User talk:Mike Schwartz
Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions to Rice University and other pages. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.
- You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.
- The Wikipedia Tutorialis a good easy-to-follow guide to editing Wikipedia.
- Welcomeis another good place to start.
- Wikipedia:How does one edit a pagegives editing help.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
- Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
- Wikipedia:Helpcovers a broad range of useful topics.
- Wikipedia:Help desk is a good place to ask questions.
- Wikipedia:Show previewexplains how to double-check your edits before saving.
You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page.
Happy editing, LUDRAMAN | T 17:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I finally saw [/read] this today. More later... if time permits. Mike Schwartz 18:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I decided to add a personal subpage sandbox page - at User talk:Mike Schwartz/subpage/sandbox ; (is this going to work?) Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
useful links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_page "see also":
- Help:Wiki_markup#Link_to_another_namespace
- Wikipedia:Editing_help#Wiki_markup
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
- Help:Interwiki linking
- edit counter from http://toolserver.org/
Guide to referencing
Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.
Using references (citations) |
---|
WP:REFB , which goes to a help page.I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. If you need any assistance, let me know. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) ]
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.
Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) It should appear like this:
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:
Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets. The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead.
You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Here is an example for a book:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.
These formats are all acceptable for dates:
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. The quotes around the name are optional unless there is a space in the name. You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are three sources and they are each referenced three times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.
The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair.
More information can be found at:
|
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
deleted old section [from 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)]
[archived it first - "sorta"]
Hi. Thanks for spotting that syntax error. Also, if you see an obvious thing like that in the future, feel free to
]- umm, OK. I guess if I change "grant granting" to "begin granting", then someone can still tweak it (fix it) (repair it) later, "if" appropriate. ["such as", to change it to just "grant"] Thank you. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks
thanks for pointing the error. i actually deleted that reference, and put in a new one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryhuman (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
re: oops
i imagine the change was made by 'veryhuman' b/c he has both the before and after part. No idea what went on there. At any rate, I put the citation back. Lihaas (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
idea for an edit, but first: any comments?
Note for someone (CALR?) (should it be copied / moved to the User talk page User_talk:CALR? -- or perhaps to the Talk:Mathematics "discussion" page?) (Actually, replying / answering here would seem OK to me...) This sentence:
Finally, information theory is concerned with the amount of data that can be stored on a given medium, and hence concepts such as compression and entropy.
appears to have been introduced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=65060026&oldid=65058680 My suggestion is: to change
and hence concepts such as
to [something like]
and hence deals with concepts such as
Sorry if I have made a mistake here by failing to "Be Bold" and just go and do the edit first ("and ask questions later"). Today I was inclined to err on the side of being cautious (and also maybe apologetic - - "just in case"). Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[archive of] "road not taken" diatribe
I was going to put this on the Talk page for Wayne_Dolcefino, but it seemed so long, and the possible comments so unlikely to be surprising, that I just decided to "Be Bold" and make the edit. However, having put some time in to writing this, I didn't want to get rid of it completely. So, for your reading enjoyment, here it is:
ambiguity (also, missing period)
In the article, Wayne_Dolcefino, this sentence: "A $5.5 million verdict for libel (Sylvester Turner v. KTRK Television; 1996) was subsequently overturned by a court of appeals and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court" appears. For one thing, it has a missing period at the end; but while we are fixing that, I would also suggest that we resolve the ambiguity. What does
"[...] and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court"
mean? By the default rules that are simply grammatical rules, the subject of the sentence ("$5.5 million verdict for libel") would also be the default, at least, for the antecedent of the ("implied") [zero-words-long] pronoun that is the suject for the verb "upheld" (as well as for the verb "was overturned", earlier, which is the main verb of that sentence). So (if you got through all that and are still awake here), that would imply that it means
"[...] and it [the $5.5 million verdict for libel] was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court."
