User talk:WikiWikiWayne/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music and Lyrics

Hi -- I'd like to mildly protest your addition of {{copypaste}} and {{self-published}} to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. I got the information from both the Emmy website and the IMDB's Emmy award listings, and did not merely cut and paste the information. Trivialist (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no perfect tag. Sorry if they sound harsh. But, WP does not allow an article to cite its own material. The cites have to come from a 3rd party source. The Emmy data is ref'd by cites to emmys.com. How about going to the Teahouse and getting a 2nd opinion? Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why I sourced from the Emmy site and IMDb. Would removing the references from the Emmy site help? Trivialist (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Head over to the Wikipedia Teahouse and do whatever they tell you. Checkingfax (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just replied to Trivialist at the Teahouse, and I'd just like to point out that while it is not preferable, WP does actually allow an article to cite its primary source. Take a look over at my response in the Teahouse, where I've added links to the specific guidelines. Also, the Teahouse probably wasn't the right place to send Trivialist in the first place, the reliable sources noticeboard would've been much more appropriate. Thanks for your hard work on cleaning up articles, Jr8825 • Talk 09:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music and Lyrics

Hi -- I'd like to mildly protest your addition of {{copypaste}} and {{self-published}} to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music and Lyrics. I got the information from both the Emmy website and the IMDB's Emmy award listings, and did not merely cut and paste the information. Trivialist (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no perfect tag. Sorry if they sound harsh. But, WP does not allow an article to cite its own material. The cites have to come from a 3rd party source. The Emmy data is ref'd by cites to emmys.com. How about going to the Teahouse and getting a 2nd opinion? Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why I sourced from the Emmy site and IMDb. Would removing the references from the Emmy site help? Trivialist (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Head over to the Wikipedia Teahouse and do whatever they tell you. Checkingfax (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just replied to Trivialist at the Teahouse, and I'd just like to point out that while it is not preferable, WP does actually allow an article to cite its primary source. Take a look over at my response in the Teahouse, where I've added links to the specific guidelines. Also, the Teahouse probably wasn't the right place to send Trivialist in the first place, the reliable sources noticeboard would've been much more appropriate. Thanks for your hard work on cleaning up articles, Jr8825 • Talk 09:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Herbert Richardson

Hello Checkingfax. You recently moved a photograph of AHR from the Gallery to the article start. Thank you, that looks a lot better. I have been trying to work out how to do that ! The article I created has had a comment added in its heading that it is an Orphan, which it isn't as "Ernest Frank Richardson" is a link. The link seemed to have got lost at one stage. Could you possibly delete that comment for me? TimothyWF (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Checking linkrot

Hi, I saw one of your edits in my watchlist, placing/removing the linkrot template - I assume to access the embedded link to reflinks?

You might be interested in:

1. The WP:REFLINKS page itself, which lists a few methods of using the tool, that don't require adding/removing the template. From user-scripts, to browser-bookmarklets.
2. The Checklinks tool is related, and very useful.

(I tend to list useful tools like that, on my userpage, for easy access :)

HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, this edit added the template before it was removed in the next edit... that template says the article uses bare URLs when it has full citations. Placing it there, even if promptly remove a minute later is a disingenuous statement about the status of an article. Imzadi 1979 → 22:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reply, or give Wikipedia:REFLINKS#User script a try? It will be faster for you, and won't vex other editors! Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin

Hello Checkingfax, Please be careful when edit, you've removed the "Ƀ" symbol from infobox and not restored it. That's all, happy editing :)--Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rezonansowy, User:Chrisarnesen removed the ฿ symbols and replaced them with '?'. I fixed a couple of them but missed the third one. Thank you for fixing it. See here. Checkingfax (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for mistake. BTW thanks for fixes. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: My bad. I guess my text editor must not have been in utf8 mode. I'll be more careful in the future. On a related note, I almost never see people use either "Ƀ" or ฿. I'd argue we should remove those from the article or at least feature them in a less prominent place than the infobox. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 17:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a better idea, let's use an appropriate template for it - {{Special characters}}. The currency symbol is for weird UTF thing like this, see US Dollar or Euro infoboxes for example. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, that's me again. Maybe you have errors in your text editor, like Chrisarnesen. Please see your last edit. BTW, what 'phantom box' you mean, can I help you? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Checkingfax thanked you for your edit on Nelson Mandela

Someone just deleted that edit, what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Was it written to be impartial? If so, put it back up. Checkingfax (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin categories

