR website that are the issue here. You are removing the proof that those people or organisations (in the case of the IWA) are behind those promotions and just going to the ABR website. That's useless. Please put back my links as they are right. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh hang on I see what I did on the first edit. Sorry. I was copying your correct edit back while reverting the rest and blew it. My apologies. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
And now I see you've fixed them without using the fill in tool. Thanks. That's what was needed. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay A it turns out they had to be done manually to get the formatting done correctly. I've tried to get them into the proper shape. I'm not sure how well they support the info but at least they are there now. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It's all there is to support it, and it is reliable as all businesses in Australia must have an ABN (Australian Business Number) as part of taxation requirements. I don't think one could get more reliable a source than that. You enjoy the rest of your weekend as well. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Good deal A. Thanks for the info. MarnetteD|Talk 16:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with Filling URLs

Marnette,

When able could you help me fill in some bare URLs, I've tried myself but, for whatever reason, I'm having trouble getting them converted. It's only a few pages, so it won't take long. They include:

Please and thank you in advance. Have a good day and a nice weekend ahead!I'm Listening to 80s Music (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Hello L. These are taken care of. In the future you can just place this template {{Bare URLs|date=May 2019}} at the top of the article and other editors (sometimes me) will take care of formatting the reference. Happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 21:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help as well as the tip! Much appreciated!I'm Listening to 80s Music (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Help

there's no reference that Richard O. Linke just died he was the Film producer episode. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you have added them RP. Good job. MarnetteD|Talk

also i don't like Nikkimaria. because he removed that i give the reference and cause of death for reason while there's no details deaths. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

RP according to the edit history N has made no edits to the article at all. I understand that editing here at the 'pedia can be frustrating but please do not use my talk page to air grievances about other editors. Try taking a deep breath and then discussing things with them or on the talk page of the article in question. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks.. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That was Charles MacArthur and Ring Lardner Jr. Who removed references and deaths details that I given. Ryan Pikachu (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For the few talk page watchers that might still be around

From the believe it or not files. I never imagined that, in my lifetime, humans would ever make Everest look like the Chilkoot pass :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Saw that on BBC News about 19:30 BST (18:30 UTC) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Amazing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Probably should install traffic lights at this point. By the way, I coincidentally watched Meru two nights ago, about an attempted ascent of Meru Peak, which makes an ascent of Everest look like child's play. Thrilling -- I recommend it! It's free on Amazon Prime. The wiki article on the film is here, but it's rather spoilerish: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

GLAM request: Pritzker Military Museum and Library

Can you help add the relevant citations to this article since you recently added a reference? Resources for article improvement are on the talk page. Your help is truly appreciated!! Under Wikipedia's COI rules, I shouldn't be editing the article directly. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello TeriEmbrey. To clarify my edit formatted a reference rather than adding one. I'm afraid that I don't know anything about the Museum/Library so I wouldn't be of much help to you. I can suggest that you put in a request for assistance at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Best wishes in your efforts at the article. MarnetteD|Talk 17:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I've done that! TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome T. MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RIP Leon and Dr John

I'm so sad to hear of Leon Redbone's passing. Here is a nice montage of pics to accompany one of my faves. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Another voice leaves. Here is a sweet bit of piano playing Thank you DJ. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not 30-500

I appreciate the desire to help, but the pages are just autoconfirmed, not extended-confirmed. Best, El_C 04:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi El_C. All three pages had shown up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates and my switching the template got them out. Today I notice that, after your switch back, they aren't the cat so I think maybe all they needed was a Wikipedia:Purge#Null edit. My apologies for not trying that first. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 13:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Yeah, was just dealing with some socks. In one of the protection rounds, I absentmindedly added the template before applying the protection. El_C 13:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Good deal El_C. Thanks for the info! MarnetteD|Talk 13:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Which pages were these? The choice of protection template is nowadays mainly one of picking the right reason (e.g. {{pp-vand}}, {{pp-sock}} or {{pp-blp}}, etc.) because they automatically detect the protection level - if you use {{pp-30-500}} on a page that is actually semi-protected, it will behave exactly as if {{pp-semi}} had been used, and display the silver padlock, not the blue one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Just some long term abuse socking and impersonation (yet more). I just used the generic pp-protected, but I guess pp-sock would have been more apt. Indeed, the display is the same for all of em, but pp-30-500 is just the wrong reason. El_C 21:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64 it was Niheli, Jalali (Kurdish tribe) and Hesenan. I (wrongly) read "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access" to mean the 30-500 template would work. As El_C points out that was wrong. If I had just tried null edits first things would have been normal. OTOH I have learned this sock so I can look for them in the future. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 21:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing succession box from Shakib al hasan

Brother I hope you are fine! You recently removed succession box from Shakib Al Hasan, I don't understand why you removed this! because succession box is necessary for current and former captain. I hope you will discuss it with any cricket expert wikipedian admin, every cricket player recent or former captain have this succesion box! It's too much necessary for captain in cricket Hafiz ansi (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As I clearly explained in my edit summary the succession box is a repeat of the info in the navbox. The navbox actually has more info in it than the succession box. If you feel the need to have the same info over and over again at the bottom of the article feel free to restore it if you haven't already. MarnetteD|Talk 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yum yum DQ Thank you so much. MarnetteD|Talk 23:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Archiving at ANI

Apologies, didn't see the edit summary until I had already archived another section. Thanks for reverting, I won't archive anything off ANI in the future! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I just made a post on your talk page BubbaJoe123456. Thanks for your message here :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended thanks.

