Archives

2006–2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021

History of ethanol fuel in Brazil has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -Hirooooooooo (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please remove all the {{capital}}s in Draft:List of sovereign states in 2008 and 2009, thx. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation continues where it started on your talk page at User talk:ColorfulSmoke#Lists of sovereign states. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, I completely reset my page and started adding all the userboxes back. It was edited before and I wasn't used to the syntax having not formatted tables for several years! I was going to fix it eventually, thank you for getting there before me! Bobo. 12:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it impolite of me to edit (the original versions of) userboxes for spelling and grammar? Many of the userboxes here, for example, are missing apostrophes and such. Userboxes aren't usually my area so I don't know how precious they are to the individual. Bobo. 12:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo: In my opinion, it is OK to edit original userboxes in the user namespace. If there is a comment in the userbox markup asking others not to edit it, don't edit it. If the owner asks you not to edit it, don't edit it. I have edited thousands of pages where someone might claim ownership, and I would estimate that there are complaints less than 1% of the time. So go ahead and insert the missing apostrophes and use the subjunctive ("This user wishes the Bluebuck weren't extinct") as you see fit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I look at it, the original creator of the userboxes in question has been permablocked and the userboxes in question are not transcluded on anyone else's page(s). Bobo. 20:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok technical errors like that should be fine to edit on. Whoops on my part! I was not completely done but I was also not working on it for the time being too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 07:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomalocaris, my draft page Draft:2022 PDC Players Championship 1 has now been fixed from your recommendations. Do we know roughly when these pages will be created and moved? Thanks for your help, kind regards! GlenTheYid (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GlenTheYid I'm not on the team that reviews and approves draft articles. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attempting to help me on Draft:Ciarán Strange, but the decisions you viewed as errors, were intentional! As a result, I'm reverting it - and wanted to explain, at least in part - I use the archive bot to fill in the "archive-url" field at the end of my work on a draft so I don't need to run the bot multiple times. Intentionally including the 3 fields for archives, including url-status, when I paste in the source template I use, saves me from needing to go back to manually place them to direct the bot where I want them placed at the end.

"use dmy" was also intentionally left without brackets, for an elaborate reason that is best summed up to be my latest attempt to develop a more efficient "process" for myself while writing a draft.

Wasting editors' time is something I try to avoid, and I can seem like an odd duck of a Wikipedian - as this is the first time a Wikipedian I'm not directly collaborating with has chimed in, over a silly nuance to my editing... to prevent this misunderstanding from reoccurring, I could utilize my namespace for drafts going forward? Thanks, Canadianerk (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianerk: Thank you for explaining your reversion. I came to Draft:Ciarán Strange because it was (and is again) listed at Table tag that should be deleted and Fostered content lint errors, both for the same reason: a table was "closed" with }} instead of |}. I fixed that error, and as long as I was editing it, I fixed other things, including the issue you noted that puts the page in hidden Category:CS1 maint: url-status. (In preferences, on the Appearances tab, under Advanced options, check "Show hidden categories", and you'll see them too, which is helpful if you are editing.) Anything in the Draft namespace is fair game for anyone to edit, and if a draft or any other page is listed on a lint error page or any maintenance or tracking category, that will attract attention and someone may be motivated to fix the problem. Editors may be less likely to edit something in User space, but even there, lint errors and membership in maintenance categories will attract editors. There are 8 types of Lint errors that do not currently exist in User space, and that is because Wikipedia editors have eradicated these errors from User space. You are always free to develop drafts in your User space, but then you miss out on whatever help other editors may provide, and you'll have to move it to Draft space anyway when you're ready to submit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware there were maintenance categories - but never realized they were this extensive. Thank you for the information, and I'll do what I can to limit triggering them!

Userspace drafts will give me the chance to use Template:Userspace draft so I think I'll take that approach. I appreciate the forewarning re: help from others, but as I'm not utilizing the AfC process and the articles I'm writing aren't that complicated, I'll take my chances at least for now. The articles I'm making, the bulk of the work is in the filmography, a process I've made quite efficient for myself, and am only getting better at. The only area I really sought help was for the writing aspects, the biography writing - which I'm moving towards independence on, such as on Krystal LaPorte. The benefits of draft space will be more useful to me once my editing focus shifts to more complex topics. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it! Canadianerk (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that in English 'words starting with "th" are voiced and all other "th" are unvoiced'? The words "the", "that", "then", for example, do indeed start with voiced "th", but "thin", "think", "thistle", "theocracy", for example, don't. On the other hand "either", "brother", "bathe" etc have voiced "th", while "ether", "method", "bath", etc, don't. If you are a native speaker of English then just listen to the difference when you say "thin" and "think", for example, or "bath" and "bathe". Better still consider the pairs mouth/mouthe and thigh/thy, where the only difference is unvoiced versus voiced "th". Alternatively, look a few of them up in any dictionary which gives pronunciation. JBW (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen your subsequent edit summary, I have checked in a couple of dictionaries and confirmed that, very much to my surprise, the pronunciation /wɪθ/ for "with" is usual in American English. However, I suggest it is better to avoid using an example which depends on a particular variant of English. Would "both thick and thin" work for you? To me, both "both" and "thick" have unvoiced th. JBW (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW: My first edit summary was wrong, as I acknowledged right away. (I once saw somewhere that "th" at the beginning of words is voiced for grammar words and unvoiced otherwise, and I gave a bollixed version of that in my first summary.) "both thick and thin" is OK, but let's keep thinking and try to find examples without extra words. How about "both thighs"? There are 334,000 Google results for that, with quotes. Maybe we can find good international examples for voiced also, e.g. "lathe that" ... —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's better to use examples without extra words, and on that basis just "both thick" would be better than "both thick and thin", but I liked the idea of one where "both" is actually relevant, because it refers to a pair of things or concepts. However, "both thighs" has both of those advantages, so that's fine. "Lathe that" is OK, but it would be nice (although not essential) to find an example which is more of a natural expression, if possible. Since we agree on "both thighs", I will put that into the article

