Revision as of 17:52, 6 June 2020 editSuwritter251 (talk | contribs)44 edits →Disruptive Editing / constructive: new sectionTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:53, 6 June 2020 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,988 editsm Signing comment by Suwritter251 - "→Disruptive Editing / constructive: new section"Next edit → | ||
Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
== Disruptive Editing / constructive == | == Disruptive Editing / constructive == | ||
Could you provide some guidance on best practices for updating content and not being considering disruptive. | Could you provide some guidance on best practices for updating content and not being considering disruptive. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 17:53, 6 June 2020
Archives |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, Holiday cards 2015, 42, 43, 44, 45, Holiday cards 2016, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, Holiday cards 2017, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, Holiday cards 2018, 57, 58, 59, Holiday cards 2019, 60, 61, 62, 63 |
Sandbox
I am using this space to create my sandbox. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here is another. MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Reminders
Long term problems reminders |
---|
1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life. 2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The MO of that anon vandal seems similar to Bambifan, but that IP resolves to Michigan. Bambi does the majority of his nonsense from Alabama. However, if you even so much as think you smell this guy, please let me know. His destruction and damage is nearly incaluculable. Thanks for letting me know and believe me, asking about something like this is not a bother. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
|
another |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
one more |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Play button category removals at Ali-A
Hello MarnetteD, I just came across an edit that you made to Ali-A removing three categories stating that they were not referenced. However, the one million and 100 thousand subscriber listings were sourced at the time? I can see the diamond play button category being removed as it was not directly inline sourced at the time, but I find the other removals sort of puzzling. --TheSandDoctor 04:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello TheSandDoctor At the time I did not know that they are in a hidden section of the infobox. If you haven't restored them already please feel free to do so. Have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Will do and you as well! --TheSandDoctor 04:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Man With No Name source concerning Disney's Recess
Here is the source and proof: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887657/movieconnections/?tab=mc&ref_=tt_trv_cnn
here are the YouTube links you can use to compare them:
Recess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnnM4z4Wy6M
Fistful of Dollars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KrsO91mfBw
Good, Bad and Ugly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjq0w-tzVg4
Olivier Baghdadi (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Neither IMDb or you tube are WP:RSs. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's loss then, not mine. Olivier Baghdadi (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Recess Clint Eastwood
Will any of these sources be strong enough to prove my point concerning Recess and Clint Eastwood movies??
https://animesuperhero.com/forums/threads/fillmore-vs-recess-vs-kim-possible.3839211/
If yes, please re-add my info and any of these sources in the references section
Olivier Baghdadi (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)}...No. See WP:UGC. Cassianto 16:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the link Cassianto. OB this is one of those bits of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that just may not be suitable for an encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that it isn't interesting for you to have come up with it. You could mention it on a blog or your facebook page for sure. MarnetteD|Talk 16:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Reply: Well, if you can find a better source, find and add it here ASAP. I know I'm not crazy or making it up. I feel it in my heart that somehow it's fact more than it is an opinion despite no source or proof. I bet that if you watch those youtube links I sent you yesterday and if you don't believe me, you can judge for yourself despite not being reliable sources. Olivier Baghdadi (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- First per WP:BURDEN it is up to you to find a WP:RS. Next, my watching the links would just mean that the OR and SYNTH would have been shifted to me and that still does not work for adding the info to an encyclopedia's article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Wilde
You may want to check and sign your comment. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Gleeanon409. Jeepers with all the other spelling errors I made I shoulda seen that. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Question (not trolling)
What is a ref desk? 2606:A000:FC11:7400:B999:2D47:190D:58D1 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Another one for your RIP column
My music system is on a kind-of shuffle which takes about 15 months to go right round. I listened to some random tracks today - then paused for the TV news where I learned of the death of Little Richard. News over, I unpaused my music - and the very next tune that played was Long Tall Sally. Within half an hour, I also heard Slippin' and Slidin', and Ooh! My Soul, all three the Little Richard originals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- A truly remarkable coincidence Redrose64. I just finished sending finished texting this performance of Tutti Frutti to my friends. A funky crazy force of nature he will be missed. MarnetteD|Talk 20:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Multiple issues tag