Just wanting to let you know I appreciate the help. I actually was tagging articles to return and fix but when I came back you had stepped in. Otr500 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome Otr500. I am glad I could help. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (film series)

Hi, I wrote to you because you seem active on The Lord of the Rings (film series) page. I need help with the production section. Since there is the page Production of The Lord of the Rings film series that covers the topic in detail, I think it should be shortened. I would do it, but I'm not that fluent in English and since I should rewrite things to make them shorter and I don't think I can do it. I was thinking in writing a small paragraph like this Avengers: Endgame#Production, which summarizes every production phase. I would love if you could help me. Thanks. --Mazewaxie 09:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mazewaxie and thanks for your post. Shortening is a good idea. My editing time is kinda full at the moment so I am not sure if I can help. I do have a couple suggestions. You could post a request for help at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and see if another editor can work on it with you. Another idea is that you could create your own sandbox and work on the section there. Then I (or another editor) could take a look at it and clean up the English. Thanks for your work here at Wikipedia and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I did it. If you want, you could check if I made any mistakes and fix them. Thanks for your support. --Mazewaxie 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Mazewaxie. It looks good to me. I didn't find anything to clean up so I'll just have to say nice work!! MarnetteD|Talk 18:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --Mazewaxie 09:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome M. MarnetteD|Talk 13:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hallo, Please don't remove the {{link rot}} tag unless all the bare URLs have been fixed, whether by ReFill or manually. Thanks. PamD 06:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies PamD. The ref had a space between it and the first ref bracket whhich is why the fix didn't occur. I usually catch these but missed this one. I doubt whether you will trust that statement but it is a fact. Thanks for the ccleanup and the note. MarnetteD|Talk 08:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Franco Z

RIP Franco Zeffirelli. I never was fortunate enough to be in the audience for your stage or opera productions. Your films whether of Shakespeare's plays, operas or your semi-autobiographical Tea with Mussolini were special. La Traviata may well be the best marriage of opera and film ever. Thanks for the memories. MarnetteD|Talk 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, farewell, Franco. Loved your exquisite Romeo and Juliet and your enchanting autobiographical Tea with Mussolini. And Brother Sun, Sister Moon is another timeless masterpiece. Addio! Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I just finished watching the later Softlavender. The fields are mostly full of poppies but there is some lavender close to the church that they rebuild. Thanks for leaving your thoughts. MarnetteD|Talk 03:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Another candle snuffed out, and little by little the world gets dimmer. --Xover (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your note Xover. This year has seen the loss of so many that were both entertainers and teachers for me - Andre Previn etc - and we aren't even halfway through. Two items in regard to FZ's Romeo and Juliet - John McEnery who played Mercutio passed away a little over two months ago - it is an early film for Michael York and he was a brunette! Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 19:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
McEnery's Mercutio was brilliant -- to me the definitive Mercutio. Whoever did the casting of the film did a brilliant job in every single role!!!! I always wanted McEnery to have a bigger screen career after that ... he turned up in smallish parts here and there but not as often and in roles not as big as I would have liked. I enjoyed seeing him turn up in Codename: Kyril (1988). -- Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
My condolences for the loss of your friend. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your posts Softlavender and FlightTime. They are much appreciated. JM's Kerensky in Nicholas and Alexandra is another fine performance. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Years and Years

Hi, can you get HBO? Watch out for Years and Years, which finished its BBC One run last night. Well worth watching, it's by Russell T Davies with music by his regular collaborator Murray Gold. Most episodes have a topical reference - for instance, the first episode (broadcast 14 May 2019) includes part of a radio news bulletin that mentions the death of Doris Day (which really did happen on 13 May 2019). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up R. I just set the DVR to record it. Much appreciated :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I’m eager to see this, too! Nice to have an advance critique. The cast alone sold me on it. We just finished the first season of Gentleman Jack; Murray Gold also wrote its music. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry about that ~ Atsme Talk 📧 22:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No apologies needed Atsme. Happens from time to time. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Marnette: could you provide a Wikipedia internal reference for external links not being allowed in the body of an article? (I'm referencing your change to Siemon Muller here). In particular, in a "Selected Publications" list, providing links to an online copy of the actual work (when it's available) seems to me to be invaluable in a scientific biography. Thanks, Finney1234 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Finney1234: External links in the body of an article is never allowed, that's what the "External links" section is for. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:LINKDD covers it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The reference you provide (WP:LINKDD) appears to be significantly less official than an actual Wikipedia policy, moreover, the list states "Don't put external links in article prose", which was not the case in the Siemon Muller article (it was in a publications list). My inclination is to revert your change; let me know if there's any reason not to (as I said, as a Wikipedia user, I think having links to actual source material in a "Publications" *list* is very useful). Finney1234 (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Finney1234 I included that link specifically as it provides a valuable and streamlined visual for the more onerous Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, which represents community consensus on linking in Wikipedia. If you believe that a specific article should deviate from the accepted practices outlined in the Manual of Style, you should seek consensus for your preferred version on the article talk page. You certainly should not be edit warring to restore a disputed link.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Doing a single revert after engaging in an informative and polite discussion is not an "edit war" (see WP:Edit warring). I will check the full reference you provide (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking), and make a decision after reading that. I will not violate any official Wikipedia policy.
Thanks for the pointers. Finney1234 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Finney1234: You might want to also review Help:Talk pages and more specific to this thread WP:THREAD. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 23:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Finney1234: (edit conflict) First, all MOS pages are guidelines, not policy. Second, you can be sanctioned for various misconduct that is not necessary a violation of policy. I'm not saying you should be, but your last comments are not promising.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I will look into the (valid) link rot issue. I'm not going to spend time on thread niceties right now, as my naive approach is functional in this context. If it turns into an issue on the Siemon Muller talk page, I might follow up on threads style. But I'm more interested in content. Finney1234 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone trying to help/deal with this. The way the els are set up should IMO be turned into full refs since they are in the body of the article even though it is a list section. I've moved on with my work so whatever else happens at that article remains to be seen. Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 23:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I will also thank everyone, including Marnette, and assume that any follow up will be on Talk:Siemon_Muller. If it turns into a big discussion, I will try to get better with threads; I actually hadn't realized that many people had been involved in the discussion on the page here. But please, lets deal with facts rather than making negative assumptions about how I'm approaching the issue. Finney1234 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Finney1234: Not mentioned so far is WP:ELPOINTS item 2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD: Since you're an experienced editor who pays attention to detail, I'm going to follow this up one more time. If there's an answer that I'm missing, if you could provide an exact Wikipedia reference I'd appreciate it. My concern is not to argue, but to find a good final answer for this issue, and to have it well referenced (this approach is used in many biographies).

