Revision as of 15:51, 11 November 2020 editMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:13, 15 November 2020 edit undoNihiltres (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators83,813 edits →ISBN stuff: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=987068356 --> | <!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=987068356 --> | ||
== ISBN stuff == | |||
Hey, I found your edit ] to be somewhat odd; you added an equals sign to an ISBN making it incorrect, and you removed hyphenation from a correctly-hyphenated ISBN in the same edit. It's not a big deal, but I figured I'd flag those for you as undesirable changes. If that's part of a script you're using, you should double-check that script's output before submitting edits. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{{] |] |]}}</span> 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:13, 15 November 2020
This is Srich32977's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
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, 29Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
|
G13
Hi Srich32977. I have reverted your edits (example: 1) to Pee Tern's sandbox pages. None of these are even remotely eligible for WP:CSD#G13, so please don't tag them again. Thanks, FASTILY 04:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Please help me out. Pee Tern created lots of sandbox pages which now look like abandoned drafts. I caught notice of them when looking at some categories related to templates. It seems Pee Tern added categories to some of the drafts. See Category:Anthropomorphic_status_codified_templates. To reduce this bit of WP clutter I thought a speedy would work. (I did get a bit of validation!) Well, to continue my effort, shall I WP:T3, TfD, "colon-ize" Pee Tern's template drafts, or what? Thanks. I – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- We don't delete user pages of longstanding editors, even if they appear to be "abandoned". It's fine if you remove the categories from the user pages however. -FASTILY 05:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I shall do the needed colon-izations to PT's . Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Hopefully my stumbling about with Pee Tern's abandoned templates is over. The categories which I came across are now colonized out. Thanks for your guidance. 06:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
September
Dahlias in Walsdorf |
Thank you for improving articles in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Appreciate your good humor and your ability to keep the reader in mind. Marquardtika (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
Trump administration political interference with science agencies
Would you be okay with this title: Trump administration politicization of science? Johncdraper (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: Nope. What is "politicization"? It implies something B-A-D. Scientific method itself is a process of dispute and debate. And the scientific process is not helped by injecting public opinion. Let's let the science stand on its own, without trying to bolster scientific results with non-scientific posturing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking specifically of this reference, but there are any others. I mean, I could build a whole reflist demonstrating this if need be. Still no good? Johncdraper (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: Great source – thanks! And it reinforces my point. Take DDT for example – "many of the health concerns of DDT have shifted away from science ... to emotionalism ." We would not create an article titled Politization of malaria control or President X administration political interference with malaria control efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: Something along the lines of science policy agenda? Johncdraper (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: There is only one item on Mr. Trump's agenda. "What? We Exclaim!" (Or "Who? We Exposit.") For a clearer answer we can look for articles on other presidents. Which of them are titled "President Q's policy agenda on RST"
- @Srich32977: There is a long-established series of Foreign policy of the... administration, with the last iteration being Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. There is also a series of ... Policy of Donald Trump administration, e.g., Economic policy of Donald Trump administration. So, Science policy of the Trump administration would make sense, right? Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: I agree. It sets the stage for a NPOV exposition of what those policies are. And within the article the critics will have their say about how good or evil the policies have been. (So, let's cut & paste this discussion over to the article talk page. Then I think we could soon WP:BB and change the article title.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: There is a long-established series of Foreign policy of the... administration, with the last iteration being Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. There is also a series of ... Policy of Donald Trump administration, e.g., Economic policy of Donald Trump administration. So, Science policy of the Trump administration would make sense, right? Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: There is only one item on Mr. Trump's agenda. "What? We Exclaim!" (Or "Who? We Exposit.") For a clearer answer we can look for articles on other presidents. Which of them are titled "President Q's policy agenda on RST"
- @Srich32977: Something along the lines of science policy agenda? Johncdraper (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Johncdraper: Great source – thanks! And it reinforces my point. Take DDT for example – "many of the health concerns of DDT have shifted away from science ... to emotionalism ." We would not create an article titled Politization of malaria control or President X administration political interference with malaria control efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking specifically of this reference, but there are any others. I mean, I could build a whole reflist demonstrating this if need be. Still no good? Johncdraper (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Please fix the part of your script or editing method that changes page ranges incorrectly
This edit changed page ranges incorrectly. See MOS:NUMRANGE, which explains that number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between, e.g. pp. 1902–1911 or entries 342–349.
You have been asked multiple times to fix this error in your editing, but you continue to make this error.
I don't think any of us, including you, want to be involved in the drama that a proposed block would entail, so please just fix your script or editing method. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: You fail to note that WP:MOS favors consistency in citations. "MoS presents Misplaced Pages's house style to assist its volunteer editors write and maintain articles with precise and consistent language, layout, and formatting. ... Where more than one style or format is acceptable under MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason." Also, the Chicago Manual of Style is an accepted MOS. Your roll-backs are disruptive in that they re-introduce errors. If you want to improve articles, simply fix the particular page range citations to suit your own favorite method. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Also look at WP:CITEVAR. When I see a mix of page-range citations, I go (more or less) with the range style in the majority. When the pp. 123–45 style exists, I will go for it, and change pp. 123–4 cites to pp. 123–24. That method is a bit easier than doing pp. 123–124. In all such gnomish efforts, consistency is re result. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)!