I find it truly astonishing that I had never noticed that the pronunciation of "with" with unvoiced "th" is the more common one among Americans, considering that I must have heard it countless thousands of times. Now that I think of it, I realise I had in fact occasionally noticed that pronunciation, but just put it down to an idiosyncrasy of the particular person. No doubt for such a basic and usually unemphasised word well over 99% of the time one hears through the sound to the meaning, without being conscious of the sound itself. JBW (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anomalocaris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:MacNaughton Run, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anomalocaris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Michael Ross George, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nested table should begin on a new row and the "||" placed on the previous line. Your edit also conformed to this, but it was formatting differently. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trigenibinion: Thank you for getting back to me. As an aside, when you comment on my talk page, it's helpful to mention the page in question, Template talk:Flaglist, so I don't have to look in my contribution history to find it. Help:Table has a section Help:Table#Nested tables, which shows a table with 5 nested tables. Markup for each of the nested tables starts on a new line. When a nested table is first item in a table cell (2 of the 5 nested tables), the line above the table markup starts with a pipe; the pipe is needed for the <td> element. If there is also style markup for the cell containing the nested table (both cases in this example), there is also a pipe at the end of the style line, basically corresponding to the > of the <td> tag. When a nested table isn't the first item in a table cell (3 of the 5 nested tables), the table starts right up without any pipes at the end of the previous line. The entire Help:Table page has 9 example lines where the table row line (|-, corresponding to <td>) continues with other markup; each of these 9 times, the additional markup is row style markup that doesn't end with a pipe. I don't think table row lines ever need two, or even one, pipe at the end, or that any such pipe or pipes on the |- line can be used to set up for a nested table. Anyway, I don't accept your theory that two pipes are required on the line before a nested table (except at the beginning and end of a line with style or colspan or rowspan markup in between). Your markup generates 2 lint errors: a Table tag that should be deleted and a Stripped tag. My theory is that somehow, this bollixed markup causes a display effect that you are trying to achieve. But it's not OK to generate display effects through error behavior. Please find markup that generates your desired display without lint errors. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree with you that my version was formatting differently, but my version did not conform to your theory about two pipes placed on the previous line. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was 2 pipes because it was not just a line consisting of one pipe. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trigenibinion: Can you find a reference that provides for nesting a table with the markup |- ||? Refining my earlier point, I believe the only markup that goes on a line starting |- is style markup that applies to the whole row. You're using a pipe to mean <td>, but that can't go on the |- line. Here's an experiment you can try:

{| class="wikitable"
| row one cell one || row one cell two
|- || row two cell one || row two cell two
|}

generates:

Notice that row two does not appear. If you insert a line break after |- ||, this generates a Fostered content lint error, which I don't want here, but you can test that on your own. The fostered content, "row two cell one || row two cell two" isn't in a table cell, so it displays before the table. This confirms my position that you can't put any wiki markup on the line starting |- except style markup for the table row, and definitely not a pipe for "table cell" or <td>. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, I actually asked about this as an issue: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 60#Cite_news - multiple_URLs. I am doing what was recommended to me at the time. I have actual thousands of citations that use this, so any solution is going to require bot intervention across hundreds, maybe even 1,000 or more pages. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie: In WHYY-TV, I correctly identified the bad markup, but I mis-identified the problem. The real problem was in [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/101417914/|A6], which after my fix, you revised to [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/101417914/ A6], in other words you changed the pipe (treated as part of the URL) to a space (treated as separating the URL from the link text). That is, you changed [1] to A6. Your solution is correct. The markup before my fix had four lint errors: 2 Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4, 1 Links in links and 1 Stripped tag. HTML4/5 Misnested tags are under control in the Article namespace and I came to WHYY-TV to fix what was then the only such lint error in Article space. I did think it odd that page numbers couldn't be linked inside of {{cite}} templates; in fact I knew I'd seen it all over, but I saw the misnested tag and a solution and I didn't analyze it further. So, thank you for fixing it correctly and thank you for notifying me. Just one favor, though: It would be helpful to mention the page in question (WHYY-TV), because I didn't remember and I had to look in my contribution history to find it. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned. Didn't realize there was a stray pipe—that'd easily cause a lint error and is an obvious fat finger. Guess I was typing a little too quickly.

I use that sort of syntax (page + another page or pages with links) for newspapers.com since you can't bundle clippings of parts of different pages that may contain the same article. I'm the third-largest user of newspapers.com on all of enwiki (behind two users who use it for college football articles), so there are a lot of these.

Appreciate the heads up—this might have gone uncaught for a while if not for the lint errors it generated. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit on the drafted Amhara Genocide article. I merged multiple reference to improve the section and wondering if you check it out for me Petra0922 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petra0922: On talk pages, it's customary to add new sections at the end, not the beginning, so I moved your section to the end. I edited Draft:Amhara genocide again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are awesome! Thank you so much for the thorough edit as well. I will need to carefully watch the example edits you have done- to understand what you mean by {{citation}}/{{cite}} vs {{cite}}... I appreciate your help! Petra0922 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petra0922: My edit summary included "unify {{citation}}/{{cite}} to {{cite}}", which means, this draft used both, but only one or the other should be used, and I "unified" them to {{cite}}. (In an different edit summary I might say "unify while/whilst to while", again meaning that I chose one of the two words to use consistently.) See Wikipedia:Citing sources, especially the section Citation style, which explains to use a consistent citation style. Some further points: I strongly believe that when a reference is produced by an organization, for example, Human Rights Watch, the organization's name should appear, not in italics, and not its website name (hrw.org). The same applies if the organization is a news or media company such as Deutsche Welle (not DW.com) or Al Jazeera (not www.aljazeera.com). For a publication (The Guardian), or a website (Huffpost), use the publication or website name in italics, and not some form of the URL, like theguardian.com or huffpost.com. In {{cite}} templates, |website=, |work=, and |newspaper= display the name in italics; |publisher= displays the name without italics. There are borderline cases that may be hard to decide, but mostly it's not hard to figure out. When a story appears on a bona fide news site, I use {{cite news}} not {{cite web}}. YouTube videos use {{cite AV media}}. {{cite journal}} is only for academic journals; {{cite magazine}} can be used for magazines. When a news story title includes extraneous information, such as "News analysis" or the name of the publication or organization, it's best to use just the story title and not the extraneous parts. These are some of my editing habits. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I need!! This look excellent editing 'habit." Thank you so very much for sharing. I know there is a lot in here but certainly I will go over the sections you edited and the ones not, to follow similar citation styles. I am still curious about the method you have used to "unify." I hope you dont mind if i come back to you with a question or two.