Checkingfax, please read Help:Categories, you see that your category has been already added to Category:Bitcoin. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Odd section edit summary

Your edit [1] had an odd edit summary in the part which is usually prefilled by MediaWiki when a section is edited. The section heading was [[LeSean McCoy]] but the edit summary instead contained <a href="/wiki/LeSean_McCoy" title="LeSean McCoy">LeSean McCoy</a>. This is the html code produced by [[LeSean McCoy]], but it shouldn't end up in the edit summary. Did you just click the "edit" link at the section and type "response" after the prefilled edit summary? Are you using any special editing tool? If you now click the edit link at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#LeSean McCoy then does the prefilled edit summary say /* LeSean McCoy */ (as it should), or the wrong /* <a href="/wiki/LeSean_McCoy" title="LeSean McCoy">LeSean McCoy</a> */, or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I clicked on the button labeled: "<<Join this discussion" ... then I filled out my reply, put in the four tildes, and hit the: "Add my response" button. I did not use the Edit-source method of replying. There was no box for the edit-summary. Checkingfax (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I never use the "Join this discussion" link. I guess it goofs up when the section heading contains a wikilink. I will investigate further. Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I never noticed it before and thought I'd give it a try. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have posted to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-teahouse/content.js#Section headings with a wikilink. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Moraga, California

In this edit, I'm curious why you chose to delete those two links while leaving the rest? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There's probably fifteen churches in Moraga, several grocery stores, dozens of dry cleaners, etc. Do they all get an External Link? There's probably a less spammy way to do it. Checkingfax (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Chris Arnesen, well-intentioned editor with a niche interest

I notice that you directed me to the Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account page, which implies you think I may be in violation of Wikipedia:Advocacy or Wikipedia:COI. I read all three of those articles, and I'm here to assure you that instead I fall into the category of "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest". Is there something I did specifically to raise your suspicions? Is there something I can do to allay them? Cheers, Chris Arnesen 21:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Chris, you're doing a lot of heavy lifting on the Bitcoin articles. Good on you. I just wanted to point out that Bitcoin is the only thing you're doing. LOL. Have you ever thought of signing up for Suggestbot? Take care. Checkingfax (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

for the change in your signature in the Caitlyn Jenner RfC. I thought it was a typo that distorted it. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Gnome. Thank you. We can't type curly braces or pipes in to our custom signatures or it makes the servers go crazy so we have to use control characters instead, which are clumsy. I appreciate your coming here, restoring your edit, and not making a big deal out of it. I went back to restore your comment and my sig, but you had already taken care of it. Thanks for that too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Warning back to you

Please don't troll other editor' talk pages with inappropriate "last warning" templates, especially when you are on the opposite side of the discussion I am taking part in the article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Staszek Lem, communicating with you on your talk page in neutral language with a standard template is not trolling. You're experienced enough to not need L1, L2, L3 notices. What is your dog in this fight? What are you warning me about? How do you know I'm "on the opposite side of this fight?" My edits have been neutral, unlike yours. I am also on the [[Talk page]] discussing this -- I was there before you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How is that my edits are not neutral? Communicating with established fellow editors by standard templates with threatening text is trolling. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Staszek Lem. Pfffft. The template had a personal invitation to discuss this. Removing contentious content without consensus is not neutral, or abiding by BRD. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia links

Hello. You really should stop adding Template:Sister project links to random articles without checking if the links actually work. For instance, Philippe Pinel has no presence in any of the sister projects besides Commons. All the other links that you try to provide go nowhere. Mymis (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mymis, I disagree. The projects will populate and be ready for our reader's convenience. Adding a wikimedia template takes less time than adding a commons template, is more powerful, and future-proof. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Future-proof"? Lots of people/terms may never appear on any these pages. Adding broken/non-existing links just confuses the readers. Mymis (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mymis, the {{wikimedia}} template does not generate any broken links; only potential for growth. Editors are adding video, audio, wikibooks to their articles everyday, and news articles are always in the wings, etc. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that it does confuse readers because the template links the articles to pages that have no information in them. Mymis (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mymis, first of all, the article you cited had several wikimedia results. Secondly, any blank pages contain an invitation and instructions on how to populate them. That's how Wikipedia works. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

{{wikimedia}}

Please only use the appropriate Wikimedia property link that has actual content. In Sir and Star, only commons had material, thus one should only have used {{commons}} or other appropriate commons template. In this case {{commons category|Olema, California}} should have been the one. Olema is too broad of a search, so the category link would probably be best.