So: MOS:ORDER explicitly clarifies "Selected Publications" in a biography as an Appendix *outside* the body of the article, so the "no external links in the body" restriction does not apply (no one has objected in the MOS discussion, so I take that as 'consensus'). That leaves the issue of bare URL's, and link rot issues, and you suggested expanding it into a full reference. However, the publications section in Siemon Muller (and in most other bios I've looked at) already includes the bibliographic information that is typically used to back up a bare URL. And creating a full reference doesn't (IMHO) work, because these are not references backing up the content of the article (and they are not in the body of the article), but they are an independent informational list section. Can you suggest anything specific to improve the approach I've taken in Siemon Muller? Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've said above and in an edit summary that IMO they should be turned into references. MarnetteD|Talk 21:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of different reference formats; could you suggest what *specific* approach would work well in a "List of Publications" section (officially called out in the MOS as an "Appendix") that are not otherwise referenced in the text body of an article? The publications info (title, author, date) is already part of the required information in the list proper. If you can provide an example that works well (e.g., just edit Siemon Muller), I will try to propagate it to other articles, and also make sure it's documented as a good approach in biographies. Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I have taken care of them. By being in cite templates should the links ever go dead there is a better chance of rescuing them. Not necessarily 100% foolproof but better nevertheless. MarnetteD|Talk 00:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, that looks good. It's also nice because you only need to add the reference to things with links (although a minor downside is that some of the article info needs to be duplicated). I will adopt that moving forward. Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Best wishes on your future editing. MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:AN3 disccussion

Just an FYI, I've mentioned you at this WP:AN3 discussion only because your edit was reverted inappropriately. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice AussieLegend. Blind reverting is always fraught with problems - and yes I have made that mistake in my time here as well :-P I did add a suggestion at the talk page for the article. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 14:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoosh...

Hi, re this comment - the leap up the table was JJMC89 (talk · contribs), who, with more than 10,000 in 24 hours is certainly piling them on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks R. I had a notion that you might fill me in on what happened, Your ability to track things down is always much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The database replicas were lagged most of this week leading to inaccurate updates. For example, this 1 edit increase for me is completely inaccurate and is actually around the time where I had almost 10,000 edits in a day due to unlinking a couple of deleted portals. Replication caught up for the edit Redrose64 linked, leading to inflated changes that weren't just for the period since the last update. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info JJMC89. I know the updates have been wacky for a few weeks. For whatever reason I used to be able to notice editors moving up the list when the names were blue linked. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi my friend

Being accused of being a sick pervert by people from that redacted site was horrible. True crime is a specialist subject of mine, not an obsession. Someone also has to care about victims after the media spotlight has changed. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello PBA. I did see your name pop up on my watchlist but I haven't followed all the details. In spite of that I can express my sympathies to you in the situation and I hope that things work out ASAP. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RIP PD

I've only just found out about Paul Darrow's death last month. His Kerr Avon is one of the steeliest and ruthless characters in the history of TV SciFi. Nine months to the day after Jacqueline Pearce's death. I hope Avon and Servalan are appearing in an afterlife production of Much Ado About Nothing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

For clean up bare urls

Sir please cleanup the bare url in References of Sunil Singh a politician wikipedian page Aniket kr. Shaw (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Aniket kr. Shaw it looks like it has been taken care of by the ever reliable Jmertel23. There are several of us who work on converting bare urls and your placing of the template in an article will bring someone along to take care of them. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 14:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Zenica prison

Please think before reverting good edits. Image is true for that article and does not need (cannot have) additional source. I put template {{citation needed}} next to the claim but you cannot dispute it and delete it without explanation (I live there and know that that counter exists). Similary, claims about songs don't have/need sources; they're general claims and one can look up for the song on YouTube... Thanks. --5.43.74.138 (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I did think. You need to think about the fact that, per WP:BURDEN, sources must come with the edit - not at some far off day. MarnetteD|Talk 17:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, but don't revert everything you see. Image needs no source other than author uploading it, and song claim has refs now. Eggs counter claim is now excluded. Also, you did revert ndash correction. Explain single removals of added content in the future. --5.43.74.138 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Quite the right drink to toast Jon's 100th. Many thanks DQ. MarnetteD|Talk 17:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee/Gloria Victis (Confederate memorial)

So I see you fixed something, or tried to. Would you say the statue passes the notability test and can be moved to article space?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Vchimpanzee. The article looks good to me. I may not be the best judge of notability for something like this but I found it interesting and informative. If any of my talk page watchers want to take a look please feel free to leave your thoughts here. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I seem to recall there was controversy in the past about the statue and I was hoping the article could be more comprehensive before I moved it, but I started it with text from List of Confederate monuments and memorials in North Carolina which led me to believe someone considered it notable. There was even a photo which I used. And it seems to be described as a monument, not a memorial, so I'll make the appropriate name change.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good Vchimpanzee. I hope you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hello, MarnetteD,

I use to forego notifying editors when I tagged empty categories because I thought editors were less invested in them than articles they created. But I angered one editor who took it to ANI and now I am! However, I've contacted a few editors who I noticed create quite a few categories to ask if they wanted me to skip notifications and have received some yeses. Would you like to be on the "Do not call" list? Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Liz. The only categories I create are those for sockpuppets. I don't see why one those would need deletion. It may not have any entries now but, considering the amount of socking that some take part in, it may one day. Within the last few months creating a sock category became (for lack of a better term) semi automated. In other words when labeling a sock you get a prompt to create the category at the same time. That is all I did in this case. I probably should not go on a "do not notify" list on the off chance that something I created needs examination to see if it needs to be kept. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Understood. Lately, we have had a lot of empty categories for sockpuppets. My guess is that the identity of the sockpuppeteer changed after the category was created. I'll send you notices if I see other categories that you have created. Sometimes they get emptied through mischief. It's not common but it does happen. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Okey doke Liz. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I think one thing needs to be clarified here, Liz. The (semi-)automated creation of sockpuppet categories creates two categories: one for proven socks, and one for suspected socks. The suspected categories should not be deleted or nominated for deletion (as you did with MarnetteD's) just because they are empty. A sockmaster will often devise ways to sock that somehow circumvent CU, or that people haven't gotten around to SPIing but that are obvious. Please leave the "suspected" categories alone so they do not have to be recreated. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Softlavender. Some of this was rattling around in my dusty memory banks but I couldn't recall the particulars. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess. But when I have notified the creators (who are always admins) of sockpuppet categories that the category is empty, they always delete them. I'm usually just tagging the category. I guess this point of view needs to be more publicized. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, fair point Liz, maybe deletion is merited. Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello MarnetteD

