Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Law of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
from [[Roman Law]] known as [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]], as opposed to [[common law]]). The body of statutes and laws governing civil law and procedure are set out in the Civil Code of
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
With your valuable contribution this article is good enough. Iynod Agat (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<mystified> Okay—thank you. But which article?</mystified>—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
December 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ann Sheridan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
a Woman Could Be an Oomph Girl"], by Art Rogoff, ''[[The New York Times]]'', September 12, 1988]</ref><ref>[http://classiccinemagold.com/ann-sheridan/ann-sheridan-the-oomph-girl/ "The Oomph Girl"]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
Hello! I do not believe that the hyphen is an error that justifies the use of "sic". Some mainstream newspapers use it. See, for example this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the Oxford Dictionaries do not, so I believe that usage to be a mistake.—DocWatson42 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nor, for that matter, does the spelling "sub-genre" appear in any dictionary I was able to find, so whether or not it is a mistake, on close examination it appears to be one, which I strongly feel merits a "sic".—DocWatson42 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the overuse of "sic" would be a mistake, so we must agree to disagree. Happy holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Errors on 28 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
And to you, sir or madam. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling of title
We both had different names for an anime in the article Shizuku-chan. I used "Picchipichi Shizuku-chan" because an external source and other articles uses this name. I replaced "Pitchipichi Shizuku-chan" with the previous name because I cannot find reliable uses of "Pitchipichi" elsewhere. Is it correct? TheGGoose (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a journalist with the Boston Globe interested in learning about copy-editing at Wikipedia. If you're available to talk in the next couple of days, want to email me? thanks! Brittpeterson (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc
I'm surprised no one has done this before, but I've given your account the wp:Reviewer right. This means you can accept as well as revert edits to articles covered by wp:pending changes. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ^_^ (I don't interact with other editors very much, so it doesn't surprise me that I haven't had such an "upgrade".)—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Errors on 18 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
I do not think it's sound to refer to a 2010 talk page that doesn't mention {{portal bar}} to run a systematic move of portal bars from elsewhere on the page to the See also section. Indeed {{portal}}'s documentation recommends putting portals in another section if a See also section doesn't exist. It's bad form to create such a section for a portal bar. Also {{portal bar}}'s documentation indicates that common practice is to put the portal bar at the bottom of the page—it isn't appropriate to switch these instances systematically based on a minor, five-year old discussion. Please achieve a renewed consensus before systematically changing these articles.
I'm sorry for the delay in replying. I'm away this weekend, but I will try to reply in detail on Sunday or Monday.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize for the delay in responding. To take the issues in order:
I base my changes of portal templates on
-}} or {{clear}}—and {{portal-inline}} when an infobox is much longer than the text of the article, and would thus push a {{portal}} or {{portal bar
}} far down the page.
I use a small font, for which {{
-"
}}, which I have occasion to use; it's easy to use both, and not worry about other templates.
, as there are other external links in the External links section.
The fourth change I made on the Titanfall article was to move the {{good article}} template to after the external links. I am unaware of any mention of the placement of this type of template in the MoS (searches: "good article", "featured article"), but their instructions state "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis."
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goliath may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
//www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-4/JETS_48-4_701-714.pdf |format=[[Portable Document File]]}}}}</ref> Post-Classical Jewish traditions stressed Goliath's status as the representative of [[
a small or weak person or organization tries to defeat another much larger or stronger opponent" > "The game looks like it will be a David and Goliath contest."</ref>
exact height is not given, but he was a head taller than anyone else in all Israel [1 Samuel 9:2]) which implies he was over 6-feet-tall (1.83 m); and Saul's armour and weaponry are apparently no
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Once and Again may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* 8. "The Past Is Prologue -November 9, 1999)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
WP:FILMCAT. We don't order film categories in alphabetical order. When you do that, the director's name appears in the middle of the list of genres, which isn't really very helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry about that—I was unaware that was any specified systematic order of film categories. However, in that edit I was doing much more than just alphabetizing the categories—I was adding a missing comma and correcting the placement of the {{Good article}} template. May I go back and redo those edits?—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wager you also read the article having seen the Reddit video post and decided to do some cleanup? If so, then great minds think alike! —f3ndot(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 07:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just been mulling over the fire for a week or two, and finally remembered it while sitting in front of my computer, so I looked it up. I was totally unaware of the Reddit post—this is just coincidence. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 16 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
IMF staff estimates are legitimate estimates and no figures here are solid. Also the the 2014 estimates are made by the same source so are you judging the competence of the the 2015 estimates and trusting the ones from 2014? Orelbon (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? To which article are you referring? Offhand, the only "IMF" I can recall dealing with recently is the
Looking back on your contributions, the only article which we both visited recently is the that of the United Kingdom, where Rob984 just reverted your edits. I think it is s/he that you want to contact, not me.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Woops sorry I'm using my iPhone it kinda hard to see whose who 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orelbon (talk • contribs)
Your edit on
Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet
Check the Voice cast section. FilmFan 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
I don't think I have much to contribute in an "official" sense, but here's my own personal (incomplete) list of types and subtypes (which leans heavily on my experience with Dungeons & Dragons):
credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable
.