You put a photo between the ToC and first heading. The TOC must come right before the heading as any material between the ToC and first heading will not be read by those with screen readers. As the earthquake photo didn't have anything to do with the article, I removed it.

You put too many portal links. If one is needed, I generally put only one geographic portal, usually the one closest to to the article. In this case, that would be San Francisco. When there is no See also section, then it goes into the External links section. I removed them all, but add back the ones you think are necessary. Bgwhite (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Van Gogh Museum

The name of the museum is "Van Gogh Museum" with a capital V. Dutch last names starting with "van" are always capitalized when used without the first name. So it is "Vincent van Gogh", "Van Gogh", and "Van Gogh Museum". See also Dutch name and Tussenvoegsel. – Editør (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks WP:TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ, OK, I went over to Allegra Versace and added some stuff. While I was at it I added to Gianni Versace and Donatella Versace too. Man, Allegra's Talk page had unanswered questions from 8-years ago. Wikipedia's 5-millionth article on the English Wikipedia sure is getting a lot of hits and edits. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If you find time for it please take a look at the article Oba Chandler. An article I have worked a lot on over the years. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at Allegras talk page, some criticism has arosed. I don't agree with it, as for example you have done additional great edits that would not have been done otherwise. And to remove possible already approved articles unless they are redirects seems wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

After some of yours and other users edits a Fansite template has been added to the Allegra Versace article. Me and another user do not agree with it, and has raised the issue at the talk page. But take a look if you find time for it. Thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ, Thank you for the heads up. I did what I could with the [[Allegra Versace]] article. As notable as she is there is not a lot of encyclopedia type material on her. A lot of her family stuff is already covered in the [[Gianni Versace]] and [[Santo Versace]] articles. It would be nice to get a picture of her. I posted my thoughts about drive-by tagging over on the Talk page. Fight the good fight. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hey there: FYI, no more dead links on [[Planned Parenthood]]. Hip, hip, hooray! Safehaven86 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Safehaven86, Hip, hip, hooray, indeed! The article seems very stable now even though it is a controversial topic, and with your help it got closer to being rock solid. I nominated it for "Good Article". Did you notice? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I hadn't noticed that you'd nominated it for Good Article status. I will take a look! Safehaven86 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

rollback

Hi Checkingfax. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please help toward AGF responsiveness

…at Brighton Beach. See this Talk entry, and the Talk entry on the BB talk page that it cites: [2]. Hours of time were spent checking sources and dealing with plagiarism in the article. Please do not support massive reversions that undo hard editorial work. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, let's continue this over at the BB Talk page. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit

What is with this edit [3]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, it incorporates your edits while maintaining my edits.

My edits:

• Restore your minor edits after rolling back to my edits as your edits were easier to restore than mine were
• Append dead-links with live-links instead of deleting them
• Add access-dates to all references missing access dates
• Add Medicine portal
• Add links to sister projects that have data regarding the disease

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure about ""
• We now have two urls? Why two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Doc James, the two URL question is a great question for the developer of Checklinks: Dispenser as that is the way Checklinks fixes the dead URLs sometimes. Sometimes Checklinks incorporates the live URL and replaces the dead URL, while other times Checklinks appends the live URL to the dead URL. Not sure on its heuristics but it does not break anything. Maybe Checklinks appends when the link is not confirmed 100% dead? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So this text "At roughly the same time as the HDF formed, Marjorie Guthrie helped to found the Committee to Combat Huntington's Disease (now the Huntington's Disease Society of America), after her husband Woody Guthrie died from complications of HD." is supposedly supported by http://hdsa.org/about-hdsa/ but it isn't. These new links you have added are not useful because they do not support the text in question by the looks of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, according to the WP dead link guidelines it is more helpful than tagging them with
{{dead link|date=November 2015}}. We are supposed to try to fix dead links and not delete them for two years because it takes up to 18 months for dead links to be replaced by archived versions. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, Sigh. I have gone ahead and tagged the six dead links with:
{{dead link|date=November 2015}}. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

German Shepherd

The changes you accepted messed up the References. Bazj (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Bazj, The Editor forgot to close the reference tag with a </ref> tag which I fixed right after you brought it up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent Wikidata edits