Thank you again! Petra0922 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use the regular Wikipedia editor to edit articles, without any special tools. So, if I need to unify {{citation}}/{{cite}}, I determine which one I want to use, and then I change all occurrences of the other to the one I want to use, one at a time. In a recent edit of Draft:Amhara genocide, that meant changing {{citation...}} to {{cite AV media...}} with no other changes required, but sometimes, the parameters of the two template aren't the same and further changes are necessary. As long as I'm giving editing advice, I'd also suggest clicking on preferences, and then in the Appearance tab, under Advanced options, check the box for Show hidden categories. Then, when you preview or save an edit, you'll see certain hidden maintenance and error categories, if applicable to the page. For example, some pages have reference markup like {{cite web |title=Archived copy |url=http://mywebsite/lost.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20010401194058/http://mywebsite/lost.html |archivedate=2001-04-01}}, where "Archived copy" is used in place of the real page title. Such pages are automatically placed in hidden Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title, and if you set your preferences to display hidden categories, you will see such maintenance categories at the bottom of pages, and then you can fix whatever is causing the problem. I haven't seen any any hidden categories in Draft:Amhara genocide, but often do find and fix hidden category issues in other pages. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super helpful! Big thank you. I like to explore the Hidden Categories tip. Thank you for checking and confirming that the Draft doesn't have Hidden Categories as well. I appreciate the awesome job you did on {{citation}}/{{cite}}. So consistent conversion to (cite AV media}} and all the other citation and typo edits too. I did some manually but ran into some errors so I had to leave some of them as-is for now. I submitted the draft today so I think I need to tap into editing other Drafts. Time to explore the Wikipedia editor:). Thank you again for all the help! Petra0922 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to share the good news- the article has been created yesterday with some encouraging rating. Thank you very much for your outstanding work editing the draft and ensuring quality. You are the best!! Have a wonderful day! Petra0922 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you so much for fixing the titles in Draft:Thich Dieu Thien. I appreciate it! ZenSunflower (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to know if the article is okay now? Thanks a lot. 186.5.212.161 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved. While the suggestions I offer on drafts may be helpful, I am not on the committee that approves drafts. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the how the page looks with your changes? It looks ridiculous, the userbox section is all down at the bottom for some idiotic reason. If you're going to fuck about with other peoples' user pages without asking (and why do you need to?), at least take the time to make sure it looks the same in the end. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And unless you know them well, you should ask first. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you did the same yesterday on User talk:LordBossMaster100 to one of my talk page messages. You shouldn’t really edit other peoples messages even if you are trying to help as that could be seen as impolite. Judging by the comments above, you have been doing it in other places too, and as you can see, the user in question did not take kindly to it. If you have an issue with other peoples messages/user pages, take it to their talk page and suggest that they change it. Please bear this in mind and feel free to contact me should you have any questions, have a great day! Blanchey (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos I guess we could block them from user pages although that would affect theirs. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Blanchey's comment it looks like they are refactoring other peoples' talk page comments as well so I'm not sure that would even be effective. It appears that this user is so focused on correcting lint errors that they believe it goes above the common courtesy of not mucking about with other peoples' comments and personal pages.

@Anomalocaris, specifically pinging you as you have not responded to this discussion in any way - can you explain why you think correcting lint errors is more important than respecting other editors? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To all participants in this discussion: Wikipedia:Linter#How you can help specifically approves editing user pages and user talk pages for the purpose of eliminating lint errors. Wikipedia editors routinely do this, without asking first, usually without complaint, and often with thanks after the fact. However, in the case of Premeditated Chaos, I acknowledge that I didn't follow the instruction "Especially on User and User talk pages, try to minimize disruption by getting your fix right on the first try." Worse than that, after my edit, I still didn't notice that I had messed up the page.

Premeditated Chaos: I am sorry I messed up your page in the first place, and I am sorry I didn't notice that I messed it up. I didn't reply right away because I wanted to do some further research about what happened and offer some additional thoughts, but I haven't had the chance to do that. But again, I am sorry, and I'm glad you were able to quickly revert.

Doug Weller: Thank you for your thoughts. I have edited thousands of talk pages, fixing lint errors, usually preserving the appearance exactly or very closely. I have received very few complaints and numerous kudos. In the past 4 months, I've received 5 notifications from users thanking me for editing their user page or user talk page. That's aside from older thanks, thanks in other ways, and thanks regarding edits of user comments on pages other than user and user talk. I do not agree that editors need to ask first, but editors should get their changes right on the first try, and if they mess up, they should fix it right away.

Blanchey: I stand by my edit on User talk:LordBossMaster100. It looks fine to me. The display of {{User alternative account name}} is no longer indented; I don't think that should be an issue and I'm sorry if it bothers you, but in my edit summary I offered the suggestion (perhaps you meant {{Tl|User alternative account name}} ...?", because sometimes editors intend to mention rather than display templates. I don't know what you intended, so I offerered that as a possibility.

Premeditated Chaos: Again, I'm sorry I messed up your page. Aside from that, I believe that I have consistently followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Refactor. In particular, when fixing lint errors involving user comments, I am scrupulous to preserve their actual words, except in rare cases where the obvious intent was to name a template rather than display it. I do not think it is fair to suggest, as you did, that I was "mucking about" User talk:LordBossMaster100. That was a clean edit, even if it turns out that Blanchey is unhappy that a formerly indented template is no longer indented. In any event, I don't think my edit of User talk:LordBossMaster100 was disrespectful.