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 removed 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. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the article, nor do I remember having anything to do with it. Possibly I corrected a misspelling in it at some point?—DocWatson42 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richard M. Daley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
of-motor-truck-driver-job-duties/ |publisher=Office of the Inspector General of the City of Chicago]}}</ref></blockquote>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
Hey Doc, re: your cleanup, portals are never supposed to be in an empty See Also section like that, and in fact the documentation says that it goes at the bottom of the page. Also I prefer the whitespace as it was—makes it easer to parse while editing. czar 06:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding portals (and other boxes), I generally disagree with the documentation—for one thing, the portal bar is often useful for keeping infoboxes and images from intruding into the Notes/References section in wide browser windows. Also, I find the white space to be bothersome. However, in this case what I really feel strongly about is keeping the "[sic]" and the spelling "portait" (which is in the original, much to my regret) in the journal citation.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the frustration but those types of drive-by edits are the epitome of what the WP community discourages (whitespace changes, template changes for personal preferences opposite the documentation, and byzantine additions). I see no reason to use sic instead of just fixing the straightforward typographical error. A professional publication would not reproduce the error on virtue of its accuracy. czar 07:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "drive-by edits" were what I was doing, since I was cleaning up misspellings
MOS:PMC
(which I just found) supports you for quotations (titles are not mentioned), and I have been making a few such corrections when the quotation is unverifiable, due either to a dead link in the citation/reference, or when the quotation has no citation.
I am also following
MOS:APPENDIX in its general guidelines as to the placement of portals and other boxes. I much prefer consistency in the placement of portals, sister project links, and similar items—putting them in the same section every time—that is, barring their inclusion in infoboxes and navbars, which supersede the usual placement.—DocWatson42 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Reference errors on 15 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Just for future reference, there's no need to do this in the future as both spelling are correct. One is just less used now than it used to be. Same with travelled/traveled. As long as the article is internally consistent, either spelling is acceptable. ···
MOS:TIES, I only change the spelling in American-related articles. Since David Weber is an American author, I changed it, where I would not have for, say, Arthur C. Clarke. —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
They are both now chiefly/only British, but that wasn't always the case. It's only in the last few years that American spelling has been changing to the single "l". ···
@Glrx: I apologize—I don't know why I did that, and that was not my intention (the rest of my changes I did intend). I have made the two corrections.—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Glrx (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DocWatson42, I wounder why you characterized your last edit on Erich von Manstein page as "clean-up"? Are there policies or guidelines encouraging the use of one template over the other? Carlotm (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no such policies—I merely prefer the portal bar and individual Wikimedia sister project templates over the subject bar because they take up less vertical space, and because placing the Wikimedia sister project links directly in the
External links section
puts them where they are most often found.
I see. In fact the location of that page portal information (whether Portal bar or Subject bar) is quite unusual. In your clean-up you could have moved it where it's usually found, i.e. right after the last section. BTW I prefer the Subject bar for the very reason of your dislike. Portal bar looks to me too tight. But, as they say, de gustibus non est disputandum. Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks
Why did you put "Short novel—over 100 pages in length in paperback." in remark markup on The Service of the Sword and Honorverse? If it is relevant, it should be in the article, and if not, it shouldn't be there at all. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't add explanation just like that. This is absolutely a minor issue. Debresser (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Space double template
I'm curious about this edit: [1]. It's not a documented use of this template, and while I could maybe see putting it at the end of Udjat I don't see the point of putting it at the beginning of the word. On my screen it doesn't make much difference and I don't object to putting it here but I am curious. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kendall-K1: My intention was to move ("lean in") the leading double quotation mark to better align it with the italicized Udjat (as the trailing "space double template" does at the end of the word), which I assumed it would do. However, I just checked and there seems to be no such effect, so it is apparently superfluous. Oops. <blush> I've made the correction.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 11 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
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.
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
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.
Many thanks DocWatson42 for your work...it's much appreciated! The Apollo Seed (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought the red alert notice was (more) bad news. Thank you, and you're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
We tend not to have these in medication article per "Avoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end."[2] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Would you be willing to add it to the MoS so that non-specialists like myself would know about it?—DocWatson42 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C.Cleeve (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Dear DocWatson42,
Thank you for the excellent cleanup you performed on CUSACK. I was and still am a novice at recording stuff on Wiki (being rather old). I struggled to put down a few facts about my early family history when I found, a number of years ago, that there was but a two line entry. I thought, back then, that other Cusacks might possibly be interested to read a few things about the family (surprised when my grandson told me that there had been nearly 12,000 visits to the site in the past year). I have appreciated the help and guidance that you and your fellow helpers who give unstintingly to help, guide and correct we who at times don't know what we are doing - but try! I know I've been 'told off' for my non encyclopedic presentation but I'll live with that!
Thanks again Doc.[reply]
@C.Cleeve: I'm not very involved with the social side of Wikipedia, but if you have questions about the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially article layout and copy editing, I'll do my best to help.—DocWatson42 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Felwine Sarr
Hello Doc!
I think the page on Felwine Sarr is now good enough; who is charge of removing the templates upon it?
Regards. --Morgoko (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
project page or contact me to learn more! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC) [reply] *Please note that membership is open only to full users. If you currently edit with an IP address, please consider creating an account
today! We would love to have you.