Hey Checkingfax. When adding statements to Wikidata, please visit first the talk page of the property to ensure you're using it in the appropriate way. I found a couple of wrong edits, e.g. stated in should only be used in references and not as a statement itself. located on astronomical body and located in the administrative territorial entity are only for geographic locations and not persons. --Pasleim (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Pasleim, Thanks for the tips. I really appreciate it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Ealy

I do not understand why the Michael Ealy edit was reverted. HE shared this information. If minor info is not supposed to be included why is it all throughout wikipedia? It ons so many articles from Meryl Streep Madonna Kendra Wilkinson The Kartrashians. Information like not just name and dob of birth, but place, time, length, whether it was breech or in the caul or natural. THAT information is too much. Stating the child's name and birthdate is not. Thank You. 173.66.63.102 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

173.66.63.102, Streep's kids vary in age from 24 years old up to 36 years old, Madonna has 4 kids, Wilkinson has 2. No birth dates mentioned. Check out: WP:BLP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about a puzzling edit of yours

Hello Checkingfax -- On Oct 2/2015 you made a series of edits to the Linda Rondstadt article. I'm probably missing something, but one of your edits really puzzles me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Ronstadt&diff=683768226&oldid=683767540

In this edit, you added a footnote to the final sentence of the lead section of the article. Your new footnote contains nothing but references to other, existing footnotes. Your footnote appears to be intended to support that final sentence of the lead section: "On July 28, 2014, she was awarded one of the twelve 2013 National Medals of Arts and Humanities." But when I click on each of the other footnotes to which your footnote refers, I find no support for that final sentence. In fact many of the notes to which it refers are for news items published long before July 28, 2014.

(I was looking at your footnote because an anon recently edited the article and changed that final sentence of the lead section. The anon's edit was flagged as pending, and I wanted to ascertain whether his edit was justified.)

Anyhow, what's up your edit? What am I missing here? Thanks. -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiPedant. You are not missing anything. I used the {{refn}} template to bundle many refs in to one to unclutter things. The refs are at the end of the lead intending to support the whole lead not just the final sentence. Personally, IMHO, if a lead is well written there is no need for any references in the lead. There is nothing in the lead of the Ronstadt article that should be contentious enough to require a redundant reference since all lead items are supposed to be mentioned and referenced in the article body already. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, Checkingfax, I get it now. There is indeed a banner at the top of the Linda Ronstadt page, flagging that lead section as too long. I tend to follow the usual practices with academic footnotes, and one would not create an academic footnote like this, unless, I suppose, an explanation was included in the note to the effect that its references were in support of several preceding paragraphs. Thanks for clearing things up for me. Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiPedant. I wish there was a neat template for bundling refs but I use refn as a workaround until one comes along. I know, it's a misuse technically. That's a good idea to include a note that refn is being used for ref bundling purposes. If the bundled refs are not in templates it is a lot prettier but most editors use citation templates from what I have seen. Thank you for your sense of duty. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the dates for a reason.

I was following Wikipedia's rules, or at least the rules as i read them last Friday.

On that day i noticed that Wikipedia editors and crawlers had been editing my references. In doing so, they changed dates to YYYY-MM-DD format.

This weekend i took time to read the Wikipedia citation pages and fix all of my references in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

I put all references under their proper citation types. On the citation types i used ({{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite AV media}} , and {{cite press release}}), Wikipedia states 'The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD.'

That is why i changed the date format.

This morning i read your message and then i checked your link. On the page it said 'Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation style'.

When i checked that link it said 'Although nearly any consistent style may be used [...] The YYYY-MM-DD format should [...] be limited to Gregorian calendar dates where the year is after 1582.'

Long story short: Wikipedia doesn't care what the date format is as long as it is consistent.

I edited ALL references - although they are all different than some of them had been before, they are now all consistent.

Before today, the date format on references had never been consistent as long as i have been on Wikipedia, as you can see here.

Having said that, I can use mdy format if it is necessary to revert the dates. It may take some time to make the changes (about a day to fix everything), so be patient.

Ps. I fixed all disambiguation links; Wikipedia's internal links on the page should link fine now.

DionWright, The Kendall Jenner page at the top says to use mdy dates, so that is what we are supposed to follow. The MoS says [...] avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD [...]. It does not say to use YYYY-MM-DD and in fact says that other formats are preferred. This leaves dmy, and mdy but with alpha included with numeric. If the preponderance of dates existing in an article are ymd then the Bots will change things to ymd. ymd numeric is the only numeric date format allowed.