But I mean, come on, I don't think that is what was intended. I am not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem to fit in very well with the context (the paragraph it occurs in). It is preceded by a sentence saying "Dolcefino and his employer have been the target of various lawsuits.". That would normally require some word such as "however", if the writer were intentionally going on to discuss a case where "Dolcefino and his employer" had ended up [when all the smoke cleared] actually losing a given case.
So it is pretty likely that the intent of
"[...] and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court"
was to tell us that the overturning -- that is, the action by the appeals court -- was later "upheld" by the Texas Supreme Court. But in that case, say that! Say what it "should" say. For example, say
"[...] whose decision was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court."
Make it unambiguous -- even though the "context" analysis (see above) is already possible, and (with some logic) could serve to indicate to us what it [probably] "should" say. IMHO this is a good general principle of the careful use of language - write what you mean, clearly, so that no Wayne Dolcefino-style investigative sleuthing is needed to determine what was meant. Before I fix this, does anyone have any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
IP Vandal
Note: deleted {{talkback|Arakunem}}
- OK - thank you. (do I reply here, or on your talk page?) I guess, the vandalism that I found, was "before" [the other vandalism that led to] the warning. (I didn't check the exact sequence...)
PS: While I was waiting for your reply, I found some other vandalism and reverted it; (there was a very easy one-click "un-do" link). HOWEVER, I did not know how to add a warning [yet another] (one of many!) to the talk page of the (IP address) user who had done some damage (see User_talk:63.194.36.11). Please feel free to do so, if/as appropriate.
Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)- > Thanks for the info. [...]
- (reply dated "21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)")
- (time-reversal paradox, probably due to diff. time zones...)
- OK, thank you.
- I guess I should now delete that "{{talkback|Arakunem}}", above -- (right?)
- (or will it "self destruct"?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Infobox Former Country
Hi Mike,
I left Wikipedia a few months ago and only saw your message after an email led me back to the site. So before I go again, some quick answers to your questions:
- year_start / year_end - these variables must be separate from the date and must be entered without wikilinking. As it says in the instructions, these variables are responsible for the placement of the article into a range of categories (e.g. "1806 disestablishments"). Entering these years in any other way breaks the code.
- viewing old versions of the template in action - when you view an old version of a page, it uses the current versions of any templates involved. To view the page with the older version of the template, you must save an earlier version of the template somewhere else and then modify the old version of the article so that it refers to the modified template. A messy job.
Good luck. 52 Pickup (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK!, thank you. very helpful information. nice of you to reply.
- (and I was patient, so NO PROBLEM, about the delay).
- PS: does << "I left Wikipedia a few months ago" >> mean that
- you used to be some kind of official staffer at Wikipedia?
- just wondering... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Practical Kabbalah
Hi, I only just found your discussion about this on Malcolm Schosa's talk page. I don't believe there's any need to pay special attention to the book, since it will be obvious to any reader that the article is not about a book. Hopefully the author of "Practical Kabbalah" has made it sufficiently clear that his book is not about magic, because he's using a phrase with a pre-established meaning as his book title, and if that's not the meaning he intends, he should really have done his homework a little better. But I don't believe it's a problem either way, since readers of either the article or the book will very quickly realise what the differences are. And when it comes down to it, we don't even know if the book is notable, so I don't think we need to make any reference to it at all.
And no, I don't think you're a spammer. Cheers! Fuzzypeg★ 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, well then what should I do now? Did you see the "added" section "User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha#Can_the_phrase_.22Practical_Kabbalah.22_actually_be_used_in_different_ways.3F"?
- Update 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC): I think the above has been archived, and hence is now at User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha/Archive_2#Can_the_phrase_.22Practical_Kabbalah.22_actually_be_used_in_different_ways.3F thanks... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- And if so, did you read the "Q and A" that it points to? ( it is under "Visitor Comments: 2" at the external web page http://www.kabbalaonline.org/Safedteachings/otherkab/Keys_to_True_Prophecy.asp ). Now I think that, regardless if that book may have limited notability, still that "Q and A" suggests that there is more than one way of using that phrase. I am not an expert on this subject matter -- nor on language. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- What you could consider doing, if it interests you, is to write an article about Rabbi Laibl Wolf. In that context all of his books could be mentioned and discussed. He seems to be quite notable, and I think that such an article would meet Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. What you added appeared to me as an attempt to promote a book.