@2ReinreB2: Thank you. ^_^ I'm not interested in joining, but when I find the time I'll do a pass through the relevant articles. Copyediting and formatting are two of my strengths, and I'm looking to earn my Grandmaster Editor star. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. We welcome any help you can give, although (as the advertiser I am) I'd still encourage you to consider listing yourself as a
GA review, if you're looking for a potential source of copyedits. Thanks for getting back to me, and happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
Hello Doc!
I've added new sources to the Felwine Sarr page; could you go and check? If there's more to do to get the template removed, kindly let me know. Regards.
Note that I left the guillemets in the title since it's not in English, but that they should not be used in English-language quotations (my apologies to you if you already knew this—I mean no offense). Note also that spacing between/within the fields of the template does not matter per se, as the result displays the same whether there are no spaces or carriage returns before or after the pipe (|) characters, or spaces before or after the equals signs. E.g.,
<ref>{{Cite news | last = Calvet | first = Catherine | date = 24 March 2016 | title = Felwine Sarr: «L’Afrique n’a personne à rattraper» | url = http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/03/24/felwine-sarr-l-afrique-n-a-personne-a-rattraper_1441781 | department = Good Morning Africa (column) | work = [[Libération]] | location = Paris | language = FR | access-date = 8 May 2017}}</ref><poem>
<poem><ref>{{Cite news</span>
| last=Calvet
| first=Catherine
| date=24 March 2016
| title=Felwine Sarr: «L’Afrique n’a personne à rattraper»
| url=http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/03/24/felwine-sarr-l-afrique-n-a-personne-a-rattraper_1441781
| department=Good Morning Africa (column)
| work=[[Libération]]
| location=Paris
| language=FR
| access-date=8 May 2017}}</ref>
(et cetera) are both equivalent to the first example. However, I feel that in the horizontal usage one space before the pipes gives the best balance between use of space, readability, and line wrapping in the edit box. Similarly, the fields can be in any order, but in my opinion should be in the order in which they are displayed, to make future editing easier.—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Please help translate this message into your local language via meta.
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hi, DocWatson42, I was wondering why you removed the perrow 5 for the gallery. Imo it doesn't look nice now. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotje: It seemed redundant, given that the gallery is composed of five images. I've now reduced the size of the thurifer image so that it does not cause the following image to impinge on the gallery in wide browser windows (I use a width of 1600 pixels, to my knowledge not an uncommon size) and centered the gallery. How does it look to you? —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc, thanks for your note. Like yourself, I have tailed off lately as I was fatigued from the continual battles with editors who took a very protective stand on "their" articles. I have resolved to let the "water off a duck's back" philosophy work. I am out today on a trip but will write again when I find some time. Cheers. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bzuk: Thank you for your reply. I haven't tailed off (I've actually accelerated in recent months), but I look forward to your full response. To restate my request in a different way, I don't know how dispute resolution on Wikipedia works, and am looking for guidance. (If you know anyone else who might be helpful, I'm open to suggestions.) Though Wikipedia:Ownership of content seems to be a place to start. (Thinking about your phrase "editors who took a very protective stand on 'their' articles" reminded me of that policy, and made me look it up. ^_^) —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some stroopwafels for you!
kudos on having a similar username. also, thanks for all the edits- 🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 20:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here is that people fail to grasp the concept that heat transfer is not dependent on air molecules. If it was then how would the sun warm us?
Also the fact that the thermosphere is actually a hemisphere and not global might help in the understanding of what we are talking about here. There is no thermosphere 'up there' at night, as it were.
This topic is clouded and made murky because it has become something of a political minefield, which is well explored in other wiki articles, but the statement that heat is not felt because the air is too thin wrong and is being used by people who can't understand the basic concept of infrared radiation and solar heat transfer.
I don't relish the thought of editing anyone's work, so could you please reconsider your work here. Jamie.d (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be so kind as to elaborate a bit? What about my (sole) edit (edit history) to the thermosphere article do you find problematic? I deleted an extra carriage return, created a "See also" section, and moved the portal to it. Perhaps you are/were looking for someone else's talk page? —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I may...
On the topic of thermosphere and how it would feel to be in the thermosphere.
You said it would feel cold. Alexei Leonov has recently been broadcast in a BBC interview where he said it was so hot he was afraid he would die.
The reason, I suggest, for your mistake is a confusion between cold at high altitudes and that of the stratosphere. The two things are very distinct. The mountain top is :: cold because air thins and an exothermic reaction means that heat is drawn into the air and away from the environment.
Regardless, the subject is fraught with malign influences by climate change warriors and Apollo deniers like me. So please go with Leonov's account and correct your own.
Really, where did you get that?
Also you might notice that an excellent article in the subject is waiting to be edited.
I've just realised that you probably aren't the author of this but just someone who edited a spelling mistake.
If so, can you point me in the direction of the author? Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie.d (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Click the "view history" link at the top right of the "Thermosphere" article to see what edits have been performed on it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DocWatson firstly thank you for cleaning up my ‘CUSACK’ writings some time ago.
I wonder if you can advise on some ‘changes’ that have been made to CUSACK ?
14th June saw deletions to the Lady Joan de Cusack section for lack of references.
26th June I returned from holiday and filled in the references.