To all participants in this discussion: Lint errors are a big deal. They can result in bizarre appearances, for example, content nested inside tables, or inside the wrong table, rather than where it is supposed to be, and many lint errors can affect the display all the way to the end of a page. It is good to fix lint errors and one doesn't need to get permission first. However, if an editor has said, "please don't fix lint errors on my page," such requests should not be ignored. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure, what I wanted to do was display the template to show the editor in question what it would look like, the code code be found in the source. Blanchey (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with SS Lusitania (1871) because i was having a lot of trouble (i’m also planning of retiring) so thanks for that. Fourostrich8696 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anomalocaris, please use the correct syntax for non-breaking spaces. It is "&" immediately followed by "nbsp;" and not "nbsp;" only. In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium-233&type=revision&diff=1108945796&oldid=1103648717 i just corrected it. Himbeerbläuling (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himbeerbläuling: Thank you for catching and fixing my missing "&" in Uranium-233. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Harrisia brasiliensis (plant) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no plant named Harrisia brasiliensis. This article is the result of some confusion within Wikipedia between Harrisia (plant) and Harrisia (fly). The plant genus article was created in 2005 (at the title Harrisia). The article for Harrisia brasiliensis (fly) was created 15 April 2009, and a half hour after it was created, the creator changed the content of the Harrisia article from the plant to the fly genus. This was quickly reverted. The taxobox for the fly species continued to link to the plant genus until 30 January 2011, when a disambiguation page was set up at Harrisia. At that point, the article about the fly species was edited to claim that it was a plant. That was an error. In May 2014, a disambiguation page Harrisia brasiliensis was established, along with Harrisia brasiliensis (plant).(basically forking the history of Harrisia brasiliensis (fly), which claimed it was a fly from 2009-2011, and then incorrectly claimed it was a plant from 2011-2014).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Harrisia brasiliensis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linter fixes like this one are not required for TFD-related errors, since they are temporary. You can just let the TFD run its course after a week, or if the TFD'd template is not really used, you can wrap the notice in noincludes. One other method to get rid of some errors is to add an inline tag in the TFD notice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95: Right. I thought it might have to do with deletion notices, but the template is written to hide the display, so I didn't see the notices and I found this one quite baffling. Mainly I was hoping it was on the list for deletion and I'm pleased to see that it is. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The clue was that span tags were suddenly having block content inserted into them, when they were fine before. That is almost always caused by unmodified XFD templates being transcluded. I put |type=inline into both XFD'd pages that were transcluded there, and that seems to have solved the problem, even with the original syntax in place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95: Thanks for the tip and for inlining the transclusions. With my experience, I should have known this by now. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very challenging to remember all of the dozens of ways to resolve particular Linter edge cases. Fixing center tags is a particular mystery to me: there are eight or ten ways to use markup to center something, and in some situations, some of them break things badly, and only one or two of the ways actually center the object that wants to be centered. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, look at this excerpt from my cut-and-paste cheat sheet. And this is just for centering.

<div style="text-align: center;">

<div style="margin:1em auto;">      (For non-text things. Sometimes doesn't work.)

or this:
<div style="margin:1em auto;text-align: center;">

<div class="center">

If none of the div tags work, you can hack it with a table:
{| style="margin: auto"
|

To center an hr tag:
<hr style="width:80%;margin: auto;" />

How to center a table on the page:
{| style="margin: auto;"

<table style="margin: auto;">

To center a table cell's contents:
|style="text-align: center;" | Content
|colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Content

<td style="text-align:center">

To center text in a Tmbox or Editnotice:
|textstyle = text-align: center;

To center a tree chart:
{{tree chart/start|align=center}}

Other centering:
<gallery class="center">...</gallery> (doesn't always work!)<br>
{{Gallery|align=center}}

Centering the content of a userbox, if the content is in |info = 
 | info-op = text-align: center

{{location map|float=center}}

• Actually, the vast majority of "months of the 1970s", and months articles in general, were written in the past tense, as seen with the 1900s through the 1960s and the ones for 1970, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1976, and 1979. While the "years" articles do use present tense, those consist mostly of headline style entries; they're generally unsourced, and often are more for "fun". We're working to add more content, with citations to sources, and May 1973 hadn't had much work done on it until recently. For the sake of consistency with the rest of hundreds of articles in this project in general, you can expect that the past tense will be used as the information from daily newspapers is added. To the extent that you have taken out non-verifiable or questionable sources, your contribution is appreciated. Best wishes to you for happy holidays and a prosperous new year ahead. Mandsford 13:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford: Feel free to revert my edit of May 1973. I have commented on past vs present tense at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards#Past vs Present tense again and I encourage you to contribute to that discussion. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of the working group Draft: Venus and Cupid with a Honeycomb and I did not understand why the pictures were removed apart from the correction of grammatical errors. If you can give me a reason I would be happy, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIUC7Pietro03 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LIUC7Pietro03: Sorry, while editing Draft: Venus and Cupid with a Honeycomb I unintentionally messed up the gallery. You properly reverted my edit and then Jonesey95 picked up many of the fixes I made the first time, and made many additional fixes. Then I came back and made further improvements. This time I don't think I messed anything up. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Cheers:) LIUC7Pietro03 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added LintHint to my Common.js page to give it a try, but I'm not seeing anything new when looking at pages. I've logged out, cleared my cache of this site, tried another browser, etc. Nothing so far. Is there a step I am missing, or is it not working due to the Wikipedia Lint problem not updating? Do I need the Extension Linter added/enabled to use this, or is this an independent gadget? Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think by default it works in article space only. See User:Jonesey95/vector.js for a configuration that works for me on every page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a blocked user using various blocked, but not TPA blocked, IPs to write the same "slanderous manafesto" (my words for that mess) against Bbb23, so I'd skip fixing these specific selfclosing span errors for right now (the pages get deleted anyway). They've been popping up every few hours or so this evening. I've been letting Bbb23 know about them so far. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnober9: Thanks for the tip. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anomalocaris. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:45 rolls toilet paper, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A11 is for mainspace only. Thank you. BangJan1999 20:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly finished off the fixable stripped issues in Template Talk pages, but I'm stuck on the remaining fixable ones. I have it down to 35 fixable, 4 questionable, and 19 to skip. If you want to take a look at my list and see if you can clear any, that would be great. You've cleared multiple lints I'd gotten stuck on in the past and thought you might be able to nab these. Completely at your leisure. Cheers, Zinnober9 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnober9: Good work. Most of the remaining Template talk missing end tag lint errors are discussions about linty markup. It might be possible to fix Template talk:Oiiint, perhaps by changing <span> tags to <div>, but I didn't succeed immediately and I don't want to spend any more time on it, at least right now. By the way, I noticed that somewhere you fixed obsolete <tt> tags with <code> tags. That's totally correct in article space, but on talk pages, I usually preserve the appearance with {{mono|...}} or {{mono|1=...}} if there are equals signs in the markup. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you thought most of those in the top table are talked about in their pages and not fixable. I'll go back and look at them again and see what I'm missing. As for tt fixes, I only stumbled upon mono recently, so I'll start using that more. I've been using code when the discussion is about code/parameters, and been using samp for the noncode stuff, like some user's tt signatures. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinnober9, please read mw:Help:Lint errors/obsolete-tag and similar Linter error help pages for detailed instructions on how to fix tt tags and a lot more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have referenced that page before for various things, but somehow overlooked mono on there. Very glad to see center was updated, I've run into some table centering issues lately. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pronalee. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance. I'm still new n trying to learn how to give out info for article pages Wikipeda doesn't have.