- If you write the article, try to build it as much as possible on secondary sources, i.e. published assessments written by others, and not on primary sources from Reb Wolf. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I just made some major changes to the Rice University article to remove extraneous fluff about traditions and add more important content about academics, research, and organization. Please check in and review it! Madcoverboy (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- THANK YOU. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
handy links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
((http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ExpandTemplates&input=%22%7B%7Btc%7D%7D%22))
Help:Edit_summary
Joe Buck's "2008" page
Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization
section updated: --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Austin Bay
Thanks. As I mention on the talk page updating the incoming links is a bit of an obsession. If you move a page then you should at least be willing to fix the thing as well. On a couple of occasions when someone has done a page move that left behind 20+ double redirects or links to a disambiguation I moved the page back and told them to clean it. Seems to annoy people when you tell them to clean things up. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
re: suggestion for tool enhancement
- Thanks for the suggestion; it should substitute it now. —Pathoschild19:49:24, 01 February 2009 (UTC)
- THANK YOU! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
re: [the AfD] Israel Sports Radio
JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Now that it has been archived, the "revised" link is (more like): Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_17#Israel_Sports_Radio
- --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Uziel
I did fine work 3 1/2 years ago, did I not? The guideline WP:DAB used to specifically exclude lists of surnames and given names. but now it has been somewhat simplified, and no longer spells out how to handle these. But I think the comment still holds true. I moved the entry for Uziel Gal to the "See also" section. I don't see any value in asking a question in comments on this kind of article page, and signing an edit to an article page is never done. If there were two or more notable people with that given name, you could create a page for "Uziel (given name)", but for now this has all the bases covered. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mike, that message about permissions is a bit misleading: it has nothing to do with user privileges, at least not at Wikipedia. Rather, the Stanford Daily website has completely redesigned a few times since that link was added to the article, so the link broke and their website isn't very clear about what happened. I've updated the link – err, revived it. Thanks for your contribution to the article! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh OK, thanks! I figured that it was not anything to do with a given user's level of dead link tag). I guess that, "also" having footnote number [2] there, now, will not hurt. :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)]
- Fixed. The "future" part sounds likely: website redesigns seem like a yearly ritual at the Daily.
:^)
– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool, WebCite sounds like a good idea. Wikipedia uses UTC time for most things, so the dates are correct. Actually, I don't think the accessdate and archivedate are a big deal in this case, because the text of the original article isn't likely to change (just the surroundings). Thanks for your diligence! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Case closed! ...for anyone who might be reading this without knowing the "history" of it, (and perhaps getting confused) (and perhaps wanting to understand more), ... it might help to click through to User talk:Mxn/2012#erstwhile dead link (revived once, by Mxn) now dead again -- (I think) -- and maybe "also", to some of the links "from" there, to yet other places. (If this is "TMI", then just say "no" to doing all that clicking!) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Resolved
- Case closed! ...for anyone who might be reading this without knowing the "history" of it, (and perhaps getting confused) (and perhaps wanting to understand more), ... it might help to click through to User talk:Mxn/2012#erstwhile dead link (revived once, by Mxn) now dead again -- (I think) -- and maybe "also", to some of the links "from" there, to yet other places. (If this is "TMI", then just say "no" to doing all that clicking!)
Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. When you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello! Did you even read what I wrote? It was on a discussion page. I said (in part) that maybe that disambiguation page CMS ** should ** have an entry (!) for the DEC VAX/VMS product "CMS", which (apparently) now runs under "OpenVMS".
- By the way, since the comment I am replying to, seems to be from a robot who has no e-mail address (does it even have a "Talk:" page?), I do not know where to send this reply! So I am just posting it on my OWN "Talk:" page, as an indented (using colons) "REPLY".