26th June saw a request for recent ‘will’ ref (which will be ‘Cusack 1981, p34’). There also saw the removal, as ‘nonsensical’ of my reference to part of Geoffrey de Cusack’s DNA being present in Plunketts and Cusacks. Has it not been shown that the DNA of Richard 111 is present in a couple of today’s relatives? Was I wrong to make this statement? Did I not have the correct reference?
Finally, the paragraph (near the beginning) about a Seigneur de Cusack in 1066 was removed, because no reference was found in the named source and it was ‘not old enough’ or ‘not recent enough’ !
I was quoting from what had appeared in Noblesse de France (published 1828) Page 3, Note 1 as follows -
‘Des l’an 1066, un seigneur de Cusac avait accompague Guillaume le Bastard, Duc de Normandie, a la conquete de l’Angleterre. (Voyez Les Historiens Anglais et Rapin de Thoyras,)’
Was it correct to have been removed ?
I would be pleased to know what if I should do anything.
Best Regards
C.Cleeve (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Cleeve: Let me deal with your points in order. First, you're welcome. ^_^ Second, the DNA mention needs two slight changes (as in: "was shared between them, however what they and the Cusacks"), and to me the mention of the inheritance seems to be irrelevant. I'm generally unfamiliar with the topic of the Cusack family (I believe I originally visited the article to check the etymology of the name, and I have a hard time not correcting any mistakes I find), so I can't comment on their relation to Richard III. A reference or two here would be good (you neglected to include one <blush> Try looking through these.).
As for the removal of the paragraph, I disagree with Agricolae—the mention does seem germane and though I am unfamiliar with L'Histoire d'Angleterre (to which you refer in the edit in question, not Noblesse de France), I don't have a problem with citing old sources. (After all, Gibbons' The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789) is of nearly the same era, and is still relevant.) However, a fully fleshed-out reference (author, year, title, wikilink and/or hyperlink if the work is online, ISBN, OCLC number, etc.; I like Citation Style 1, which tends to be an expanded version of APA style. See "Sources added to Felwine Sarr" above for more of my opinions on the subjects of reference and editing.) of whichever you are citing would be a good idea. You might also take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try to work out any differences with Agricolae (though I am not familiar with the process—I edit much more than I participate in the social aspects of Wikipedia). Additionally, it seems that you aren't the only one with a problem with Agricolae (see also here).
I haven't done much with genealogy, but I do know someone who has (in the British Isles, not France). If you have any short questions on the subject, I can relay them.
As a side note, it would look better if your user name was not a red link (which, in a user name, tends to be the sign of a spammer). Your user homepage doesn't have to be complex—as an example, see my German Wikipedia user page. Further, you might break up your text with double carriage returns. (I personally struggle with writing long sentences—I like them, and the ones I construct seem to make grammatical sense, but stylistically they are a bit weak, as they are possibly hard to read.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yet again for your help and advice, I'm a bit past it at over 80. But look I'm now 'blue' ! C.Cleeve (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the message! Im on traveling mood now but will be back to You asap. Yes, there are people with certain mentality and its not easy to deal with them. I get back to You soon. Have a nice day! camdan (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and the same to you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Portals
We tend to put these in the external links section for medical articles when a see also section does not exist. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I'm sorry about that. You told me about that in January (see above), but I had forgotten. :( —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you'd been editing the article on MSNBC a bit and I wonder if you might be able to review a substantial revision of the article about the MSNBC president, Phil Griffin, which is currently just a stub. The revision is at Talk:Phil_Griffin
I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and try to adhere by the five pillars. But I am a paid consultant to NBC news, so I can't make these changes directly on the article. They have to be reviewed first by an independent editor.
I've started, mostly by cleaning up the references—see my sandbox for a partial draft. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Appreciate it very much. Please let me know if I can assist in any way. Ed BC1278 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
@BC1278: I finished the cleanup of the references (updating the links, adding missing information, and formatting them into Citation Style 1—my preference—with MMMM-DD-YYYY dates) and other, minor cleanup. IMHO the article is balanced (NPOV). However, two of statement/references combinations fail verification ("[not in citation given]"), and please note that I did not perform a thorough fact check. In particular, "The Big Show with Keith Olbermann" is vague, as it (apparently) can apply to to different things—"The Big Show" segment on ESPN Radio's The Dan Patrick Show, and the MSNBC prime-time TV series The Big Show with Keith Olbermann. Please disambiguate these and add references. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your user name "BC1278" just made me think "BC-1278? That's a lot of battlecruisers." ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I dismabiguated "The Big Show" and sourced "executive producer" with one new citation. The other statement in question was supported in the source -- just way down. Paragraph 20, right under the photo. Thanks for all your help here. Ed BC1278 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
@BC1278: You're welcome. ^_^ As for "He says he never had ambitions to become an on-air reporter", I believe I looked for information in the article, but obviously I didn't find it. Perhaps you might add the relevant sentence to the reference as a quotation (" |quote="), to assist future readers. (I'm currently at home on my obsolescent computer, so I can't do so or check it myself.) I did, however, perform a bit of cleanup on the new reference (Ad Age), adding the publication's name, and reordering its and the GQ reference's fields. (I like to have the fields in the order in which the information appears, as I believe this helps other editors make sense of them more easily, as does a minimal spacing of the fields, to improve readability and line wrapping in editing mode.)—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: As well as fixing a couple of typos in other references that I missed. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the "on-air reporter" mention to a direct quote from the article. Thanks for your attention to detail.BC1278 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
You'll migrate it over to the existing article when you think it's ready? Or do you want my help? BC1278 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Oh, I just assumed that you'd take it and do the migration yourself. But on thinking about it, given your position, I'll do it now. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I made a few more changes—added a category or two, plus a link, and a few other, minor things (e.g., curly quotes
violate the MOS, in part because of encoding problems, so I changed them to plain quotation marks). —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please stop...