Cocorocco (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. First off, confused why you changed something from my sandbox, even though it was helpful, that's a given. Second off, what's the actual difference between adding a slash or not ( <small> to </small> )? NewDealChief (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NewDealChief: Your sandbox page was listed at Lint errors: Multiple unclosed formatting tags. A substantial group of Wikipedians are working to fix Lint Errors. It is considered acceptable to edit user pages, user talk pages, and sandbox pages to fix lint errors, unless the owner asks you not to, but even if the owner ask you not to, someone else is likely to come along and fix it anyway. Most HTML and Wiki tags come in pairs, with an opening tag, such as <small> and a corresponding closing tag (</small>). The slash is at the beginning of a closing tag. A slash at the end of a tag is a self-closed tag. A self-closed tag is a tag that opens and closes in one operation. This is usually an error, but it is allowed for tags such as <nowiki/> and <ref name="..." />. It is not proper to close a tag with the same tag. In the case of the small tag, the second tag means "even smaller", like this:

Markup: Here is some <small>small text and this is <small>even smaller</small></small>. Hah!

Display: Here is some small text and this is even smaller. Hah!

When the markup has two <small> tags without a closing tag, two things happen. First, the linter detects a Multiple unclosed formatting tags lint error, and second, the page displays with a leak that may go all the way to the end of the page, unless the two tags are contained within a table or div tags or perhaps some other markup that limits the scope of the leak. On your page, the leak was contained within the table cell that displayed "(Replacing Ezra Taft Benson)", so, effectively there was no leak, but there would have been if there had been anything in the table cell after the second <small> tag, or if the <small> tags weren't so contained. I hope this explains everything. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I never knew. Thanks for the info! NewDealChief (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anomalocaris,

Thanks again for your work tidying up the Kant page. I am wondering, it looks like you maybe used a tool to automate the work on the Reference list, removing all the weird spaces and stuff?

If it's an easy thing to do, could you possibly run it on Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#References? Or else, if it doesn't require too much tech savvy, could you refer me to the app/tool/add-on/whatever and its documentation? Everything looks fine in the article (I think), but the underlying markup language is a mess, which sometimes makes it a pain to edit.

(Aside: the article currently uses what Wikipedia calls "American style" quote syntax consistently throughout. I am guessing this is much harder to fix by automation, so I'd prefer you left this be unless you can fix it across the whole article—in which case, of course, go for it!)

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Welsh: If there is a bot to standardize cite whitespacing, I'm not aware of it. As for logical quotations, as you say, this would be much harder to automate. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then. I appreciate the quick response. Also: extra thanks for actually doing all that manually!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited September 11 attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WABC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris Hi Anomalocaris, in April you made a comment on this article, leaving a flag there: "Comment: links with "publishing date" are messed up. I fixed a few of them. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)". The article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vera_Felicidade_de_Almeida_Campos[reply]

Since that week I made the changes correcting what you pointed out - I was helped by Editors who collaborate with Women in Red Project discussions, both in what you pointed and in other issues of the article, and the errors were all corrected, we made style revisions in the narrative, references etc. I believe it's been ok since then. Some experienced editors have agreed it's fine, but they can't move the article, as far as I understand. I would like to ask you to look at it now and if you agree, remove your comment and especially, if it is possible for you, move this article to the main space. I ask this because it has been some time that the article is in Draft, I had numerous discussions and help with about 8 Senior Editors who contributed much to the final result (talks on the page of Women in Red and other pages Usertalk), but no one with prerogatives to move the article to the main space has manifested with me. I don't understand this Wikipedia process, but I sincerely ask for your help in this. Thank you in advance. Lidia Pita (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia Pita: Draft:Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos looks pretty good! The publishing date errors were all cleaned up, so I removed the comment. I expect someone will approve the article soon. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris Thank you so much for making that comment back then, which helped me improve the references and thank you especially for your appreciation now, quite encouraging and meaningful to me. Regards. Lidia Pita (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning from your corrections on Killing of Jordan Neely, thanks! Xan747 (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xan747: Glad to hear it! I write detailed edit summaries in part to encourage other editors to make the same fixes, or avoid making the same mistakes in the first place. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff, you somehow ended up with b style+"color:Red". If that was caused by a script error, please adjust your script. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95:No script, just carelessness. Thank you for fixing it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I figured. I did a panicked insource search to see if it had happened to many pages, but there were none out there. Relief. (I do wonder how many hundreds or thousands of little errors like this I have introduced while doing script-assisted and find-and-replace-assisted Linter edits.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95: Thank you for the follow-up search. Glad to know it came out clean. I usually Show changes before saving, looking for mistakes like this, but I probably skipped that step this time. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalocaris, Thank you very much for your Copy edits to my draft article, Chimanabai Clock Tower. I express my gratitude for your kind help. Snehrashmi (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have meanwhile noticed the difference between straight & curved quotes; As I use a word processor, it took a long time... Bold headlines would look much better , also in the table of contents where smaller headlines clearly differ non-bold --- and above all, the table of contents is automatically shown and arrested on the whole left side, no matter where you are on the page! (apparently prepared for future), but Wikipedia rules here...

Similarly, the usual English headline capitalisation looks also better; Could Wiki not be a bit more tolerant, as long as the presentation is improved in a reasonable way? Let me know why this stiff wiki policy... Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.190.71 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enterprise Wolves Basketball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Wolves Basketball until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only a minor point, but wanted to bring it to your notice that at Draft:Don Peake for Love Tracks, you changed my style of having italics within the wikilink, to outside of the wikilink. Anyone should be able to format it as per their preference when they create the piped wikilink, but changing from one format to another is not really productive. In this particular case, since you made a lot more format changes in the same edit, I can understand it was a bulk change. Again, not a concern, but something to keep in mind.

I see you are a veteran editor. Keep up the good work and take care. Jay 💬 13:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: The italics started outside the square brackets and ended inside the brackets; this is invalid formatting. You can either have the italics outside the brackets or inside the brackets (in the second part of the wikilink after the pipe), but not one of each. For example, ''[[Link|Link'' text]] is invalid, but ''[[Link|Link text]]'' or [[Link|''Link'' text]] is fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to the last type, which is how I had done. See the diff for Love Tracks above Line 36. Jay 💬 15:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: Yes, I did change [[Love Tracks (Gloria Gaynor album)|''Love Tracks'']] to ''[[Love Tracks (Gloria Gaynor album)|Love Tracks]]'', which I would not have done if italics in wikilinks had been marked up correctly and consistently throughout the page. But since italics with wikilinks were bollixed elsewhere, I standardized on italics outside the link. This is also consistent with quotation marks outside the link, which also appears on this page. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drag this some more, but what you're saying doesn't seem to match what I'm seeing. There was one piped link with italics outside the link, one piped link with italics inside the link (mine), and two piped links with italics half outside and half inside. So if you are saying you went with the first proper style that was initially present in the page, I can understand. On quotation marks for the piped links, there was only one (mine for "If I Were a Carpenter"), which was inside the link. Jay 💬 04:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: Inserted a d just now in the word standardized in my previous comment. Again, "I standardized on italics outside the link." Wikipedia style for quotes and external links is that article titles or page titles are in quotes and the quotes are part of the external link. Cite templates do this automatically, viz:

{{cite news |author=Journalist |title=story |publisher=newsgatherer |date=July 3, 2023 |url=http://newsgatherer.com/story}} : Journalist (July 3, 2023). "story". newsgatherer.