- I am not expecting the robot to be made so smart that it could "read what I wrote" (see above) and realize that I *did* know that I was creating a link to a disambiguation page. I guess maybe I should post this (or a link to this) at the "Talk:" page, talk) (right?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding your edit, article space is not the place for comment in the wikicode of the article which explicitly states "PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST". If the product is verifiably notable, feel free to create an article for it (with citations of course; even just a stub to get started) and link to that. Thanks. —danhash (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Regarding your edit, article space is not the place for
- OK. My mistake. [1], I did not see that "comment in the wikicode of the article which explicitly states "PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST". Also, [2] I am not sure whether DEC CMS is "notable" enough to have its own article -- (if it is, then it might be "primarily" an article of History more than of business or of computer science.) At this point I do not have time to start a new article (even a stub) -- especially when it might well be appropriate to become the topic of an AFD or even "speedy" deletion [episode]. So (bottom line) you (meaning, anyone) are welcome to "un-do" my edit, if appropriate. I am not sure I understand why a certain list "has" to be limited to only things which "WHICH [...] HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES"... but that conversation, or consensus building, or voting, or whatever, might have already happened, somehow, when I was not involved. Whatever... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)]
- No worries. I already undid your edit which is why I commented in the first place to explain. That hidden comment was at the top of the page and should have been more conspicuous, and probably should point editors to the talk page for clarification (like the hidden comments on FL Studio). Also to clarify, there is no reason that I know of why a list can't include items which are not notable enough for their own article, but my opinion is that this article is primarily for notable products. That certainly could change were an editor such as yourself willing to take the time to formulate other criteria for inclusion and find appropriate sources, however I'm not sure that would be entirely useful in this case. Anyway, just wanted to leave a friendly note here so it didn't seem like I was stepping on your toes in addition to the bot already annoying you. There is also the possibility of a list specifically of items not notable enough for their own entry (I have not seen one of these as far as I know, yet the policy I mentioned references this). This part is a good explanation:
Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.
—Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria- Happy editing! If I can be of any more help just let me know. —danhash (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK. My mistake. [1], I did not see that "
- Thank you. I think keeping things cordial is a good idea (even when optional) (and even when unnecessary to reassure the "owner" of a given "Talk:" page that there is no intent to insult anyone; because, in principle, there could be other readers of that page, too -- besides the "owner" of the ["Talk:"] page); and even if some misunderstanding is unlikely, it is probably good to "leave a friendly note" [somewhere] just in case.
- As far as visibility (during editing) of such [hidden] comments in the wikicode of an article, I have an idea. I do not know where to post it, but maybe you could forward it (or, forward a link to this "Talk:" page section) whichanswers the question about why there might be a need for my idea.
willcontains my idea, (see the sub-section below) and this "Talk:" page section already
- As far as visibility (during editing) of such [hidden]
"Idea" for a technical feature
- First, some background: When I clicked on a link which you provided (above) that said: your edit it took me to the DIFF page for my edit. OK, I can see what the changes were. However, apparently this is a situation in which every editor who is making (or even considering making) a change to a certain article, should be made aware of a certain request, -- that request up at the top; the one that is contained in that "ALL CAPS" hidden comment. (("PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST")). My idea is a suggestion for a technical feature, which might help to achieve that "goal" -- (that is, the "goal" of making every editor [...] aware of a certain request).
- So, here is my idea. Maybe we could invent some kind of wiki mark-up code, that would be ignored by all readers -- (human and robot) -- except for the DIFF engine. Then this mark-up code (or special "comment", or whatever) could be added to, or applied to, stuff like that "ALL CAPS" request up at the top of the article comment-- (OR, maybe a "<tag>" or something) -- that would be ignored by ALL readers except for the DIFF engine. The intent would be, to display (show) the desired "request" text -- such as, "PLEASE DO NOT ADD [...] TO THIS LIST" as being present in both the OLD and NEW versions of the article being DIFF'ed. This would then (probably) alert many (or most) editors while they are doing their editing -- and before they decide whether to click "[Save page]" or "[Cancel]".
