User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2021/September

Archives

Why did you delete OpenDocument formats in Sept 2020?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_filename_extensions_(M%E2%80%93R)&offset=&limit=500&action=history

See Talk:List of filename extensions#Cleanup and Criteria for the discussion about cleanup and inclusion criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intermittent edits on Canfield, Ohio

Hello,

I should have probably commented here before making the edit, but I restored the content of 4 of my edits on Canfield, Ohio. I did not restore the edit regarding the 2020 Census – that was totally my mistake with updating the data. However the other 4 edits were constructive changes and any additions I made I believe all have associated references, so as I said I was going to reinstate them. Just wanted to make a defense before you see that "manual revert" tag on the edit! Sorry, and thanks! // 636Buster (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 Census in Fargo, North Dakota

Hi Mike, You reverted Fargo, North Dakota on Wikipedia. You go see click to https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fargocitynorthdakota/PST045219 . On April 1, 2020 Census is real from counting. On July 1, 2020 Estimate is not considered an estimate year. You can fix it back. Thank You. --Rossdegenstein (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted changes that were unreferenced. Note that the URL you give here does not (never has) appeared in the article. My reversion also fixed two or three visible referencing errors you introduced into the article, and fixed factual errors you introduced, too -- such as incorrect density numbers. If you'd like to revise the article with that URL as a source, you're more than welcome to do so. As a reminder, make sure to remove the 2019 estimates and their references, update the density numbers, the sources, and the population numbers throughout the article. An update that doesn't use a viable source, leaves the facts in the article in an inconsistent state, or reintroduces referencing errors isn't constructive and not welcome. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fix Comment

Sorry about my error on Slocum, Texas. It's unusual, but it happens. Mobile edit; tablets are not my best friends.--SidP (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was presented as a Cheyenne (TV series) episode: Season 6 episode 14: A Man Called Ragan

Copy to: User talk:Easyid & User talk:Mikeblas (best regard). Which have recently been on Wikipedia pages: Cheyenne (TV series) and List of Cheyenne episodes.

Season 6 episode 14: A Man Called Ragan, it was introduced as an episode of Cheyenne, but was a pilot for The Dakotas (TV series), with characters that never appeared in any other episode of Cheyenne. Cheyenne Bodie's character does not appear in this episode. “But, it was presented as a Cheyenne episode”.

Referenced in the two external links (at epguides.com & IMDb) in page List of Cheyenne episodes of WK, as “Season 6 episode 14: A Man Called Ragan”.

Pages Cheyenne (TV series) and List of Cheyenne episodes of WK, show differences in the number of episodes (107 and 108).

Cheyenne (TV series).

1. Page introduction: Cheyenne is an American Western television series of 108 black-and-white episodes broadcast on ABC from 1955 to 1962.

2. Home media DVD episodes: on that page, season 6 with 14 episodes (totaling 108 episodes).

3. Header tab (Infobox televisión): header mentions 107 episodes.

List of Cheyenne episodes.

1. Page introduction: Cheyenne is an American Western television series which ran on ABC from 1955 to 1962. The show broadcast 107 black-and-white episodes.

Episode 95?:

{{Episode list

The above, at your consideration. Good bye. 186.97.0.34 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question

How is putting 1895 in Canada references in two columns an "error?" Man1t0ba (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the version before your edits and the version after your edits. Comparing the two, you should notice an error in the references list that says "Cite error: The named reference bivouac was invoked but never defined (see the help page)" in red letters. After the references list, you should see another error which says: "Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page)."

These two errors, since they didn't appear in the version of the article before you edited it, are certainly due to your changes.

Looking into it, it seems like you added {{reflist|2}} before the existing {{reflist|refs ...}} invocation. {{reflist}} clears the reference definitions, so the second invocation did nothing. But the second invocation included a definition for the reference named "bivouac", which is why the first error appears.

The second error appears because the second invocation of the {{reflist}} template doens't have any output to generate.

In an article with so few references, it doesn't seem particularly useful to put the references into columns -- there would be two columns of three. But for sure, we want the article to render with no error messages and correctly define refernces for any of the material in the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the references & a request

The deleted references came from an content dispute, which is discussed on the talk page. I did not break the references--they were removed along with content by another editor--but I have been reluctant to fix them without restoring the content. If I did that, it would mean more work later on if any of the disputed content was to be re-added somehow.

If you would like to weigh in on the talk page, maybe a resolution can be reached more quickly. My plan was to split off the history section into another article that would also have the history previously moved to Door Peninsula. Then the Door County article would have more room for other content without getting too large. If you can come to an opinion one way or another, that would make a third opinion which could help move things along.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked it; yes you were correct that I deleted reference p45358. Thank you for fixing it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the change where you removed the definitions of <ref name=p21013> and <ref name=2018green>, which were still in-use elsewhere in the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for fixing them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]