However, Wikipedia style for quotes and internal links (wikilinks) is that the quotes are outside the link. It has to be that way. Otherwise, the markup for

They sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" over and over until they had it right.

would require a piped link. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the style for quotes in piped links? If my style is incorrect, I won't use it again. Jay 💬 05:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: MOS:DISCOGRAPHY discusses styling for albums, without getting into the nitty-gritty of styling for singles. But it still provides guidance, saying, "A few examples of acceptable formatting styles, using the discography of Sloan (band):" That implies that Sloan (band) can be used as a model for styling singles. And in that article, we find several music singles in quotes with the quotes outside the wikilink, and none with the quotes inside the wikilink. I would guess that the reason MOS:DISCOGRAPHY, and for that matter, MOS:QUOTEMARKS, doesn't explicitly say "Put quotation marks outside wikilinks" is it's just never been an issue in Wikipedia, at least until now. You won't find articles with markup like

They sang [[The Star-Spangled Banner|"The Star-Spangled Banner"]] over and over until they had it right. : They sang "The Star-Spangled Banner" over and over until they had it right.

Look around Wikipedia. I am confident that less than 1% of song wikilinks are piped to put quotes inside. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for consistency. I felt having double-quotes inside the link was consistent with having two single-quotes (italics) inside the link. I wouldn't consider highly of using Sloan (band) as a reference because it has just one piped link with quotes (which is outside), and which was added in 2011, whereas the Discographies manual has been referencing Sloan (band) from 2007. If we're going for quotes outside the link style, let us formalize it in the MOS with a reasoning. Jay 💬 07:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: The Beatles has numerous songs in quoted wikilinks, including "Love Me Do", "Please Please Me" and "P.S. I Love You". This article has no songs with quotes inside the wikilink. Frank Sinatra has numerous songs in quoted wikilinks, including "My Way", "Our Love" and "Polka Dots and Moonbeams". This article has no songs with quotes inside the wikilink. Irving Berlin has numerous songs in quoted wikilinks, including "Alexander's Ragtime Band", "Easter Parade" and "Puttin' on the Ritz". This article has no songs with quotes inside the wikilink. Joan Baez has numerous songs in quoted wikilinks, including "Diamonds & Rust", "There but for Fortune" and "We Shall Overcome". This article has no songs with quotes inside the wikilink. These are just the first four articles I thought of checking. Again, I am confident that less than 1% of song wikilinks are piped to put quotes inside. I agree with you that Sloan (band) might not be the best model to be mentioned in the Manual of Style, and you are correct that it has only one piped link with quotes, viz: "Unkind". But it has numerous singles links that could have been piped to put the quotes inside if that were the standard. They aren't piped to put in the quotes because that is not how we do it in Wikipedia, as evidenced by just about every article you can think of that includes quoted wikilinked song titles. There is no need to modify the Manual of Style because it never comes up. Nobody does this.

Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep discourages defining rules for every possible mistake. As far as I know, you are the only editor who thought putting quotes inside song wikilinks is a good idea. There is plenty of contrary evidence all over Wikipedia that we don't do it that way; therefore there is no need to modify the Manual of Style to make it explicit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan may be replaced in the MOS with one of the good ones you found. I don't disagree with your examples, and the high count you believe is there, may be because of bots or GNOMEs changing it to one kind of format. But as I said we can formalize this in a MOS or multple MOS with a reasoning. Even a statement like:

"If I Were a Carpenter" is produced by "[[If I Were a Carpenter (song)|If I Were a Carpenter]]".

without touching upon the alternate style. But at the same time mentioning that quotes should be used within wikilinks for piping in disambiguation pages, such as described at WP:WikiProject Disambiguation/Title templates. Jay 💬 08:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with WP:Avoid instruction creep here for the manual though. Just look at WP:MOS or the several pages where we have taken pains to document the usages. I don't think my formatting was a "mistake". It was just a different way. Jay 💬 08:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay: OK, you talked me into it. I edited MOS:QUOTEMARKS to add two new sections, §Quotation marks and external links and §Quotation marks and internal links. It might have been better to start on the talk page, and very likely a discussion will start there regarding my additions. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Allyson Damikolas.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see in this obsolete center tag fix of yours in Template:Kolkata Metro route diagram, replacing <center><table> with <table style="margin: auto"> resulted in a different rendering of the bottom table. In the original the six lines of text are left justified, whereas after your edit, the text is right justified. I tried various options last night, including <table style="float:center">, but I couldn't get the bottom table to display correctly. Is there a way to fix this? —Bruce1ee^talk 10:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Thanks. It's interesting that when using the obsolete <center>...</center> tags it's not necessary to explicitly left-justify the text in each table cell. It seems that in this instance, there is no simple replacement for the center tags. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is probably a bug in there somewhere, but I've submitted so many bugs to phabricator that are much more important. Unfortunately, quirks like this prevent bots from mass-replacing center tags around tables. One by one .... – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fancy Meeting You Here, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Coconut Motion Pictures, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Juliet Cowan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, instead of using multiple <code> spans to format source code, use <syntaxhighlight> instead. I'm writing w.r.t this edit here (which I've already amended with the recommended markup). Aside from looking nicer, <syntaxhighlight> tags automatically escape any embedded wiki markup, which obviates the need for <nowiki> when the code in question happens to be Wikitext. Just an FYI in case it helps you in future. :)
— Alhadis (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	Hi Anomalocaris. so much thanks for your attention about my signature. i fixed it as you mention. —Patricia (Talk) 11:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Megadiverse countries, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that on September 27, you made quite a few edits to user talk pages and the like, to fix a duplicate thumb in images (example). (Including on to my user talk page, which is how I noticed.)

Those edits are cosmetic edits and as such should not be done on their own because they clutter page histories. See WP:COSMETICBOT. Given your rate of editing, I am convinced you are doing those fixes by hand (rather than running an unapproved bot) but still: While this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance if making such changes in a bot-like manner.