- So, here is my idea. Maybe we could invent some kind of wiki mark-up code, that would be ignored by all readers -- (human and robot) -- except for the DIFF engine. Then this mark-up code (or special "comment", or whatever) could be added to, or applied to, stuff like that "ALL CAPS" request up at the top of the article
- Now, of course, there is no guarantee that the editor will ever do a diff, either "during" editing (as I always do) -- (often, many times during ONE edit) -- or "after" editing (as I usually do) (typically once, after completing an edit). However, I think the chances are better that the request would be seen, if it were shown on the screen (as a section of wiki-text that was NOT changed) every time someone looked at a DIFF of a given page.
- Now, what kind of "technical feature" would [implementing] this idea be? Would it be a code change to the MediaWiki software? I am not sure; but I am confident that, those in charge (such as, apparently, the person who wrote that "ALL CAPS" request up at the top of the wiki-text of an article) (and, of course, the people who keep the technical infrastructure working -- which "might" include some of the "robot author / maintainer / explainer / documentor" people!) (sound familiar? anyone?) can figure that out. I am confident that, if the idea is a good idea, (and the "tech" people might even have some ways to make it better), then the code to implement it, can be figured out somehow.
- By the way (this little tweak is sorta [mostly] "non-technical":) in implementing this "idea", it might be appropriate to impose a 140-character limit, or something like that. We probably do not want someone doing a one-line edit to be shown a "tome" of reading material every time he/she looks at the DIFF. ("stuff that stayed the same" [during this edit] "reading material", that is.) But, 140 characters is enough space to easily mention a certain section on the "Talk:" page (in case the reader, of DIFFor, might not already know about that section on the "Talk:" page), or -- more likely -- to mention [the existence of] a certain "ALL CAPS" request up at the top of the wiki-text of the article. But usually, that (mentioning the existence of something) would not even be needed. It would be needed only when the relevant "ALL CAPS" request was more than 140 characters -- and my guess is, that most of the time, the "ALL CAPS" request would actually fit just fine within 140 characters.
- Just a suggestion. Thanks for your patience (especially if you've read all the way down to this part!) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- What you're suggesting sounds very much like an edit notice. For an example, go to List of Puerto Ricans and click "edit". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)]
- What you're suggesting sounds very much like an
- Yes, I agree. The page that I edited, (List of revision control software) has an "ALL CAPS" comment -- [that I failed to notice!] --that says (something like) <!-- PLEASE DO NOT ADD PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES TO THIS LIST --> ...and apparently the "intention" there, was something that could have been accomplishededit notice) was a good example.
- Yes, I agree. The page that I edited, (
- It appears that, the editor who put in the "ALL CAPS" comment, failed to notice that an edit noticewould have been a better way to alert editors like me, to the existence of a certain rule or custom that was supposed to be observed there.
- It appears that, the editor who put in the "ALL CAPS" comment, failed to notice that an
- Plenty of ignorance to go around. I was ignorant of the rule or custom that was supposed to be observed there, and the editor who put in the "ALL CAPS" comment, was ignorant of the existence of (such a thing as) an edit noticewould have worked better to do what was intended there.
- Plenty of ignorance to go around. I was ignorant of the rule or custom that was supposed to be observed there, and the editor who put in the "ALL CAPS" comment, was ignorant of the existence of (such a thing as) an
- Thanks for telling me about this.
- By the way, is there any custom for what the limit is, on the number of colons? We are up to seven [colons]... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is not custom for limits when indenting with colons, just add {{undent}} when you think it is getting hard to read or edit.