Hello, MarnetteD, I am new to wikipedia and still learning how to use the language. I edited this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_30_(film)#Controversy, and tried to add the unbiased reporting from other news articles but my entry was undone so I clicked on the ondo button. Please help as i dont know what to do next. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.224.112 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion - their revert is here. I've just removed the entire section for a couple of reasons. Primarily, the article is about a specific film and the allegations are related to the director but nothing I could see tied those allegations to this film. It's already in Vikas Bahl where I feel it belongs. Other thoughts / views appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to this Ravensfire. I agree with your assessment of the situation. IP the item has nothing to do with the film. As R points out it is in the article for the director. FWIW my only edit was to remove a protection template as the protection had expired. Ravensfire please feel free to intrude on my talk page anytime :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your immediate attention to the Éléonore Gosset article. I am amazed at such fast turnaround in repairing a tag issue. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:9135:78D3:A31:AD67 (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 15:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the citation needed

On A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving, you said that I needed a citation for future events. I will provide that as soon as possible. Thanks Tornadosurvivor2011 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good T. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
✌ LonerXL (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page edit: The Blue Danube Waltz

You deleted my comment in the "In popular culture" section. I beg your pardon, but if the "Talk" section isn't a "chat room" then what is? That reference to "It's Always Fair Weather" is quite appropriate in that section, IMHO. I just wanted to suggest an edit, before making an edit to the page itself. Steinireyk (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The talk page header was missing. You can read it now. Also be aware of WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I would advise against any edit to the article of that sort as it will be removed per WP:TRIVIA among others. By all means post it on your Facebook page or blog though. MarnetteD|Talk 00:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Israel National men's lacrosse team

Thanks for your work on the citations on Israel men's national lacrosse team! There is an issue however with the lacrosse2016.com links though. They let the domain expire. Can you get an archived version of those pages instead? Another question, the hidden tables have a blue background (presumably because of the national flag color) that makes it impossible to see the "show" link. Do you know how to fix that by changing the link color instead of the background? Any help would be great. Thanks! --- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mnnlaxer Ya know I thought it was odd that those refs went to a link with all those Chinese characters. I meant to go back and check them but real life stuff intervened so I am glad you asked! I have replaced them for the moment with "cn tags". I would suggest asking for assistance with both the search for the info in the archives available and the problem with the blue background at the WP:VPT. Perhaps one of my talk page watchers can help as well but the VPT is monitored by all sorts of editors who are better at straightening these things out. Good luck and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 23:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please respect

... "in use" tag at Ben Cline, so we do not have to untangle our further constructive edits, thanks! 24.1.0.28 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Don't put bare url tags on until you are done editing the article. BTW "in use" tags do not mean that only you can edit the article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I tried to make sure your navbox edit was returned after the edit conflict. Could you ensure, sometime after the "in use" tag disappears, that I did return that edit correctly? (I know I did fine with the columnation edit.) And if there is a better tag to use than "in use", to prevent edit conflicts during extended editing sessions, please let me know here. (The "in use" tag was what I was told to use.) Cheers. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
IP the only way to edit a page without the possibility of anyone else editing it at the same time is to work on it in a draft or sandbox page. Even with a tag there is no way for any editor to when a page is being worked on by you or anyone else. MarnetteD|Talk 20:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but someone just reverted all my edits, which corrected lots of bad sourcing, and added new sources. You did not revert, and so saw some value—could you revert this editor's carte blanche destruction of the hard work I did over these hours. I am an academic, and did nothing with agenda. Please. This will further disparage good work here if the revert is allowed to stand. (Your infobox correction came after, and so complicates the matter, andis another reason I ask you.) 24.1.0.28 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry IP I can't do that. Your best course of action is to start a thread on the talk page for the article explaining your edits and the problems with their removal. The more specific you can be with your sources the better. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Marnette, I created a talk page entry to which he did not respond. I created long and very specific Edit summaries where he carte blance reverted without attempt to save any of the quality edits. And there was nothing non-specific about my sources, go see. In every case, I found issues, and I was correcting the issues I found (and removing tags as I went), when he interrupted the work.
The case for editorial bias against an IP editor, and that this was a drive-by reversion seem pretty clear. I ask again that you help, since you came several times to the page, and did not revert. Otherwise, if he does not—I have asked him to revert—than I will revert the reversions myself. I am sorry to make additional work for you, but I am a careful scholar, and his drive by execution of my work is unjustified, certainly since I posted a talk entry, and gave detailed Edit summaries of all edits. Either Mr Wales and your policies are sincere in allowing IP edits, or they are not. Mine were good, scholastically solid, improving edits. The only thing he could have taken issue with is the appearance, and I am not a superficial scholar. The article is tagged, and looks bad, because it still is bad. Now rather than improving it (finding further reliable sources), I am wasting time dealing with editorial bias. Please, consider again helping. Otherwise, this will all have been in waste, and all the pasted in candidate self-description, the imcomplete or dead sources, and the other unsourced content will carry the day. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not the way to proceed IP. Please read WP:EDITWAR. Discussion on the talk page is the only thing that can happen from this point without the possibility of a block. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see above, again. I created a Talk page. He ignored it to revert. Please consider intervention. You are an independent party who visited wtice, not doing what he did. Please 24.1.0.28 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
As I have mentioned more than once you should post on the talk page for the Ben Cline article not on the FlightTime talk page. Continuing to revert with out discussion there will surely oead to a block. MarnetteD|Talk 21:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Just curious... (Tom Baker)