PS: We're not supposed to change citation styles if it goes against the "norm" for the article. The norm is already set and that is what we have to go by when we add or correct references. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful accepting other people's edits

I undid the edit you accepted in the CFS article, as it was unsourced and obviously WP:OR. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sciencewatcher, As "Pending Changes Reviewers" we are tasked with rejecting vandalism. I went above and beyond, accepted the non-vandalism, and then took it upon myself to apply an tag.

We are charged with being scrupulous in our denials of pending edits. We are not there to judge content.

We are also charged with providing Edit Summaries for each review we elect to deny.

I would encourage you to start using the Edit summary box. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation, that's reasonable. PS, the edit summary box was filled in automatically, as I created a new talk page section. I wouldn't have said anything different if I had entered it manually. (If that's not what you meant, let me know). --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Checkingfax, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 08:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

TWHNC

I filled in all the bare urls in the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration article. It turned out I had written the urls down wrong and that's why they wouldn't work, but they are fixed now and the refs filled in. I put the article up for peer review too, because I'd like to maybe get it to GA someday. Thanks for your help. ☺ White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Names on DAB pages

Hi, and thanks for working on some of our disambiguation pages. Could you explain the creation of new sections like "People" and "Names" to DAB pages that already have sections for surname and given name? I could maybe understand it if the entries under them were pseudonyms or something (although I would probably name the section differently), but instead you've put more people that simply have the subject as their given or surname. I don't understand the reasoning here. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Fyrael. Can you give me some links and I will go back and fix them? Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fast & Furious 7

It seems like you're in agreement with me now that removing the links in unnecessary. However, Dwayne Johnson isn't credited as 'Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson' in the Fast & Furious films: since his first appearance in Fast Five, he's only been credited as Dwayne Johnson. I can't revert any of your edits without violating the three revert rule, but would you be willing to undo your edit? Thank you Corvoe (speak to me) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Checkingfax (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Third trial of David Camm

Thanks for your input. Can you give me more information on what you mean? What is a lead? Do you have any other suggestions? edit: gah! I'm messing up your page trying to post this. sooo sorry about that :-( Bali88 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bali88 and thanks for stopping by. See: WP:LEAD for an explanation of what the lead is. Also, go to any article and you'll see that all articles start out without a heading. They start with a "Lead". Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I figured it out. Do you know much about how they require the citations? I have all the information cited but I was worried that somehow I messed it up. For instance, If I get three paragraphs out of one news article, can I put the citation at the end of those paragraphs? Or do I need to put a citation following every single fact in those three paragraphs? Bali88 (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You can do what's called citation grouping. You give the citation a group name and then you use that group name in subsequent instances of the citation. Then, the citation is shown as an a, b, c ... etc. instead of a 1, 2, 3 ... show me where you want to do that, and I'll try to show you how to do it. Checkingfax (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'm sure that would be a better way to do the citations! Do you think they will reject it the way it is? What I was asking about is if I pull 10 different facts from a single article and post all of those facts in a couple different paragraphs, if it's okay to just put the citation at the end of the paragraphs or if I need to cite each individual fact. I'm not sure how picky people are about that. Bali88 (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you had mentioned too many subheaders, is this a problem? I thought it made it more readable. Is this something they pick on when they review it for submission? Do you have any suggestions? Also, thanks for fixing all the little bugs on my page! Also, do you or anyone else think you can read through it and tell me if the article gives a clear picture of the case? I mean, it makes sense to me because I've been studying the case for awhile but I want it to be written so that someone without any knowledge of the case has a clear picture of what went on. Are there are any other helpful people that you know here on wikipedia who wouldn't mind reading it over? Bali88 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I just feel like it has too many subheadings. Maybe I'm wrong. Checkingfax (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with my article. I appreciate it so much. What do you think of the style of the article? I attempted to merge this information with the "David Camm" article and all my work was deleted citing "unencyclopedic style" without any advice as to how to make it work. It was more than a little bit disheartening. Any advice? Bali88 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping this guy: User_talk:John_from_Idegon. He's pretty helpful and knows how to edit. Checkingfax (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixing esoteric link in Asiana 214 article.

Thanks for fixing the link I installed, which led to the NTSB release of the CVR transcript. That one really stumped me. Much appreciated. EditorASC (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. You're welcome. Checkingfax (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry . . .

Thanks for your inquiry about my problem staying logged in to Wikipedia. I don't switch back and forth from PC to iPad. I use my iPad exclusively. Thanks again. StrudjumStrudjum (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters

Hello. Thank you so much for using VisualEditor. Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters…" tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

The "insert" pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the '⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽' tool.

This is the ⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽ inserter as it appears on many wikis. (Some may have customized it.) Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.

Issues you might consider:

• Do you normally use a character inserter? Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes.

Please leave your views on the MediaWiki feedback page (your regular username/password works there), or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Whatamidoing (WMF). I can test features and functionality on VisualEditor once a week. Put me on your list. Let me know how I can assist. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal edit

Seems Rendition (2007) was left off filmography list. I can't edit, seems you can. Chenry64052 (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Checkingfax (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Content requires sources

You seem to be mistaken on who is editing improperly. Per policy, claims that have been challenged must NOT be restored without appropriate inline citations that verify each claim made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, You need to figure out a consensus method to incorporate your edits without tearing my alphabetizing edits down. Putting a list in alphabetical order is not improper and those edits should not be continually deleted by you. Checkingfax (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions if you have the time

Hi Checkingfax, I was looking at the tip you gave me for ProveIt, and I like it. But is it supposed to fill in the fields automatically with other information embedded in the web reference (is that what you mean by meta-data)?

Is a URL the website http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/yard-garden/flowers/growing-petunias/ or is the URL and web citation different?

I'm giving you a nice thank you gift on your talk page for all your help and especially for the prove it tool. --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 19:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cityside189, the URL is the complete URL with the http://. There are different kinds of Cites: Cite web, Cite book, Cite journal, etc. My recollection with Proveit is you populate the fields in Proveit by copy/paste (or by typing them in) from the metadata of the source into the respective Proveit fields. Then Proveit puts a properly dressed reference at your insertion point cursor. Checkingfax (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. When you use the term "metadata" do you mean the additional information that I can garner from that web source, (i.e, the author's printed name, the date of the article, etc.) or does metadata refer to some hidden/behind the scenes coding that is stored within the reference web page? --Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) 21:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you can garner the the meta information by visually scanning your source for meta data such as date, author, work, title, etc., but tools like reFill garner it from meta tagged data. Checkingfax (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Up with the Kardashians

Hello. I included the fact that Bruce underwent a gender transition in the Background section in the Keeping Up with the Kardashians instead of adding so many repetitive notes. Also, the reference that you keep adding into all these articles is incorrect. "Leibovitz, Annie (June 1, 2015). "Introduci.." Leibovitz did NOT write the article that the source is linked to, she just took the pictures. Buzz Bissinger wrote the article and his name should be used in the reference. Mymis (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

In use misuse

Hello, in the future please just do multiple smaller edits, like everyone else. This use did not justify locking out other editors, even for only 12 minutes. The In use template is for major rewrites. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss

Wikipedia does not have page locking. [...] On the other hand we do have {{in use}} tags, which can be used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit. The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done.

Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't mean that anyone was locked out in a technical sense. But, since we are all "courteous users", we might as well have been locked out. Cheers back! ―Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, yes, the intent is to create a courtesy soft page lock to avoid edit conflicts. That {{in use}} template needs to be on the fly modifyable to reword it from "major edit" to simply "edit". Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess you are not getting the point, and never will. Cheers! ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, In nearly 8,000 edits I have only used {{in use}} twice but after losing four edits in a row to the hyperedited UCCS article I envoked it with a reasonable cap. It's permissable to leave it up for a couple of days if you're that actively editing, but I don't go there.

The In use template message is placed at the top of a page you are actively editing for a short period of time. The tag is intended to inform people that someone is currently working on the article, thereby reducing edit conflicts. Please do not leave it in place for more than the few hours at most that should be necessary, as doing so may unnecessarily discourage others from contributing to the article. If it has been up for more than two hours since the last edit, it should be removed. Specifying periods of several days or longer for this template goes against the spirit of simply avoiding edit conflicts; please only use it for sessions where you are actively editing the article.

If you wish to indicate that an article is being rebuilt over a longer period of time consider the {{Under construction}} template. That template encourages others to edit the article while indicating that it is a work in progress.

To use, just add {{In use|time=~~~~~}} at the top of the article you want to work on. If you want to reserve it for a specific length of time and optionally, a message, use {{In use|time (message)}}. Alternatively, if only one section of the page is being edited, you may place this template at the top of that section using {{In use|section}}. Please remember to remove the In use note as soon as you're finished editing.