Hey, sorry about the issue you mentioned in Special:Diff/955765301. I try to make sure to disable Twinkle's automatic creation of {{multiple issues}} tags; however, if one already exists on the page, it seems that Twinkle will add to it no matter what I do. –IagoQnsi (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message IagoQnsi. See my note in this thread User talk:MarnetteD/archive61#article tag for a fuller explanation of what happens for those of us who work on fixing bare urls when the template is placed in a MI tag. I sure do understand what you are dealing with in using twinkle. One thought is after having twinkle puts it in the MI tag you could copy paste it out of there before hitting save. Now that might be a hassle, especially when you get on a roll editing various articles, but anything you can do will be appreciated. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and stay safe. MarnetteD|Talk 02:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Queen of Hearts Film
Hello, I noticed you made a change to the genre of the film. It is actually listed as “Drama” not as a “sex crime” film. The fact you just changed it to sex crime makes me wonder about the IP editor who is claiming the same thing. Please place it as a drama as that is the correct genre for the film. Galendalia CVU Member \ 05:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I simply reverted it to the same version that you had left it at. To quote your edit summary "Restoring back to original version prior to IP editor changing". Please be a little more thorough before making silly allegations. MarnetteD|Talk 16:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Further examination leads me to believe that you got lost in all your reverting and edit warring but that is a "you problem" so change the page to whatever genre you can find a source for. The only other advice I can provide is don't accuse someone of sock/meat puppetry unless you have done a lot more investigating. While you owe me an apology I won't hold my breath waiting for it. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It was brought to my attention recently I never apologized to you for these actions. I do apologize whole heartedly and am being more careful in my steps on these issues. Galendalia Talk to me 02:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the apology Galendalia. It is appreciated. Best of luck in your future editing. MarnetteD|Talk 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Gillam Ramsbottom
Might be a sock? « Ryūkotsusei » 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- While I understand your concern Ryūkotsusei it is hard to tell anything as that is their only edit. If that changes can always file a WP:SPI - just make sure to present evidence to support your claim. MarnetteD|Talk 17:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:STUBSPACING
Marnette, please be aware of WP:STUBSPACING, and try not to "break" it when performing maintenance edits (like at Breanna Yde). Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks IJBall. I had never seen that. Will do in the future - Muscle memory may make me forget a time or two but I will be paying attention to it. Stay safe. MarnetteD|Talk 15:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)(edit conflict)@IJBall: Nothing gets broken. The direction "Leave two blank lines ..." dates back to a time when certain bots and scripts expected there to be exactly two blank lines. Those bots and scripts that are still in use have now all been amended, so one blank line is perfectly acceptable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- One, there's no reason not to follow the guideline. Two, it looks better visually to have the stub tag separated like this at the bottom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- You do know that the stub tag is still separated whether the is one space or two don't you. MarnetteD|Talk 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Do a draft edit, and look at the difference – one space, the stub tag is directly below a navbox (kind of smushed up against it); two spaces, there's a space in between. The latter looks better. And it's in the guideline. So I can't figure out why you wouldn't do it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was curious why two spaces were used Redrose64 so thanks for filling me in. Looks like the guideline could use updating since it makes no difference to the article whatsoever. MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- So what about the articles that don't have navboxes. WP:ILIKEIT is a tough sell I. MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is plenty at WT:Stub and its archives, see for example Misplaced Pages talk:Stub/Archive 11#Lines before stub template; WT:Stub#It's better two lines or no line?; but the biggest fairly-recent discussion is at WT:Stub#Double blank lines, again. If you need to see a visual gap when viewing the page, use my CSS rule that I posted at 07:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC). Of interest is that whilst MOS:LAYOUT says to put stubs after the categories, it no longer says anything about separating them with blank lines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- It "makes no difference" when you ignore things like "WP:Readers first", which far too many editors do, IMO. As for Redrose64's "technical" CSS solution for the issue, I have no opinion on that (that's above my pay grade), except to say if the same effect can be generated "manually" via code, I would certainly support that, though IMO that should be done "globally" not on an editor-by-editor basis. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- A) That is an essay not a guideline B) Where do you get off claiming I am ignoring it and C) There is no more mention of this space issue there than at "Layout" which is a guideline BTW. OTOH whenever I see "think of the readers" used in a situation like this I know we are in deep "I like it territory" since no empirical evidence has been presented about what readers do and do not like. Especially in something has minuscule and minor as a space at the bottom of an article. Since you seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick I will point out that I've never said that I won't leave two spaces from now on. There are cosmetic things that I prefer in article layout as well so I understand why this is important to you. MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- So what about the articles that don't have navboxes. WP:ILIKEIT is a tough sell I. MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was curious why two spaces were used Redrose64 so thanks for filling me in. Looks like the guideline could use updating since it makes no difference to the article whatsoever. MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Do a draft edit, and look at the difference – one space, the stub tag is directly below a navbox (kind of smushed up against it); two spaces, there's a space in between. The latter looks better. And it's in the guideline. So I can't figure out why you wouldn't do it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- You do know that the stub tag is still separated whether the is one space or two don't you. MarnetteD|Talk 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- One, there's no reason not to follow the guideline. Two, it looks better visually to have the stub tag separated like this at the bottom. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Reversion
It might be better if you edited directly, instead of reverting and editing. --Auric talk 20:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was trying to make you aware of the instructions for the template Auric so you would not put it there in the future. That is one of the options open to me and is not in violation of any policy or guideline that I am aware of. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- A simple WP:AGF edit with an appropriate summary would, IMO, have been nicer. But thanks for trying.--Auric talk 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've left that as a simple edit summary 100s of times Auric and only had a couple of editors change there habit of putting the template in the ref section. Also the instruction years ago was to put it there but those of us who work on bare urls have found the work goes more smoothly and efficiently when it is placed at the top of the article so that is why the guideline was changed. I know that not everyone is aware of the change. FWIW I find that way of pinging someone to be a drag as well but have come to accept its use - that doesn't mean you have to I'm just relating my experience. If only they'd change the color to something other than red which sets us all off :-) Apologies for the upset - in spite of this I hope that the rest of your weekend is a good one and please stay safe. MarnetteD|Talk 21:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- A simple WP:AGF edit with an appropriate summary would, IMO, have been nicer. But thanks for trying.--Auric talk 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Residence
Hello! I saw you reverted the residence attribute in one o the stubs I made. Are you by any chance a template editor? It's still in Template:Infobox_artist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi ThatMontrealIP. I'm not a template editor but I would think you could get that fixed by someone if you post at the WP:VPT or maybe the Template talk:Infobox person. That would save so many editors from filling out a field that no longer works :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
In hopes of bringing a grin to my TPWs
So in retrospect, in 2015, not a single person got the answer right to "Where so you see yourself five years from now?"
Best wishes to you all. MarnetteD|Talk 20:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
Rory Kinnear
Hi, you edited out the OCtS footnote from Rory Kinnear, but it does say that Rory Kinnear was born in 1978. I added the page number (I had forgot to write it) and the link to Google Books. Check the link. --saebou (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- The only thing that was readily apparent was the main page so thank you for fixing the ref so it supports the date. MarnetteD|Talk 01:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Katharine Hepburn edit
I was glad to see your removal of the first and middle names in "Early life and education". I regularly made edits like that based on the "second reference" style rule until I found out that many editors don't consider the lead to be the first mention, and they think the full name should be repeated later. It's good to see someone else interpret the style rule as I do. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message Eddie Blick. Between the infobox, the lede and the "Early life" (or variations on the first section header name) you can read the same info over and over again. It reminds me of a primary school kid filling out their theme papers 100 word requirement by writing I really, really really liked my summer vacation. Hmmm did I ever do that - I'm getting to old to remember :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Multiple Issues
I note from your repeated comments that it causes you problems if a bare url tag is inside an MI tag, but Twinkle does this automatically. Ingratis (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ingratis several editors have mentioned that there is a box you can check to prevent that. You could also use the show preview button and then move it out or make a second edit where you move it out of the MI tag the same way that I have to do when I get to the article. The template allows me to access refill when it stands alone but that option goes away when it is inside an MI tag. I know it is a bit of a hassle for one of the two of us but my request comes from the fact, when I have 20 or 30 articles in the bare url category to fix, any time that can be saved on my end allows me to finish them sooner. Anything you can do to help would be great but if you don't want to I understand that as well. Enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clear explanation - now I understand the problem! I'll avoid it from now on. I haven't had Twinkle for long and there are still things about it I haven't worked out yet. All best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Why we cannot use the other poster of Lawrence of Arabia as the main poster for this Misplaced Pages article?