...Which Wikidata link(s) are you referring to? Curious since all of the Wikidata info I reviewed prior to performing that edit seemed to link directly to the subject's page on those respective sites. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If there is more than one Tom Baker at any of those sites clicking on the link will go to a search page at that website instead of directly to that Tom Baker's page. I've had that happen before. It was several months ago so I can't remember the actors article. IMO there is no reason to make a reader click twice to get to a page with info about a person and I see this as a WP:NOTBROKEN situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Remember there may only be one Tom Baker at any of these sites now but that doesn't mean there wont be more than one at a future date. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Steel1943 I forgot to ping you and to say thanks for your question. My apologies for that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The thing is that those numbers are nothing like "tom baker" or "Tom baker", etc ... they are somewhat random strings of numbers that are used as identifiers. I'd have to believe that like it is in Wikipedia, if a new person with that name would be assigned a new ID. (Like the 1st Tom Baker has ID "53773" whereas a new one would have "734784". For this reason, I do not see the reason why using Wikidata info is wrong, especially since it seems to be the way the whole Wikimedia is seeming to go anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
No matter what the numbers are they take a reader directly to the page for this Tom Baker Steel1943. Without them if there are more than one now or some date in the future they will go to a search page at that website and not to this persons article. As I say have been taken to a search page before. And what happens when wikidata gets replaced. There used to be persondata in every articel until there wasn't. Having the number prevents that not having it doesn't. Again it is WP:NOTBROKEN with the numbers there. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm ... my understanding was that pages that use templates which utilize Wikidata fetches (such as {{Official website}}, {{IMDb name}}, etc.) which have forced parameters/values, regardless of Wikidata information exists for that related data fetch or not, is now considered a maintenance category that is supposed to be resolved, especially if there is a mismatch such as the pages in Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia or the other categories listed at Template:Official website/doc#Tracking categories. Well, that, and IMO, pulling directly from Wikidata prevents different URL links on different Wikimedia projects ... which is why I've been performing edits such as that since not doing it has the potential to create the URL mismatch error I mentioned, as well as allows most regarding external URLs to be edited from one location, which seems to be the main purpose of Wikidata. Well ... that and on the other hand, if the number on that site changes in the future, even the forced value in these templates will be wrong anyways. Hmm ... yet another thing for me to look into ... Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the details Steel1943. Cross wikimedia projects stuff remind me, at times, of the title of the Patrick Troughton Dr Who story The Web of Fear. Not the plot of the story itself just the title :-) I also know that these things are always changing so if you want to pass along anything you learn I would appreciate it. Best regard. MarnetteD|Talk 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, at the present time and after looking around for a bit, here's probably the best and only thing I could find: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC#Discussion. My interpretation of that close is that both of our thoughts in the matter have merit. In my opinion, the closing summary doesn't even come close to deciphering the preamble prior to the summary. From my understanding of the long-winded preamble, it looks like the preferred method is to ... make sure both Wikidata is accurate, but at the same time, force the most recent/accurate values in any related templates. But, then again ... the whole conversation seems specific to Infoboxes only. (You may want to glance over it too, given that's my interpretation of what I just read and results may vary.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    By the way, Wikipedia:Use of Wikidata in Wikipedia seems to be of interest as well ... but that page seems to be specific to infoboxes and interwiki links, and has no specific mention of external link fetches from templates usually found in an "External link" section. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to find these Steel1943. You've summed things up pretty well as well. I kinda wonder what will come along next decade that will make what is here now obsolete. I remember when Persondata was the thing and then along came Wikidata. Hmmm wait betamax is replaced by VHS which fades by the rise of DVDs which succumb to blurays - will this pattern never cease :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Haha ... or bound-to-fail mediums will flood the marketplace, like laserdisc and HD DVDs ... I remember back in 2007 when HD DVD and Blu-Ray were both trying to gain market share, and Blu-ray won ... Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I remember that as well Steel1943. In fact I held off purchasing either while waiting and see how it would play out. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
...Wow, I just discovered that we have an article about that DVD format war. I should be shocked that we do, but I don't know if I am really shocked or not. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
...And there's VHS vs. Betamax. I have a lot of Wikipedia to read ... Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The 'pedia is an amazing place ain't it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of old tech Steel1943 I had one of these - Bone Fone - in college. MarnetteD|Talk 01:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there...

a version or variant of reFill, that provides a greater number of fields, for instance, the "access-date" field? If so, could that be used in future, instead of the more pared down variant? Thank you. (Writing in reference to the contribution you made at the Svante Thunberg article.)

Hello IP. You can try asking your question at User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill and/or WP:VPT. From what I've seen the only way to make sure that all of the fields that you want to be used are used is to learn how to format the references manually. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Many happy returns of the day ...

Congratulations, Michael!
I do hope that you are enjoying your adventure and are having a wonderful birthday ... today! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

We did not realise it was your birthday. Both Susie and I send our very best wishes and thanks for your friendship over the years. As ever, David & Susie. David J Johnson (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello G and D. Thanks so much for your kind wishes. I had a wonderful time seeing and doing some of my favorite things in Santa Fe and the surrounding area. This was topped off by attending an outstanding performance of La bohème at the Santa Fe Opera last night. I hope you both have an enjoyable week! MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
So pleased you have had such an excellent time. All the best for the year ahead! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

~ above and beyond ~

Thanks
Thanks for helping my daughters MarnetteD ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings (film series)

Hi, I tried to rewrite a sentence but I'm not sure if it is correct grammatically. Could you please check it? Thanks. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Mazewaxie. I think it is okay. I did split it into two sentences. I like your use of the word "venture" in thew context of the paragraph though other editors might change it to something drier. Keep up the good work on that (and the other) article(s) that you are editing. MarnetteD|Talk

Many thanks for your good wishes!!