I would be especially wary of doing this on user talk pages, which gives the users in question a big red notification that "Anomalocaris has left a message on your talk page" (but there is no such "message" to be found without looking at the page history). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The last bullet point of WP:COSMETICBOT applies. These are Linter bogus file options, which are syntax errors that are currently worked around by the WikiMedia software but which may have their workarounds removed. Fixes like this are preventing erroneous image rendering now and in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I was editing Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people, I thought of fixing the unnatural "That an article may occupy grey areas for inclusion, is not a valid reason" with the exact same wording you came up with, "Even if an article may occupy the grey areas of a category's inclusion criteria, that is not a valid reason". But then I went with "An article may occupy grey areas for inclusion, but this is not a valid reason". Now that you've changed it, I think my first instinct was better, so thank you for the long distance Vulcan Mind Meld and getting it back to that. <grin> —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [Originally posted at User talk:Jc37 and moved here by jc37][reply]

rofl.

Well, when I saw your changes, I decided not to quibble about which/that - more often then not, it's an WP:ENGVAR situation anyway.

But I saw that edit and started to revert it. But then I saw how "clunky" the existing sentence was and looked at your attempt to fix it, and ended up with that result. So you definitely had an influnce to be sure lol.

It's great when two minds can come together like that : ) - jc37 05:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

jc37: More often then not ... hmmm. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you fixed some of my coding errors on various pages in my user space. I wanted to say thank you ... I'm not the best with Wiki-markup, especially when attempting new things. Maybe someday soon I'll get those Sibelius LoC pages over to the mainspace! ~ Silence of Järvenpää 02:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sandbox/Lint indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomalocaris! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 06:55, Sunday, November 5, 2023 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For your efforts contributing to the page 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jet engine performance, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gadarwara Assembly constituency, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just seeking some clarification for future reference about an edit you made at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion.

I'm aware {{tq}} can't span multiple paragraphs and I accommodated for that, as can be seen in this diff, but it seemed to handle the bulleted list section just fine. Unless I'm missing something, your edit did not change the display of my post at all. Am I missing something? --DB1729^talk 02:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DB1729: Yes, {{tq}} can't span multiple paragraphs—techically, it can's span a block or more than a block. Anything indented is a block, so it can't wrap lines that begin with colon, asterisk or number sign. It may look OK, but it still generates misnested tags for <q>...</q>. The documentation at Template:Talk quote inline says

For block quotations on talk pages that break onto their own line, or contain paragraph breaks, editors can use {{talk quote block}} instead.

For more on lint errors, see WP:Linter, and if you want to help fight lint, consider installing lintHint. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Timeline of schizophrenia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the edit summary (correctly supplied in the following edit) shows, all I did was "rm all <small>, <br>, and alignment markup and avoid all caps." I didn't change any references except minor details like fixing all caps. So don't blame me for any bare URLs or missing titles, they were already there and I had nothing to to with them. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually caused by my use of |Title=("Charcot’s Influence on Freud") and |Title="Author's Preface", which were erroneous side-effects of changing titles from all caps to initial caps, and broke two cite templates. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of fictional antiheroes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original error was introduced into The Alcalde in Revision of 23:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC) by Kinfoll1993, as follows:

{{cite magazine|title=The Alcalde|date= Nov 1996|page=31}}

which erroneously used the magazine name as the title, and lacked an author, an actual title, and a URL. Kinfoll1993 hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since 21 July 2017 (six years ago), so there's no point asking them to fix their crappy reference. I did the best I could, intentionally using a generic title, intentionally creating an error message, so that, hopefully somebody with access to archives of The Alcalde can find the actual author and title of this article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of fictional antiheroes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spurious duplicate of the previous error message. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on the lack of page numbers in book references (Thanks!). What can I do about book references made by other editors given that I do not have these books? Should I replace some of these by complete references from books in my possession?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accelerator-physicist (talk • contribs) 22:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

A bunch of your edits are just masking a cewbot bug. In some specfic (but not yet identified) situation, the talkpage banners get relocated partway down the page, which obviously makes a mess of lots of things. Please don't compound/hide that by making a subsequent edit that merely masks one symptom of it. See for example:

• Talk:Boric acid ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)

and the bug report at User talk:Kanashimi/Archive 1#Very strange change to project banner. DMacks (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response is needed, just a thanks for helping me on my page Draft:Josei Tennō, all help is welcome :) Camillz (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians! I have a dream to create an article about the Silesian School of Iconography because I started it 11 years ago, and now I have some time since my children are on vacation, allowing me to devote myself to my passion. I once encountered this community and can't believe they aren't present on Wikipedia. I'm not very skilled with all the tools, so please: help me. I have a few more days to create great articles, but I also want to include them in Wikimedia Commons, where I'll upload all available works of the Silesian School of Iconography. I created the category "Silesian School of Iconography," but it seems something is not quite right. Help me make such a category. I'm also writing articles about some members of this school, but I can't gather all the materials. Perhaps I'll create basic drafts for further development, which I believe is also valuable. Please, take a look at the links (note! some are drafts and I'll be modifying them), but most importantly, I care about the Silesian School of Iconography. If you can, please improve these texts. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silesian_School_of_Iconography 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monika_Jerominek 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Like_the_dewfall/Jolanta_%C5%9Awi%C4%85tkiewicz 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Like_the_dewfall/Dariusz_Klejnowski-R%C3%B3%C5%BCycki I also have issues regarding licenses and copyrights, as some images have been blocked. In the meantime, I'm sending images available on the website of the Silesian School of Iconography here under the "WORKS" section at the bottom of the page, and I don't know how to manage this. Please help me with that as well. Like the dewfall (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for whatever you did on catalytic reforming. What is the motivation for adding quotation marks for <ref name=abc> <ref name="abc">? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot: WP:REFNAME, taking its content from Template:Refname rules, says,

Quotation marks are preferred but optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9, and the symbols !$%&()*,-.:;<@[]^_`{|}~.