- Sometimes you just have to make your edit notice a little more noticeable just for people who have difficulty seeing it. See List of food companies for a bolder example that, at last, appears to have made the inclusion criteria for that list very obvious to all editors. Astronaut (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)]
- There is not custom for limits when indenting with colons, just add {{
(←) Mike, I think you're right that many contributors are ignorant about edit notices – though they've only been around since late 2008, and perhaps haven't fully permeated wiki-culture yet. They're very useful, as it's much better if we can make editors, especially new editors, aware of page-specific conventions before they make they edit, as getting reverted can be highly discouraging to new editors, and Wikipedia needs to do what it can to boost editor retention. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep! (also -- thanks (Adrian J. Hunter) for going back to the left margin.)
- By the way, IMHO the topic of the DIGITAL Code Management System -- an old DEC (now part of HP) product called CMS might well be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. I mean, even some "technology" oriented products (e.g. the Concorde) are still notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, even if/when they become part of the annals of history; so even if DEC CMS is history, it might well (still) be notable. <anecdote>(Even cross-word puzzles usually use the past tense, -- or something like that -- when giving a clue for a 3-letter word starting with "SS" and ending with "T".)</anecdote>
- The old the DIGITAL Code Management System ran under the VAX/VMS).
- ...in any event, even if List of revision control software), I guess it is not eligible for that list, "at this time".
- so, "case closed" as far as that list is concerned. ("at this time".) But there might well be oceans of room for improvement, in getting the use of edit notices to be better understood and (hence) more widespread, and in general making it more automatic, (and efficient, and with a minimum of "cognitive dissonance") that an editor will either
- * already know, or
- * will be "told" (notified) automatically,
- when there is something that he/she needs to know. May it come to pass, speedily, in our day. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. When you recently edited Peter Henrici (mathematician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lynn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply from Mike S.
- See above. IMHO the person M. Stuart Lynn is notable enough (see the link that says he was the editor in chief of CACM back in the early 1970s) to have his own wikipedia article; but I am too lazy to start it, as a new article. I would be happy to contribute to it, once someone else starts it. I realize that this "REPLY" is in response to a bot-generated message, . . . but once I write this, it will be on a page that -- in principle -- "might" also be read by human persons, in the future. Howdy, all you earthlings! ("if any"!) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Judea Pearl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to ACM
- Peter Henrici (mathematician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lynn
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. When you recently edited Nexus 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- ...Thanks for notifying me, about that! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Resolved– ("case closed")
P vs NP
For the past decade, about once a month some obscure scientist from some obscure university has claimed to have settled P vs NP—none of them has managed to get their proofs published in an academic journal (see e.g., http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm or http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2009/01/so-you-think-you-settled-p-verus-np.html). Please do not include mentions of such claimed proofs to the article as it is neither interesting information nor encouraged per
- OK, thank you for that information. I guess I thought that, since there was a post on the internet from Moshe Vardi which had a link to http://kafcsn.org.ua/lang/en-us/anatoly-d-plotnikov-professor-department-computer-systems-and-networks-east-ukrainian-national-university-solved-the-problem-p-vs-np.html , that everything was kosher (on the level) ("not BOGUS"). That "kafcsn.org.ua" web page does have a link to http://thescipub.com/abstract/10.3844/jcssp.2012.1036.1040 ... and I just accepted that this periodical ("Journal of Computer Science") (does it really exist?) was a valid academic journal. I just looked at http://thescipub.com/jcs.toc and, even there (not just on the "kafcsn.org.ua" web page), I did notice that the quality of the translation (to English from some other language) seemed to be inferior. Eventually I reminded myself that -- fairly recently! -- July 2012 -- Moshe Vardi wrote an "Editor's Letter" in Communications of the ACM, entitled "Predatory Scholarly Publishing". (see http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/7/151235-predatory-scholarly-publishing/ ). Actually, the fulltext or PDF versions of that might require an ACM account [password]; but all you need to know is that this "Editor's Letter" about "Predatory Scholarly Publishing", has a link to http://scholarlyoa.com/ -- and as far as I know, http://scholarlyoa.com/ does not require ANY account [password] -- and it is sufficient to give a hint as to what serious issues the "Editor's Letter" about "Predatory Scholarly Publishing" was addressing. (right?)