Kind regards from the New Zealanders!! What's the blue-and-white flag with the red and yellow "C"? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's the state flag of Colorado. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your message Buckshot06 and congrats again for reaching the 100,000 edit milestone. Thanks to you as well David J Johnson for letting B know about the state flag. I hope you both have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: See Flag of Colorado for the meanings of the various elements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the link Redrose64. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks to you all; I thought I knew most of the nationstate flags, but I'm only aware of a few of the U.S. State flags. I think maybe I should say go the Broncos? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Buckshot06. A new season is almost here for the Broncs. They have been pretty mediocre since their win in Superbowl 50 but hope springs eternal. The 2019 Rugby World Cup starts in a few weeks and the US finally has a network that will be airing the bulk of the matches so I am looking forward to that. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
We've stopped the practice of several years of choking at unexpected moments, so the New Zealand public is more assured of success - the NZ public basically expect the All Blacks to win, in all situations, period. With minor permissible occasional failures against the Wallabies, Springboks, and maybe Les Bleus.. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
On flags: many states have flags that are blue with some distinguishing device (often the state seal) in the centre, usually hard to tell apart unless you look closely; as an example, I have a cousin who lives in Brooklyn, NY (flag). I also have a cousin in New Jersey which has a somewhat different flag - try switching the background colours for NY and NJ, can you tell the difference at a quick glance?. A week ago, I met a young woman whose T-shirt depicted the Flag of California, one of the most distinctive and also quite artistic. Turned out she was from Florida, the flag of which looks to me like the Flag of Alabama with a bit extra. Maybe it's because they live next door.
On Rugby: making this easily available on TV will confuse those Americans who wonder why you can't tackle somebody not holding the ball; why you can't pass forward; and why you can't substitute the entire team just because somebody lost possession. Oh, and it's spelt "scrummage" and you only need head protection if you play prop or hooker. Some cotton-wool and Elastoplast is quite enough to stop your ears from being rubbed off. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
US state flag trivia - the Flag of Ohio is the only one of the 50 that is not a rectangle :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Flag of California is one I do know - it's strange - looks like they have seceded, while it's *Texas* that has the right to subdivide itself!! But yes *epic* flag.. these flags are fun. Rugby..? Different game, different rules, but less difficult, I would guess, than explaining about *cricket*. All makes sense to me, but often hear it doesn't make sense to those from the non-Commonwealth countries. Oh and yes, the instinctive reaction watching gridiron here is why are those guys wearing all that protective kit.. we go out there without any of it (apart from the ear tape, yes..).. but, yes, again, traumatic brain injury is an underappreciated issue both in NZ and I understand for the NFL. Passing forward - RED CARD!! Nice to chat to you Buckshot06 (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Georgia (U.S. state)

Hi, can you check recent edits to the above article? I'm not American and am not sure about them. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb - all ok now. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries Denisarona. Looks like all the action took place while I was asleep. That happens more and more as I get older :-) Thanks for your vigilance! MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marnette: I know you're tired of this :-). I have not chosen to go to WP:VPP yet, but I did post the issue to WP:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Per suggested protocol, I am notifying you.

FWIW, contrary to your edit summary, I believe that I am in no way "ignoring" your advice (all the time-consuming writing I've done attempting to clarify the issue is not "ignoring"), nor do I believe my writing in Talk:Siemon Muller cast "aspersions" on you (can you point out how? In fact, I went out of my way to express appreciation of your References edit to Siemon Muller). I am trying to deal with the *facts* of documented Wikipedia procedures, and am quite open to learning and changing if anything I stated on the Talk:Siemon Muller page is incorrect.Finney1234 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW 3O is for a disagreement over items in one article. Your statements about how you think things should be handled will apply to the publications lists in any articles that have them so VPP is the proper place. Thus, IMO you ignored my advice. MarnetteD|Talk 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
As predicted the 3O has been rejected. Erpert mentions DRN but I would point out that you aren't really disputing any edits to that article you are making a statement about how you will handle things in other articles so, yet again, VPP is a place to start a thread about how you would like to add to the MOS about the way you want refs/ELs handled in publication lists. MarnetteD|Talk 04:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful advice; sorry I got a little heated. I will go to VPP. But, as I've said, the MOS as currently written *explictly allows* external links in an Appendix (e.g., a Publications section, which is a list). That is, in all the gory detail about sections and links, they do *not* forbid them (while they do explicitly forbid having links in the *body* of the article). That strikes me as an intentional consensus decision. But, per your suggestion, I will raise the issue at VPP. (I chose 3O at first because I wanted to do the lowest key approach)Finney1234 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I posted at WP:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#External_Links_in_a_Publications_Section.Finney1234 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I added to your thread. Not sure what kind of responses you will get - if any. It can take a few days depending on how many editors are monitoring that page so please be patient. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I only just noticed that you put the thread in the idea lab. I suggest the Village Pump Policy several times. If you don't get a response where it is in a couple days you should move the thread to the Pump that I mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Now I see why you started at the idea lab - the instructions kinda leave open which VP to use. I am just more ised to things happening there. Again I hope you get responses in short order. MarnetteD|Talk 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is at least one response at the idea lab (I chose that rather than VPP because this is not yet at the stage of a concrete proposal). But I think you're right that it needs a clarification (one way or other) in the MOS.
BTW, although I didn't know about VPP (oops: just realized Policy vs Proposal), and this is my first real experience in a "conflict", I have researched conflicts quite a bit which is why I resented some of the statements made in the initial discussion (archived on my talk page). E.g., see the "Cooperative Disagreement" section at the bottom of p 3 of this link (this is an article I've been working on a long time, and just made available). sfinney.com/images/mwp01.pdf
Thanks again for shifting the discussion into a more productive mode.Finney1234 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:VPI (Idea Lab) is not really for resolving things, it's for working up a draft proposal which will later be transferred to WP:VPR (Proposals). At VPI, people may advise you as to whether your draft proposal is likely to be accepted for discussion; but they should not be registering firm "Support" or "Oppose" !votes, that's what happens at VPR. Are you also aware of WP:VPM (Miscellaneous)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Redrose64 Since I'm new to this process, WP:VPI is appropriate for what I'm trying to accomplish at this stage. When I understand enough to actually suggest a small specific change to the WP:MOS, is WP:VP Proposals or VP Policy the best place? Finney1234 (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Zaineb Chaudry

I started doing the ref manually, but got into information overload territory! Here's what my version looked like before I decided to tag it, and leave it (and me!) to your mercy! I was trying to fit all available info into some sort of slot, which is more confusing than helpful, in this instance.