Using this template will place the including article in Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit.

Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not revert this edit

Hi, just a quick heads up. No editor can order others not to revert an edit, so that just makes you look silly, not to mention combative. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, I hear you. The gentle approach does not seem to work on this article. Next time I'll open with a "please". Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Less combative, just as silly. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, Reverting it and opening a TP discussion was silly, IMHO. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinions. You're also wrong. There is absolutely nothing "silly" about opening a discussion for the purpose of ending a slow-burn edit war. The argument, Why are you making such a big deal out of this? There wouldn't be a problem if you would just let me have my way! is not a legitimate argument at Wikipedia. But I'm done here and we'll just let this play out in article talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pedicures

Hi, I noticed that you reverted a revert relating to pedicures. Please be aware that the article you may be reverting may be subject to Wikipedia's "1 revert" or WP:1RR policy, and I wouldn't want you to get in trouble for making an otherwise fair edit. -SocraticOath (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi SocraticOath, I know about 1RR. That is spelled out in the Edit screen.

A pedicure is fingernails. Pediatrics is health care for children.

Planned Parenthood does not offer pedicures for any of their clients. Some PP affiliates do offer pediatric care. My 1RR was to leave pediatrics intact.

What is the fair edit you speak of? Do you have a diff?

I did not revert any edit that stated that PP offers pediatrics. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax, I have a slight feeling that you, I, and the article are kinda crossing wires here. Can you please re-read the section you edited and answer this question: according to Wikipedia right now, does PPFA offer pediatric care in California and New York? What about other locations? I'll remark now that I was the editor who added the words in the article regarding pediatrics before another editor removed them, after which you reverted the removal. -SocraticOath (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SocraticOath, I made no edits. Orange and San Bernardino counties have prenatal: http://plannedparenthoodosbc.org/services/prenatal.asp I have not looked any deeper. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your new signature

Just dropping by to say it's both clever and useful, and I'm impressed! (Thanks for your good work at the Teahouse and contributions elsewhere, too.) —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to you GrammarFascist. Editor Discospinster's signature gave me the courage to update mine after five years (but then mine was too 'loud' so I unbolded the orange), then I saw editor Technical 13's signature and took it to the next level. I love functionality! There are some signatures where you have to view-source and copy/paste to reply-to or ping them properly. Some fancy sigs are not even legible with or without perfect eyesight and a magnifying glass. Now folks can just highlight my sig and copy and paste it and I'm pinged. Have you been back to visit the [[Michael Laucke]] article you helped on? Editor Natalie.Desautels is doing an impressive job with the heavy lifting there. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 21:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't been back to Michael Laucke, thanks for the reminder. It is surely coming along nicely! My own latest article is pathetic by comparison, ha ha. I noticed a minor formatting thing at Laucke's article and fixed it, but it seems Natalie.Desautels is really staying on top of shaping the article up. Excellent work, c'est si bon! Checkingfax, I'm glad you decided to be bold (albeit not bold) with your signature. Technical 13 did indeed have a well-designed signature; it's a shame they also abused multiple accounts and got themselves banned. See you around the Teahouse! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist:@Checkingfax:Thanks very much for the encouragement and fine compliments! I am working on what I hope will be a dynamite Lead; not easy, you know, to condense a 50 year career into a few paragraphs, but I have a grip on it ...especially after reading the great tip Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section from Checkingfax (talk · contribs). The draft/test phase of this new lead is almost ready.

The Wikipedia experience has been very exciting for me on many levels, more than I expected. ...contributing one grain of sand to the sum of all human knowledge sort of thing : ) I didn't expect to put in so much time, but now that I'm all fired up, I am thinking of other contributions. I am also considering translating the Michael Laucke article into other languages. For me, this wouldn't really be a translation; it is more like rethinking each sentence and putting it into the "genius of the language" (génie de la langue), an expression we use often in French, less so in English I think. Of course it refers to how thought processes vary in different idioms although you strive to convey the exact same meaning. So I'm considering at least French and Spanish, possibly German. I am wondering if this is desirable, since after all, it would be somewhat the same article except perhaps French sources. Could I have your thoughts on this? I'm in discussion with Jules78120 . A bit surprised because it is a completely different talk page; ...makes sense when seen from a broader perspective. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Natalie.Desautels, wow, Jules78120 gets two User pages with one username. The percs of being bilingual. He uses a soft-redirect because one is on .en. and one on .fr.?