Excuse me,I know that using this poster which is File:Lawrence of arabia ver3 xxlg.jpg that is this one: File:Lawrence_of_arabia_ver3_xxlg.jpg is used for this article but why we cannot use this poster File:Lawrence_of_Arabia.jpg since it is considered iconic.
Now I understand that poster in the main article drawn by a great poster artist Howard Terpning but still the poster that is this one File:Lawrence_of_Arabia.jpg is considered legendary and known in pop culture especially that it shows Lawrence under his Arab headdress.
So why can't we use the other poster File:Lawrence_of_Arabia.jpg as the main poster for the Misplaced Pages article instead of this one File:Lawrence_of_arabia_ver3_xxlg.jpg? --Belrien12 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- My first suspicion would be WP:NFCCP#1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- So then how will I make this poster File:Lawrence_of_Arabia.jpg non-free and publish in the Misplaced Pages article? --Belrien12 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would not object to putting the poster you like (IMO calling it legendary is an exaggeration) in the body of the article but the one currently in the infobox is preferable for that location. As to fixing the the WP:NFCCP#1 status you can ask for assistance at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Belrien12: You misunderstand; you can't "make this poster File:Lawrence_of_Arabia.jpg non-free" because it already is non-free. I mention WP:NFCCP#1 because it says that we cannot use non-free images if a free-use alternative exists; and you have shown that such an alternative does exist, being File:Lawrence of arabia ver3 xxlg.jpg. Non-free content policy says that unless all ten of the criteria can be met, a non-free image cannot be used. Since criterion 1 (No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.) has not been met, File:Lawrence of Arabia.jpg cannot be used (and consequently should be deleted) - we don't even need to check the other nine criteria. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this Redrose64. Your attention to detail is always appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Belrien12: You misunderstand; you can't "make this poster File:Lawrence_of_Arabia.jpg non-free" because it already is non-free. I mention WP:NFCCP#1 because it says that we cannot use non-free images if a free-use alternative exists; and you have shown that such an alternative does exist, being File:Lawrence of arabia ver3 xxlg.jpg. Non-free content policy says that unless all ten of the criteria can be met, a non-free image cannot be used. Since criterion 1 (No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.) has not been met, File:Lawrence of Arabia.jpg cannot be used (and consequently should be deleted) - we don't even need to check the other nine criteria. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would not object to putting the poster you like (IMO calling it legendary is an exaggeration) in the body of the article but the one currently in the infobox is preferable for that location. As to fixing the the WP:NFCCP#1 status you can ask for assistance at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- So then how will I make this poster File:Lawrence_of_Arabia.jpg non-free and publish in the Misplaced Pages article? --Belrien12 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Link Rot / Curbside Value Partnership
I'm a bit confused. Could you clarify please?
You have | Failed | This Universe | —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Please see the two threads labelled "multiple issues" higher up on this talk page for an explanation DarklitShadow. In a nutshell I know twinkle puts them inside the MI tag but there are ways around that. If you can use one of those it helps those of us who format the bare urls. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I understand now. You have | Failed | This Universe | 22:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks DarklitShadow. Happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 22:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing / constructive
Could you provide some guidance on best practices for updating content and not being considering disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suwritter251 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)