"Restoring American Values: Combatting Anti-Muslim Speech and Behavior" (PDF). nicd.arizona.edu. National Institute for Civil Discourse. July 11, 2016. p. 3. Retrieved August 16, 2019.

Your version is so much better!

"Biography" (PDF). nicd.arizona.edu. 2016. Retrieved 2019-08-16.

Thanks so much for being a good teacher. I have always appreciated the edit summary comments you left for me, as I followed you to learn by example. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You are most welcome Tribe of Tiger. I should add that your version is more detailed and that is okay too. In fact I am going to add a couple of the items in yours to the template in a few moments. Your kind words are much appreciated. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 03:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wales are number 1 in World Rugby

On Monday morning, when the next world rankings are released officially, Warren Gatland's men will sit at the summit for the first time since World Rugby introduced the ranking system in 2003.
It also ends New Zealand's uninterrupted 10 years at the top, despite the All Blacks' 36-0 victory over Australia earlier on Saturday.
Dan Biggar's willingness to put his body on the line for his country and sealed his deserved man-of-the-match award.
Leigh Halfpenny struck the decisive penalty on his return to the Wales side after an injury-ravaged year.[2].
Looking good for next month! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Exciting news Gareth. Thanks for the link! MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

ReFill

Hi, its really great what you guys do with Cleanup bare URLs but please double check the syntax hasn't broken as happened at No-deal Brexit, thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one you are referring to D. With the back and forth since my edit I will leave it to you two to sort out. MarnetteD|Talk 00:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
You may notice the "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "G20190320" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." introduced in the topleft of the References section on [3]. I had quietly fixed it but the fix got sorted out. If your wondering why I'm hacked off is an IP from the same location on 15 August helf an In-use for several hours then lefft leaving loads of bare URLs and a copy violation which had to be sorted and revisions removed from visibility which is why I wasn't prepared for that to happen again. But if someone restores his bare url I'm certainly not going to do the first line fix on that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Djm-leighpark and I get where you are coming from. If you have the time you might post about this situation here User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. That will make the editors who monitor refill aware of what went on and they might be able to fix the tool to avoid this in the future. I will keep an eye out for this booboo in the future. Thanks again and best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably surrounded by too much clutter here. .... I might keep my eyes out for another example of if necessary set up a test case in draft. But I am working on the Aspinall Ivatt relationship currently. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good Djm-leighpark. Oh no - did I just write "in the future" twice *facepalm* Usually, I try and avoid Dept of Redundancy Dept goofs like that :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

article Don't Die On Me Now

Hi MarnetteD,

I hope I'm not being rude by leaving something here... I have a question about the article Don't Die On Me Now. I saw your comment. I'm quite new here and have a lot to figure out. I have a question about the use of the references. The sources I have used are all correct but maybe I shouldn't use some of them? Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thank you in advance!--Esther Claassen (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Esther Claassen. You aren't being rude - questions are one of the best ways to learn how things work around here. I've gone through the refs and they look okay to me but I should add that music albums are not my area of expertise. You could try asking for input at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and see what other editors have to say. Regards and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 23:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#‎RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#‎RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Dignity Health and CommonSpirit Health

Hi MarnetteD, I saw you recently edited and added to the Dignity Health page. It was recently commented CommonSpirit Health should have it's own CommonSpirit Health page. Here is a draft page with content and references for CommonSpirit Health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CommonSpirit_Health. Would you be interested in reviewing the page? Jeremy at A+P (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jeremy at A+P. Thanks for your post. I took a look at the draft and formatted the refs. While I think it looks pretty good you will want to add refs to the history section as well as the two lists of names. I would also suggest that you ask for input from any of the wikiprojects listed at the Talk:Dignity Health page. I don't know how active any of those projects are but there should be some editors available to add their ideas for improving your draft. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you MarnetteD, I will look at those wikiprojects and request additional input as well as try to find more refs for history and names. Jeremy at A+P (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
great of your effort mustafdesam (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Powers of Darkness

Dear MarnetteD, thank you so much for your kind words and support. There is probably enough material to turn Powers of Darkness into a separate article; I know there is much scholarly debate about if the differences between the Icelandic vs. the English versions are due to Ásmundsson changing the book vs. him using an older manuscript of Dracula provided to him by Stoker. The consensus view is that it is a bit of both.

The Icelandic version has lots of references to Norse mythology, which is probably the input of the Norse mythology scholar Ásmundsson. On the other hand, 10% of Dracula is concerned with Harker's stay at the castle in Transylvania; by contrast, 90% of Powers of Darkness is concerned with Harker's visit to the castle, which supports the theory that Ásmundsson was using a first draft of Dracula given to him by Stoker as a source material. Likewise, Stoker in his preface to Powers of Darkness says this is the true and authentic version of Dracula, which again supports the first manuscript theory. Stoker wrote other prefaces to translations of Dracula in other languages, but only with the Icelandic version does he go out of his way to assert this is the true version of his book, which is bit odd given the differences between the Icelandic version of 1901 and the English original in 1897. Powers of Darkness is a much more sexually charged book than the English version, which given Victorian censorship, might have caused Stoker to abandon his first manuscript and tone it down for the manuscript that he eventually submitted to publication in 1897. Censorship in Iceland was much more lenient than in Britain in this period, which would explain why Stoker would give his abandoned first manuscript to Ásmundsson.