...making the edits you describe as "Cleaned up image placement (to eliminate excess white space in wide browser windows". They are not improvements, and your log shows you spend virtually no time checking out the effects of the changes you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do spend a significant amount of time checked the changes before implementing them. The short time between the first and second edits to a particular article can often be explained by my noticing something I've overlooked the first time around, usually just as I've pressed the "Save changes" button. The first edit takes the time, and the second edit is often a same change. I do have to ask: what width of browser window do you you use? As I noted above, I use 1600 pixels, and I can add that the font size is not particularly large. I also include what are IMHO other constructive changes in many of those reverted edits, which I'd like to explain. However, it's very late in my day, so please let me take this up when I have more time to devote to it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Beyond My Ken. Just because you have a certain width of browser does not mean articles have have to be written for it. Your sandwiching of text between images on the Butler article may be fine on wider browsers, but on tablets it looks woeful, with a small column of text between images. Please understand that your monitor is not the only way people will see articles. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, DocWatson42. Voting in the
2017 Arbitration Committee elections
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 04:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring sections in article
Hi,
You were nice enough to work with me to review and expand Phil Griffin, which had been a stub. Another editor has come along and removed much of the new material, returning it to a stub. The original can be found at Talk: Phil Griffin or in History, of course.
I wonder if you can take a look. There was no reason given for removing the material. It was simply removed. I have a COI here, so can't make any changes directly. We could start a discussion with the other editor on Talk if you agree that the material should not have been removed -- in my opinion, the changes take the article back to stub instead in the direction of GA, which is where I'd like it to go.
@BC1278: Assuming you mean this edit, I agree with you, though there is a reason given: "COI Edit request implemented per: BC1278"; I can't find a mention of that on discussion your or Spintendo's talk pages. However, since the two of you seem to have worked together in the recent past, I would first ask Spintendo the reason for the change. (Despite my experience on Wikipedia, I've never actually been through the formal Dispute resolution process.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian Genocide as an example, you'll find an "Edit links" link at the bottom of the list of already-linked languages in the left sidebar; you can use that to add, remove or modify interlanguage links. If the article you're interested in doesn't currently have such a list of links to versions in other languages, such as Argyrotaenia atrata, the relevant link in the "Languages" section of the left sidebar becomes "Add links" instead of "Edit" but works the same way. Of course you can also edit the Wikidata item; again using the Armenian Genocide as an example, it says "Wikipedia (83 entries) edit" near the bottom, above a list of entries for the 83 editions of Wikipedia that currently are linked. Things get a little tricky if the articles in both languages already have different Wikidata items associated with them; then those items need to be merged. Huon (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
If you weigh in, that would be great. We can see how the discussion goes. My understanding is that we wait to see if there's a consensus decision or any objection to restoring the edits. Maybe a week? Not sure what standard operating procedure is -- I suppose it depends on if there is active discussion.
You're welcome. I'll try to add my two cents to that discussion, but currently I'm in the middle of upgrading to a new computer and am stuck using my phone to edit, so making large changes is tedious and difficult. :-/ (I used a library computer for the last comment.) --DocWatson42 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
You're welcome, though it's not intentional. :-) I just keep looking things up and habitually look for the usual mistakes and problems to fix. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nextdoor
Hi,
I hope you've been well. I noticed you had been an editor on Nextdoor. I have written a substantial redraft of it. The explanation and link to the redraft are here: Talk:Nextdoor#Request_for_Review. There are very substantial problems with the current article. This is one of the more important social networking platforms, outside of the Facebook orbit, and the topic has more relevance than ever before this year because of the problems facing Facebook.
I have a conflict of interest here, so review by an independent editor is required. I'm not sure if you have time, of course, but you'd fit the bill! I have notified everyone on the article's Talk page of the discussion. The level of experience of recent contributors doesn't seem to be very high, as reflected in the article's Talk page.
MOS:ABBREVIATIONS#Miscellaneous shortenings, as well as most of the dictionaries searched by OneLook, which lean towards or specify dates as the subject of its usage. I started using "c." because I had not (then) checked the rules and it is significantly shorter than "approx.", as well as clearer than "~". [sigh] I'll miss it. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC) q[reply
Hello
I notice you added an item to the Artistic depictions here, viz. Crossing Jordan's Jordan Cavanaugh MD, "a crime-solving forensic pathologist employed in the Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner".