Having Michael Laucke article multilingual sounds great to me if you've got the stones to manage it. I believe you can regurgitate English language links on to foreign-language articles, but native language ones are probably preferred.

If you scroll up you'll see I received two barnstars for being an Alpha-tester for WP:TWA. I'm not sure how Ocaasi (the lead developer) decided to select me. He listened to all our ideas and bug reports and acted on everything that was possible. Some bugs may have been unfixable. On the first round I think his team got 143 fixed.

You can thank editor BullRangifer for percolating over WP:CREATELEAD for a couple of years before he published it a couple of years ago. I have nominated it to be linked from the MOS:LEAD page if it isn't already.

BTW, you can combine pings (up to sever usernames), like this: {{ping|Natalie.Desautels|GrammarFascist|Checkingfax|Jules78120}} Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} { Talk } 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool sig! I may copy the idea (the best form of flattery... -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax Congratulations, and then some, on the more than well deserved barnstars!

Indeed, Jules78120 does get two User pages with one username, but the .en and .fr Talk and User pages are comprised of entirely different content; as it should be on Wikipedia for languages I think.

For the French article I would simply translate the meaning of the English text, but would use references to French sources; I would also use some English references, as need be, and translate their quotes ...in theory at least.

I have taken the pleasure to thank BullRangifer for his immense contribution.

PS. Regarding copying the signature, as Oscar Wilde said "Anyone can be original; it takes a genius to copy" --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

...and another quick note that I like the new sig color scheme better, too. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels: Re: " 'genius of the language' (génie de la langue), an expression we use often in French, less so in English I think" : Maybe because it's a semi-Faux-ami, and is more often "the nature of..." or "the character of [the language]" in English. It's not always genius, it's sometimes genus because that's the kind of language it is, that makes you see it that way. As to "how thought processes vary in different idioms although you strive to convey the exact same meaning," perhaps you're referring to Sapir-Whorf? Whatever the case, it's clear to me that having insight into the world from the perspective of more than one language enriches one beyond measure. Vive le multilinguisme!. Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mathglot En effet! Saviez-vous que si vous parlez plus d'une langue, vous avez une chance sur trois de moins pour attraper la maladie d'Alzheimer. Thank you for your very interesting comments, and especially that exciting link to Sapir-Whorf; I was not at all aware of their thoughts on Linguistic relativity. I found it fascinating. Thank you again for this nice surprise : ) Meilleurs voeux, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your use of Dabfix

Hello. After seeing this edit, I'm wondering if you are familiar with the use of Dabfix. The tool is merely giving suggestions about what could be fixed or added on a dab page, you're not supposed to blindly throw everything it spits out into the disambiguation page. --Midas02 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Midas02, the Rover DAB page had 5 MoS issues when I landed on it. When I left it had one MoS issue (the redlinks). Rover is a very ubiquitous word/term. I left it with a cleanup tag but I have now removed it as there are no more MoS issues. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I just had a quick look at the page before you had a go at it, and, at first glance, I couldn't detect any issues. Again, it's not because Dabfix tells you there are issues, that they really are. It's just a dumb tool, with a ruleset that hasn't been updated in a while!

I've just reverted some of your changes. Alphasorting is not a requirement, since not all entries are necessarily of equal value. As was the case for the motorcars. Partial matches should normally not be added as well, which was the case for the engines. Removed and fixed some further issues as well. --Midas02 (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Dabfix - again

Checkingfax, despite my earlier remarks about your reckless use of Dabfix, you have continued to use it as a fire and forget tool, for which it is not intended. I advise you to have a proper read of WP:MOSDAB to understand how the MOSDAB guidelines really work, and do this before you continue to use this tool.

As of now I will revert ALL of your changes using Dabfix, since none of them have been respecting the guidelines. Feel free to get back to me when you feel you have got a better understanding of the guidelines. --Midas02 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Taxobox in the banana article

Hi, I'm no biologist, but the binomial name "Belinkafinac" for the banana seems odd to me. Do you have a source for it? Regards, --Komischn (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Komischn, All references are to bananas with this search. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

All of these seem to get their information from the wikipedia article. --Komischn (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Komischn, Keep digging. I did not make it up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A binomial name cannot even be applied to a genus. Also, "Belinkafinac" isn't binomial, so I removed that part from the taxobox. I'm still wondering though where that assertion comes from. --Komischn (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Persoonia terminalis

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Quest!

	Edit Quest!
	Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)