Moreover, Dracula was serialized in a Swedish newspaper in 1899 under the title Powers of Darkness, and parts of Ásmundsson's version seemed to be drawn from it. To further complicate the picture, the Swedish version has material that does not appear in the English or Icelandic versions. I cannot claim to be an expert on this debate, but I can probably find enough scholarly material from the local research library to build an article. To build a good article, one needs about 3-5 RSs reflecting the mainstream opinions about a particular matter. I haven't really looked into this debate very deeply, but I am certain I can find something useful-I was planning to visit the local research library anyhow, through that was to start an article on the Danzig crisis, which for some reason we don't have around here. Thank you again for your kind words! Best wishes and cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to share all of this with me (and my talk page watchers) A.S. Brown. For those watchers I found the addition of this section Dracula#Powers of Darkness to the 'pedia's article fascinating. I had never read about any of this before. Whether you ever have the time and inclination to create a full article ASB only time will tell. Just having the section you've already created will be a benefit to readers for years and years. Thanks to you again. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Dear MarnetteD, thank you again for your kind works. Sorry about so late in getting back; I had work all last night at my loathsome, vile job, and then had to get up first thing this morning to go back to this hideous, vile excuse of a job, before finally getting home just now. On a more happier note, during a short break, I did make it to the library, where I was able to find 2 good books that had lots of information. More than enough material for a good article. I know the rules about POV-pushing, but it seems that Powers of Darkness was based on a first, discarded draft of Dracula given to Ásmundsson by Stoker.
One of the books mentioned that we know that Stoker starting writing the book that became Dracula in 1890, and he was planning to have the count live in a decaying mansion in London's East End. It was only very late in the writing process that the publishers insisted that Dracula buy a more genteel house in the suburbs of London appropriate for an aristocrat, which is what appears in the final product. In Powers of Darkness, Ásmundsson has Dracula buy and live in an old, decaying mansion in the East End-which has got to be either one hell of a coincidence or Ásmundsson was working from a first draft of Dracula (the book says that it was almost certainly the latter). Likewise, Powers of Darkness has a Sherlock Holmes-like detective named Inspector Barrington who is hot on Dracula's trail who does not appear in Dracula. Barrington is a superfluous character, as Stoker already had Dr. Van Helsing chasing after Dracula. Given that what makes up 90% of Dracula is only the last 50 pages of Powers of Darkness, Barrington does not have much to do, which makes it rather strange that Ásmundsson would add in a new character who is basically pointless. It seems that during the writing process that Stoker realized that Barrington wasn't necessary, and eliminated him from the final draft. And Stoker's preface to Powers of Darkness is also very odd-it is dated August 1898, but it talks about the Jack the Ripper murders, which happened in 1888, as being "recent". The preface also talks about a secondary villain, Jacob the Disemboweler, who is apparently a henchman of Dracula's, who does not appear in either Dracula or Powers of Darkness. There's quite a bit of scholarly debate about this preface, which doesn't seem to make much sense.
All said, very interesting stuff. Just one quick question before I get started; what would make for a better title, Powers of Darkness, which was the title of the book published in English in 2017 (here it is on Amazon), or its original Icelandic title, Makt Myrkranna? Also, I think once I get this article started that it should be added to the Dracula template, since all of the evidence seems to indicate this just an early draft that Stoker abandoned-making it relevant as it gives one a glimpse of the book that Stoker started writing, but I'm not certain how to go about that. I hope all is well, and thank you again for all your kind words and support. Cheers!
You keep unearthing more interesting information A.S. Brown. Once again thanks for taking the time to share it here. I am not sure what the answer is about naming the article. I would lean towards using the English title but there are guidelines that favor using the original Icelandic. To use a couple examples from our film articles we have That Night in Varennes (a marvelous film BTW) but I have never seen that name used here in the US and, if it were up to me, I would move it to La Nuit de Varennes. OTOH the masterpiece La Grande Illusion has always been known as The Grand Illusion in my neck of the woods. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) does state "should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources" because "This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources" - WP:TRANSLITERATE should be considered as well. Since I am wavering about this this you could ask for input at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). Sorry to hear about the work situation. I know all too well how draining that can be on a person. Hang in there and thanks again for your work here at the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for your kindness and help, :MarnetteD. Not only is my job terrible, but the really evil thing is that it makes hard to find another job-when you get up at 5 pm like what happened to me today, everything is compassed. All one can be is be hopeful and work for better days-writing around here doesn't help with finding a better job, but it does ease the stress by injecting some much needed positivity in my life Moving on to more happier subjects, there are couple of other articles around here that use some variation of Power of Darkness, so Makt Myrkranna would definitely avoid that problem. I learn towards the original title, but the rules seem to indicate using the English title. Thank you for clearing that up. Since this scholar Van Roos translated Makt Myrkranna back into English in 2017, most of the sources I have found online, which admittedly are all book reviews, use Powers of Darkness. Two scholarly books I have use Makt Myrkranna. The situation is bit similar with medieval Roman empire, which is popularly known as the Byzantine Empire, which is a POV-pushing name invented by German nationalists to prove that the Holy Roman Empire was the real Roman empire. The term Byzantine Empire is actually a form of identity theft that denies the Eastern Roman empire was even Roman, instead giving people who saw themselves legitimately as Roman this "Byzantine" identity that they never held. The better historians use the term Roman, but everybody else calls them Byzantines. The term Byzantine Empire has become so popular that the fact that the Vikings called it the Roman Empire is put down to that "they didn't know any better"(!) If were up to to me, I would rename the article Byzantine empire Roman empire in the Middle Ages or something along those lines, but I know that would be a hopeless fight that I would win, so why waste my time? Thank you again for clarifying the rules around here for me. I'll go with Powers of Darkness, which to be fair, is easily to find rather than Makt Myrkranna. Thank you for all your help and kindness. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sad News - Happy News

RIP Terrance Dicks Thanks for your prolific writing talents including The Avengers, Moonbase 3, Dr Who and the Sunday Classics.

Happy 25th anniversary Mutts you bring a smile to my day.

Gosh time seems to go by faster as I get older. MarnetteD|Talk 04:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarnetteD/archive58&oldid=1140396346"