As I recently took out all the ME's and forensic pathologists (here) on the basis that they were something different to a coroner, I have to ask; are they (IYO) the same thing? I have (co-incidentally) just opened a discussion on that subject here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert, but given that the duties listed here are identical (the linked page is used as a reference in the article), I can't tell much difference between them, at least not in the United States, where the
Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner). Perhaps a combined "In popular culture" article for both types, as per TVTropes? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello again: Thanks (belately!) for replying. Yes, that nlm source probably isn't the best to show the differences in the roles. But the confusion reflected in the Artistic depictions section isn't (IMO_) helpful, so I've opened a discussion on this at the Coroner talk page, if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this count as disruptive editing? The edit I made that Seokgyuhan reverted seems to me be perfectly reasonable, given that the Tavern on the Green is apparently still open and the Web site is live. Seokgyuhan's other recent edits seem to be edit warring over excessive detail. Or am I reading something that isn't there? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes to the article were reasonable and so I've restored them. If you really believe there's a pattern of disruptive editing from that editor, collect
WP:ANI. For future reference: as a general rule, it's best to discuss questionable reversions with the reverting party before asking for input from uninvolved editors. 78.28.54.8 (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
I suggest treating it as a content dispute at first, to be talked about on the Tavern's talk page or on Seokgyuhan's talk page. The recent edits do seem to be lacking in good edit summaries. It seems odd that an editor who has been around this long would suddenly go rogue. If you can't get a response, and the pattern of troubling edits continues, that's the time to take it up with admins. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 09:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@78.28.54.8 and Jmcgnh: I did think about taking this matter up with Seokgyuhan, but I wasn't certain that s/he would be reasonable, given the recent pattern of edits (especially the reversions to other reversions), and have not handled that many disputes (or at least feel I am still inexperienced in this field), so I am looking for for advice from wiser heads than mine. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you were active on the Louis XIII article about the cognac. I am reaching out to get your help to update the article. I added new content along with the third-party media references in
Sure. I try to get to that later tonight. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gap in Marxism article
Hi! What an egregious error that is! Thank you very much for pointing it out to me; I'll sort it out post haste! TheLoneDeranger (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Delete Dhanlaxmi Bank the proprietor of the company and Trademark wishes that their name not be used for unofficial organizations claiming to be part of their bank. This article and page is bogus
WP:CONSENSUS Building. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Dragao2004: I hadn't edited the article in seventeen months, but okay. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
Template:Local authorites in London. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Local authorites in London redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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.
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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.
MOS:PSEUDOHEAD part. I have added third level headers, based on what is done in other articles. If you like it this way, we'll leave it here. Otherwise, you may change it and it will likely be fine for me. Cheers.--Gorpik (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
this
:
Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose.[10] The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material.
I added "Citations" to Tales from Topographic Oceans as a sub-section heading for clarity. Otherwise it looks good to me. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that editors may use any section title that they choose, this does not mean that we can change freely what previous editors have chosen. Otherwise, we would have never ending edit wars. I mean: the first editor chooses a name and afterwards we would need a very good reason to change it. Anyway, your final solution is completely fine for me :)--Gorpik (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Doc, do you have a minute to take a look at my proposed changes over at Talk:Simon_N._Powell? It's not very active over there and you were a big help in the past. I improved the sourcing where I could, and trimmed down some content elsewhere. I appreciate any feedback you might have!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FacultiesIntact: My Internet access is currently limited, but I'll try to fix that tonight, or at least within the next few days. Until then, I'm limited in what I can do. :-( —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries or rush! I appreciate the help whenever you get the chance.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FacultiesIntact: I just got back the use of my desktop computer today (after three months of it being down), so I'll try to review your proposed changes soon. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Total Divas cast table.
Hey there, I was just wondering if you were able to assist me on the latest edits on the Total Divas page. There is a user who claims just because there is not a source to provide for recurring and guest characters, it should entirely be removed with all recurring cast members being reverted to guests. This, to me, is inaccurate, as they are trying to determine a cast members status based on their personal views. Whereas the difference between a recurring and guest are based on the amount of episodes they appeared in, and the amount of involvement they have with the storyline/main cast members. Also, this seems like a bold edit as every other television show on Wikipedia contains these types of tables, determining main, recurring, and guest characters, so I find it rather silly that this user is targeting this one show yet none of the others. However, any assist would be beneficial, as I am not looking for "back up" as I am open to change, but I want it to be for the right reasons and accurate representations. I do not want to engage in an edit war with them, nor cross any boundaries with Wikipedia. Even though I am aware that sources must be provided for most - if not all - edits, I feel in this case (including every other TV show on Wikipedia) they aren't necessary as the "proof is in the pudding" as so, meaning the source is out there in world as the episodes have been aired, etc. Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Brief description. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Brief description redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 20:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Redirects cause problems with the short description editing gadget. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added my two cents. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hi DocWatson42! 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.
Hi DocWatson! I appreciate your edits to this article; however, it is really difficult to review changes when editors do a complete overhaul. i'm not sure there is a standard, but i have encountered other editors who feel similarly. How do you feel on the matter? If this does not interrupt your workflow, please consider this in the future. Thanks, Fred (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
, which seems clear to me. Here are the changes I made:
Cleaned up
layout by moving the "{{Improve categories}}" maintenance/dispute tag to the top of the article. (This goes against the tag's own instructions, but is in keeping with the general MOS, and with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
. It does not make sense to me to bury a cleanup tag at the bottom of an article when it affects the whole thing and is much less likely to be seen, especially when it's at the very bottom of the article, below the the categories to which it refers.)
Corrected two hyphens
by changing them to en dashes.