I believe the original primary reason the quotation marks are preferred where they are optional is that the Wikimedia software processes things slightly faster with the quotation marks. But from my perspective, it's preferred because it's easier for editors to deal with ref names if they are all done the same way, in quotation marks. Let's say, for example, that an article has a reference to a 2020 study by Jones, coded as <ref name=Jones/>. Now let's say in addition to citing the 2020 Jones study, we want to cite a 2022 Jones study. So the editor inserting the reference to the 2022 study first wants to rename the existing Jones reference to "Jones 2020", before inserting a new reference to "Jones 2022". Since the new name is going to need quotes, it's easiest if the existing names already have quotes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
You made a recent edit on my sandbox. Firstly, thanks for making the tables compliant with correct formatting. I guess I got lazy with closing bold quotation symbols as I was making lots of tables to see which actually looked best - they potentially will never see an actual published article.
Just wondering why and how you came across a sandbox of all places to edit? Especially considering they may never be published. Do you run scripts or something to alert. Genuinely interested as to how this all came about.
Again, thanks for the edit - it will be useful in case I bring those tables across to published articles so that they are in a complete state. Also, you don't happen to have any experience with creating templates do you? Eccy89 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eccy89: For the past several years, I have edited a lot of Wikipedia articles to fix Lint errors. Before I worked on it, your page User:Eccy89/sandbox2 showed up with at least one fostered content error. In a table, everything has to be in a cell, so, if there is something in the markup between the table start and the table end that is displayable but isn't in a table cell, it is considered fostered content, and it displays above the table. Fostered content is sometimes caused by careless markup like this:

{|
This one-celled table is missing a pipe character in column one that would turn the rest of this line into a table cell
|}

And sometimes it's caused by forgetting to close an otherwise valid table:

{|
|Here's a table that has only one cell
|-
This is supposed to be after the table but somebody forgot the closing |}, so we're still in the table and this is fostered content

Once I started editing your page, I saw the problem with the <small>...</small> tags, and I kept going from there. I consider it worth spending time fixing lint errors in sandboxes because it helps create awareness about good and bad markup. Sorry, I don't know much about creating templates. I can create a template that's just a block to include in an article, but I don't know how to write templates that take parameters. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eccy89: contact me on my talk page for help with finding or creating a template. Explain what you would like it to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After going into the linked page above, i am surprised that there ONLY FIVE pages with the fostered content type of lint errors. I thought it would be much much higher. Although I'm not sure what my error was. I saw you changed my bgcolor=... to style="background-color:#..." and obviously the small as you stated. I didn't know that small couldn't cross two lines. Interesting. Eccy89 (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eccy89: The reason there were only 5 pages with fostered content is that Wikipedians like me are constantly fixing lint errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding work! A thanks-less task really. Mind you, I and see many others have thanked you, so maybe not that thank-less after all :-) – Eccy89 (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award you this awesome Barnstar for fixing up the tables on my profile. Awesome help. Cheers, Lightningthief77  ☎ 23:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you just took away some wikilinks that I had included in a web link. I assume that you meant well, and were enforcing some kind of policy.

In any event, I really would like our readers to be able to find out, by visiting our articles, who Peter Schreier and Walter Olbertz are. Can you advise what would be a format by which I could do this? Thank you for your help.

Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind, somebody has fixed it already, answering my question. Opus33 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opus33: Links in links do not work. If you have a Wikilink inside an external link, the external link stops working when it comes to the Wikilink. You can see this in the version of Abendlied unterm gestirnten Himmel from before I edited it. Since my edit, Michael Bednarek fixed it another way, so the external link intentionally ends before the first Wikilink. I completed the task by removing the stray closing bracket (]). (I began this message before your "never mind" and decided to post it anyway.)—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was very helpful. Opus33 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the citation problems as requested by you. Can you please verify and let me know what else to improve ? Fuzayl1 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzayl1: I haven't looked up the references in the book, of course, but the page numbers are in as needed. I reformatted them slightly and combined identical references. I expect other editors will make suggestions on further improvements. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Fuzayl1 (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copy and paste response because a set of Takashi Miike articles are all giving false disambiguation links but only if 5 apostrophes are used. Once those apostrophes are turned to 3 though it goes back to linking to, Pages that link to "Over Your Dead Body (film)". The only thing I can think is that somehow 5 apostrophes interacts with Takashi Miike template on each of these articles.

I'm going to change the redirect Kuime page to redirect strictly to the Film, placing a note in its talk page, and place a link at the top for those looking for the Japanese book. After which I will self revert my edits so those other articles can have their proper font back. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris The disambiguous links have been resolved and I reverted the changes. I apologize for alarming you.

I was trying to make those changes quickly to find out which page or article was causing it. I'm going to leave a note at Takashi Miike template talk page, hopefully someone smarter than me can find out why the presence of a redirect page going to a disambiguation page where one of the articles linked on that disambiguation page has that template: it causes all other articles with that same template to link to the disambiguation page. RCSCott91 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was about Black Society trilogy, which I edited to restore two apostrophes for opening bold italics. Now I edited Over Your Dead Body (film) to fix the hatnote. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just made that same edit for the "Over Your Dead Body (novel)" article. RCSCott91 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalocaris:

Thank you for the page tweaks.

Is the page being reviewed by someone else for whether it gets published?

Hoping it "sees the light of day."

Thanks again.

--Mark (M.mk) M.mk (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.mk: If you want a review of Draft: False or misleading statements by Bob Dylan, insert at the top {{subst:submit}}, which will turn into {{AfC submission}} or a slight variation thereof. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalocaris:

Thank you.

"insert at the top" -- I don't know what is exactly meant by this. I tried adding it to the URL and also to the search field and get nothing.

I must have to put it somewhere else. But where?

--Mark M.mk (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.mk: Edit the draft. Edit in regular mode not visual mode. Insert at the top {{subst:submit}}. Save the draft. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. M.mk (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions!! :) xRozuRozu (t • c) 03:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop your decades-long campaign to delete |url-status=usurped from citations. This is one of the worst things I have read all week. I have spent years repairing usurped domains. Detailed at WP:JUDI. The flag has a purpose, it exists for a reason. Try: https://bcsportshalloffame.com/ .. it is a usurped domain. Every instance on wikipedia needs to have |url-status=usurped .. there are over 700 domains like that. And that's just for Asian gambling sites. It doesn't include all the other usurped domains. If you don't understand how the system works, ask for help, but don't undo things you don't understand. -- GreenC 02:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC: I replied at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 96#clean up usurped / unfit / deviated. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have many of these minor errors in my past, but if you have any systematic way of finding incomplete fixes like this one from 2022 (opening font tag replaced without replacing the closing font tag), that would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95: Thank you for pointing out my incomplete fix of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains/Archive 7 on 07:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC), which I have fixed properly now. I don't know a systematic way of finding such errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They'll turn up in the stripped/missing tag lists. We'll get to them eventually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cambodian Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]