- CITEVAR appears to give deference to an originally-consistent style, from which later edits diverge. Sailing stones originally used full numbers. {{cite journal}} and friends do not appear to use the Chicago standard for field order, so using "Chicago page numbers in non-Chicago field order" is explicitly a mixed style. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I'm not clear on what you mean. The Sailing stones link you provided has hyphens and single "p."s for the page abbreviation. The current version does not use "p."s. (Except for the 1997 Messina cite.) Changing the page ranges from 123-124 to 123–124 was proper. The present Further reading section has 6 items. Three are done with templates, which omit the "p."s when rendered. If the 3 manual citations were converted to templates then the 1997 Messina cite would omit the "pp.". But that is an effort which demands more brain-power. Regarding, "Mommy, I have to ..." – did the child say "pee" or "pp."? I scanned WP:CS and I see "p. 123" is the only example. "p. 123–124" is not given, nor is "pp. 123–124". BUT in Template:Cite book we find that "p. x" is rendered when one page is given. And "pp. 12–13" is rendered when multiple pages are given. SO, AGAIN, my effort has been to provide a consistent page-range style. E.g., "p. 12" and "pp. 123–132" (or whatever) for the multi-page cites. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- CITEVAR appears to give deference to an originally-consistent style, from which later edits diverge. Sailing stones originally used full numbers. {{cite journal}} and friends do not appear to use the Chicago standard for field order, so using "Chicago page numbers in non-Chicago field order" is explicitly a mixed style. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Srich32977, your claims are arrant nonsense. Your edit to DDT made the page-numbering style less, not more, consistent, and contravened MOS:NUMRANGE. You have been asked by multiple editors to stop these disruptive edits. I have been on your side in the past, and even coached you and praised you for good edits, since many of your minor edits are improvements. Unfortunately, your page range and MOS:POSTADDR errors are simply that, errors, and you need to stop making them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- "MOS:POSTADDR" what's that? – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Srich32977, your claims are arrant nonsense. Your edit to DDT made the page-numbering style less, not more, consistent, and contravened MOS:NUMRANGE. You have been asked by multiple editors to stop these disruptive edits. I have been on your side in the past, and even coached you and praised you for good edits, since many of your minor edits are improvements. Unfortunately, your page range and MOS:POSTADDR errors are simply that, errors, and you need to stop making them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I just did an edit on United States raw milk debate. See: . Some of the edits were done via the citation bot, some by auto-ed, and the rest were all on my own. Please look at the page-range changes. How well did the article comply with NUMRANGE before I did my edit? Was there consistency before my effort? And now how does "my version" compare? (I think I made improvements.) So I ask you – if I edited and achieved a consistent Chicago Manual of Style compliant layout, would you complain? And what would your complaint be? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- That article has a diverse mix of citation styles, including Vancouver, CS1, comma-separated elements, and probably other styles. Your edits appear to have improved the compliance of that article's citations with MOS:NUMRANGE, and you avoided messing with tricky possible false positives like "Number 404-228". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
October harvest
Dona nobis pacem |
Thank you for article work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
Take a look
at Leonard Leo. A lot of new content was just added and I'd appreciate your thoughts. Marquardtika (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Lauri Torni, German, American.
I think we should add that out of respect for his service in the respective militaries regardless of birthplace, and previous service. The corroboration that is supporting him having a U.S citizen is his stature as an officer, Which can only be given to Citizens. And despite the S.S being controversial, Lauri Torni Did fought for Germany. I'm not adding German-American but German and American. I added different links to both words 'German' and 'American'. I'd appreciate if you'd do that as we've got to respect those who've fought for our country. They are who represent 'The U.S'. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jack Morales Garcia: Thank you Jack. I'll get back to you tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jack Morales Garcia: J. Michael Cleverly, in his A Scent of Glory says "Eventually, Slavs, Moslems, Indians, and other Asiatics joined those from all over Europe in the various units of the Waffen SS." (page 74. ISBN 9607663489. From this we can say these joiners did not become German-Slavs, German-Indians, German-Moslems, etc. In other words, they did not become "hyphenated Germans" simply because they signed up. Also we do not know what the citizenship requirements were to become an officer in the Waffen SS. Just because some armed forces require citizenship of their officers (like in the US), we cannot assume that other armed forces do the same. In Thorne's history we know he petitioned for US Citizenship on 1/27/1954 and started US Army basic training on 1/28/1954. He got his citizenship in 1955. He became a US Army officer in 1957 via OCS. I hope this history answers your concerns. Thank. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Well at least add an 'American'term. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
ISBN stuff
Hey, I found your edit here to be somewhat odd; you added an equals sign to an ISBN making it incorrect, and you removed hyphenation from a correctly-hyphenated ISBN in the same edit. It's not a big deal, but I figured I'd flag those for you as undesirable changes. If that's part of a script you're using, you should double-check that script's output before submitting edits. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)