Cleaned up two references. (IMHO a link to a WorldCat record should be represented as such and not as a link to the book itself. References should also be completed as fully as possible, while keeping in line with the style in which they are written. E.g., include identifying numbers, but not the ultimate owners of standalone Web sites as their publishers (identifying the owner of the
Internet Movie Database
as Amazon.com is unnecessary) or the locations of periodicals which already include that information in their titles.)
Corrected a misspelling (which is what brought me to the article in the first place).
Added spaces after asterisk-bullets to aid in editing the points (I find that it is easier to read an article in edit mode if there are spaces and carriage returns separating the wiki markup (e.g., in this comment), though too many of either impedes it).
Added spaces per
MOS:CIRCA
.
Alphabetized the categories, also to aid in editing. (I recall being told years ago that there is a specific order for them, at least for film and television categories, but I have no idea where to find it, and so alphabetical order makes the most sense to me.)
I'm generally happy to explain the reason(s) I make changes to articles.
Note that in my opinion, CS1 and CS2 (not my preference) references' fields should be formatted in the order in which they are displayed in the articles, as this makes editing them simpler. I often rearrange references to suit this preference.
Regarding large overhauls, sometimes articles need them, and sometimes only sections need editing. Sometimes only a punctuation mark needs fixing. When I'm using my phone, the wiki software limits me to editing one section at a time. On my desktop, that limitation does not exist, and it is generally easier to do the whole thing at once. Usually the only time I have difficulty figuring out what has been done in a particular edit is when it involves adding or subtracting numerous spaces, something the wiki software does not display very well. I'm trying to rack up edits to attain the next level of editorship, but I want to do it the right way, not by making a single change at a time with malice aforethought. Also, that would be tedious, and I'm not inclined to perform at a lower level than I can. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. I really appreciate this. I realize now i could have checked the page histories. Re:Worldcat. I must have read the ebook at school, but i'll be more careful in the future. And I didn't even realize one could alphabetize the categories. Thanks for the MOS links, i'll try to abide by them. I'm planning to work Marjorie Hill soon. Cheers and thanks again Fred (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fred: You're welcome for all of the above. Responding gave me a chance to write out some of my preferences for the first time. As for alphabetizing categories (and other things), it's a primary reason I have MS Excel. For a bit more help, see here: User:DocWatson42/Help. Lastly, note that most editors abide by the MOS, but some ignore it (as I express above, I disagree with some of its points), often greatly. One of the two primary editors of New York City articles, as well as articles on fascism, is...no great fan of them, nor does that editor (whose username is "Beyond My Ken" without spaces) have much time for civility. Preemptory reversion of edits without explanation is a hallmark. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doc!
Thanks for spotting my typo in the 4th note of my piece on the film "Whaling: British Columbia Least Known and Most Romantic Industry"! I've fixed it in the public version.--Filmhunter (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi Doc!
About this clarification request of yours: the first, regarding the net income, has already been clarified (the value inserted was wrong) but it's not updated, because as you can read here 80 millions € was referred to 2016/17, while the 2017/18 net income is 60,5 millions €; the second, regarding the pronunciation of Gabbana, is wrong too becase there's not a double "g" exactle as Dolce has not a double "d" (see here and here please) in Italian.
Feel free to correct them both and to keep an eye on them, I hope my intervention was useful.
Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIAMWASN AIHC (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DIAMWASN AIHC: My apologies for taking so long to respond, and thank you for the links. ^_^ I've added them in references to the article, and performed other cleanup to the lead section. —
Edits to Steven A. Cohen article
Hello. I am reaching out to you because you have edited the Steven A. Cohen article. I would like help with updating the article. Please visit the article talk page to review my suggested updates. Thanks! AlexReads (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add a redirect or new article for baseball - ‘Combination Perfect Game’
Hi,
I don’t exactly know how to do it but I searched for ‘combination perfect game’ to find out what it is and both the Wiki App and the .org site doesn’t have either a redirect or a distinct definition or clear explanation.
I found you by just poking around and since I can’t email you directly, I figured I’d try this way.
This all comes from the Tampa Bay Rays Vs. Orioles game that was almost a ‘Perfect Combination Game’ through the 9th inning - July 14, 2019.
So...since your an expert at this, maybe you can add an article or at the very least a redirect for:
- Combination Perfect Game
- Perfect Combination Game
Best Regards,
Dave Larkins
dlarkins [at] comcast [dot] net GTO3DEUCES (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GTO3DEUCES: Thanks for the compliment. ^_^ I'm a "utility player" rather than an article creator. Anyway, you want to read the article "List of Major League Baseball perfect games'" section "Perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter", though as the hit was by the first batter in the inning it unfortunately does not qualify. Instead, I added a new subsection, "Combined near perfect games", which will hopefully be deemed worthy of being kept by other editors. I also added a section the article's Talk page, though given the lack of traffic to/verbiage on the page I don't expect many replies.
By the way, since you are new to Wikipedia, see this page: User:DocWatson42/Helpand my comments in the section "Maude Darling Parlin" above (now on the linked page). Lastly, I munged your E-mail address, as leaving such lying around unredacted is a good way to attract spambots to that account. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: <facetious> "But the link's right there! My edit count!" </facetious> All right, in the future I'll resist the temptation. </sigh> —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding short descriptions
Short descriptions belong on Wikidata. There's no reason to be adding them everywhere here when Wikidata already provides them for every page. Is there some reason for why you keep adding them to pages? ···
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) initially arranged for short descriptions to be drawn from the Description field in Wikidata entries. Later, WMF made provision for these to be overwritten by short descriptions generated within Wikipedia.
Wikidata has English descriptions of a significant fraction of Wikipedia articles. Where these are good, they may be copied to the relevant article. The Wikidata descriptions are all public domain, so there is no need for attribution. If you use a Wikidata description, check that it is appropriate and accurate. Wikidata descriptions may not comply with all Wikipedia content policies, and it is the responsibility of the editor to ensure that Wikipedia content complies. This is particularly relevant for biographies of living people and medical articles.
In my experience, not every article has a description, and where a description exists, it is not necessarily accurate or useful. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So go edit the Wikidata description. It's just as easy to change. I do it all the time. ···
Shortdesc helper makes it very easy (easier) to do so in Wikipedia (the link is right below the article's title), and short descriptions in Wikipedia additionally have the advantage of being editable by anyone on Wikipedia, not just the more "cosmopolitan" of Wikimedia projects editors, or those specialized in Wikidata. See also Wikipedia:Short description#Implementation, which outlines the plan to switch to having all short descriptions on Wikipedia: "Stage 2: Once Wikipedia editors write (or import from Wikidata) ~2 million descriptions, we will switch to entirely Wikipedia-hosted descriptions." —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see
WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
new editor carbon monoxide page
Hello,
I am new to this tonight. I am a teacher with 30 years experience, but haven't edited wikipedia for years. I have created a world map and youtube channel that features a great deal on carbon monoxide. The map could be embedded. I'm afraid to do this for two reasons.
1. I don't want to screw up the page by using embed codes.
2. since the link is to a resource I have created I don't feel that it is my decision to make.
I would appreciate you going to my site www.mrtesttubehead.com and clicking on the link to the "carbon monoxide awareness map" to see if in your judgement it is worth adding to the CO page.
@Mrtesttubehead: I can't guarantee that another editor won't delete it, but you can try adding your site's link to the Carbon monoxide poisoning article's "External links" page, since that article is more on point. As for your site, I would make the YouTube channel's link more prominent (it's off the screen even on a 1920×1080 pixel monitor) and label the icon with text. Actually, I would recommend that you add the "how to use" video's link to the "Carbon Monoxide" page, and add that page's link to the "CO poisoning" article, so as to avoid conflicting with recommendation no. 4 of Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember.
Hi. A topic about internet censorship in iran needs to become update on Wikipedia. Please add "How Iranian people access to block websites and use social medias" Wikipedia needs your attention to become better place. Thank you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_IranOmid6578 (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Omid6578: If you haven't already, please take a look at what I have done, which was mostly minor cleanup. What else would you suggest? Please note that I am not an expert in the subject. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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 2019 election, please review
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
Thank you very much for improving structure, syntax and spelling of the
third of our five pillars so clearly in practice; I feel the spirit of Wikipedia in every paragraph of the text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
Hello DocWatson42, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing,
I have no idea—I've never used Skype. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
pic placement
You said that you cleaned up. The pics too low on broad screens. Now they sandwich the text, and displace headers. Is that cleaner? We have so many things that are really dirty, missing references for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GALLERY. I try to avoid gallery sections for that reason (though they are expected in English Wikipedia's medical articles). Anyway, this is what the article looked like to me before my edit. I admit that I am using a very large/wide monitor, but that is what I was trying to fix. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How about: in you articles you write, you "fix", and in articles others wrote, you raise attention on the talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As my top page says, I'm a WikiDee, so I visit many articles that don't get much attention, thus I am bold, except where there is much attention devoted to the topic in question. E.g., New York City and its related articles have two very devoted editors, one of whom is not the most polite or communicative (at least not with me). Also, I don't write (start) very many articles, except for redirects and disambiguation pages. I mostly copy edit. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Is this a trick to avoid the problem of bracket in bracket? If yes, good to know. By the way, "nowiki> doesnt work. How to make the code to be printed "as is"?
), but for titles of references (articles, books, etc.) I prefer to maintain the exact spelling so that those references can be reproduced it some of their information is lost. E.g., in this book, which is used in a number of California-related articles,
the name of Humboldt County, California is spelled "Humbolt". If I "corrected" the spelling of the title, the book would be more difficult to find. (This mistake matters to me because "Humboldt"/"Humbolt" (as in Alexander von Humboldt and his brother Wilhelm von Humboldt) is one of the typos I "patrol" for.) For more of my opinions (and a few tips) on editing, see User:DocWatson42/Help. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear, I was talking about the code for the right bracket by the "sic": & # 93 ; : how I can display it in a wiki page not converted into ']' (I guess it is a kind of html code, right?). Anyway, your explanations were useful.
Why did you remove the edits? It is offical source from Govt of Andorra. Qdolci (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because your grant of nobility from Andorra, official or not, has no relevance to a parish in the state of Louisiana. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say a thank you for pointing out my mistake in citing a reference to WHO information on lead poisoning in water. As far as I can see I have corrected it, but welcome you checking and letting me know if there is still a problem about this. Redhill54 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Law of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Lotje (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Lotje (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)