- It was not until I read your entry here (the paragraph by Ruud at the top of this section, -- explaining what has been happening about once a month for the past decade), that it occurred to me that perhaps Moshe Vardi himself had posted the link for some kind of humorous reasons -- perhaps like an "April Fool's" joke. I had even commented on-line about the poor quality of the translations, and anyone can read [the original post, and] my comments, at https://www.facebook.com/moshe.vardi.1/posts/369945646419552 -- (although a facebook account [password] is probably required, for that.) It is also possible that the explanation is something else -- something I still have not thought of, yet. Thank you for your patience. Please humor me, if appropriate. I really thought that some real news had happened recently. Maybe not! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In the sandbox???
Why are you putting Simson Garfinkel's page in your sandbox? 69.143.180.9 (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, the "simple" (short) answer to your question, is given very clearly by the "edit" comments here; but here (below) I will try to provide an explanation that indicates more clearly why I did what I did -- including why I failed to [know to] blank my sandbox page, after I had completed my little "experiment".
- ("1") I had edited Simson Garfinkel's page, -- that is, the article page WP:USERNOCAT). I did not completely blank my little sandbox page, ((ahem, there does seem to be some robot or other "editor" who gets upset when someone blanks that sandbox page) (maybe only when it is done by someone OTHER THAN the owner of that sandbox page?)) but I did get rid of just about everything, except an infobox -- (which "I hope" will be pretty harmless) -- and a short explanation, which refers any readers to THIS talk page, if they want "TMI" -- (if they want more details).
- I hope this answers your question. The reason the above stuff starts out with "First of all", is that my original plan was going to be, to ALSO have a "Second of all", asking [something like], "Who cares what is on [in] MY sandbox page?" However, now [see item ("7") above], I know some stuff that I did not know before, which sorta answers that question. (So "Never Mind!" [that question]). :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your sandbox page now shows up when someone does a search for Simson Garfinkel. That's confusing to users (it was confusing to me). It would be best if you eliminate the content now that your experiment is over.69.143.180.9 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, now I think it has been remedied. Thank you for that suggestion re what "would be best". I had already erased all of the "category" stuff, -- which is what I thought was running afoul of some "RULES" that I was (previously) unfamiliar with. I had (unfortunately) left in the "infobox" -- but now I have gotten rid of that, too.
- Now, all that is remaining in that "sandbox page" is a little explanation, saying [quote:]
. I hope that will be harmless.This sandbox page was used for an experiment, that has now been concluded. For more details (e.g., of why, and why I did not blank the page [myself] sooner), see my talk page. Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now, all that is remaining in that "sandbox page" is a little explanation, saying [quote:]
- THANK YOU! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure whom (if anyone) to "notify" ... about a certain situation
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
(Is there someone who should be notified about this?) Please see : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica#1911encyclopedia.org_says_.22This_site_is_no_longer_available..22 Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- You have already notified the relevant WikiProject. If you know of templates that link to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/, those should be fixed, so leaving a note on their talk pages would be nice. However, Template:Cite EB1911 links to another copy of the 1911 EB, so that doesn't seem to be much of an issue. Huon (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Warning -- (it's a new one -- at least, to me)
Recently I tried to save a certain edit (in article space), and I got a WARNING like the one shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Abusefilter-warning-archiveis#Edit_request_on_15_November_2013.E2.80.8E [1]
That was (iirc) the first time I had ever seen that warning. (I was trying to add "or http://www.archive.today/Y00Gd[dead link]" to (the "see also" part of) the "Note" in footnote [3] of this version of the article about Hiloni).
I guess there is some more information available at a place [2] (an RFC?) that is pointed to by a link from inside the WARNING shown at [1]. That is, the place [2] is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC .
Now, most of this stuff is NEW to me. I haven't read the RFC (yet), and I've only read part of the info at [1].
Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trinoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CERT. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- THANKS for the heads up! I made two edits today ... one to fix this, but first, I made an edit to fix a red link that was caused by a [perhaps] well-intentioned, but misguided edit, done "as of 23:04, 22 January 2014". And (as mentioned in an edit comment), that misguided edit can be seen HERE. That fix was higher priority (and it was a tiny change -- only a SINGLE transposition of 2 letters), so I did it first.
- There were also some other intervening edits, between my edit yesterday (which introduced a new footnote, which contained a hyperlink that failed to bypass a disambiguation page), and my last edit today (which fixed the new footnote, to now bypass the disambiguation page); however, all intervening edits -- in fact, ALL edits in the last year that were not not mine, were either edits by robots, or edits [mostly from IP addresses] that were inserting -- (or fixing!) -- vandalism or other "misguided" OOPS'es.
- Resolved– "Case closed."
- --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Clint Bolick Typo
Hey Mike - thanks for the heads-up on this typo. I'm hoping to get some time to add some references to the Clint Bolick article, and to update the Institute for Justice page with recent developments there. Have a good one - James James Cage (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Delphinium viridescens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larkspur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- THANKS for the notification!
- > Such links are almost always unintended, [...]
- Right! But, (at first, I thought that), this was one of the rare exceptions!
- Nope! This is one of the typical cases -- where it is better to disambiguationpage!
- PS: Consider it DONE! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Resolved– "Case Closed"
- Nope! This is one of the typical cases -- where it is better to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing
Hey. Can I know the reason behind this edit? Because the result is ... well, not great at all. But if there is a problem you are trying to solve, I am open to a compromise or a better solution or ... just accepting it when there is a very good reason.
Of course, you were editing a MOS; revert is 90% of times the outcome. Fleet Command (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- @FleetCommand: I am not arguing against the "revert" ("[...90% of times the outcome]"). I just thought that the "custom" of using
fixed-width fonts
, to cite or "quote" an example of a command-line entry, would be appropriate there. Apparently, I was wrong. ...and apparently, what [there is to know, that] I don't know, [e.g., about that "90%" rule] about "MOS pages", would fill a book[or an MOS page...]... :-)Thanks.
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a silly question. I have been editing wikipedia for years.
I noticed a link to Help:Getting started (it was displayed as "Getting started) on someone else's "Talk:" page (see User_talk:Joseph_Nahan_Hirsch#Welcome! -- I think that is where it was ['from']).
But then, I tried clicking on the [ever present] link labeled "
The blue bar that follows is a navigation box linking many help pages. Click "show" on the right to expand it.
At that point, I noticed something puzzling. That [huge!] "navigation box" ("
Is it me, or is that a mistake? The page "Help:Getting started" seems to have a name (or address) that starts with the word "Help:" ["!"] ... which does make sense (right?).
Did someone conclude that the link to the Help:Getting started page should be omitted (intentionally?) from the "navigation box" there, for Wikipedia help pages?
Actually, never mind whether it was omitted "intentionally" or not! Wouldn't it be a good idea to include it?
Any comments? Thanks... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, Template:Help navigation). It isn't mentioned specifically as "Getting started", but if you look at one of the rows of links, one is titled "Introductions & tutorials", and if you click on that title, you land on Help:Getting started. I realize that this may be slightly counterintuitive and I would be open to support a change to the box to make it easier to land on the getting started page. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)]
- Thanks! I must have hovered my mouse pointer over Template:Help_navigation" nav box, looking for something which (maybe sorta paradoxically) might point to Help:Getting started even though it appeared to display as something else. However, I guess I failed to think of, the idea of hovering my mouse pointer over the section title itself -- (which displays as Introductions & tutorials). D'Oh! I probably should have! I just did so now ... after reading your kind reply.
- Thanks! I must have hovered my mouse pointer over
- Now I put together a little idea, intended to illustrate my "suggestion" for a way that the template page (Template:Help navigation) could be updated. Please (feel free to) provide your comments, "if any", about that "suggestion". --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)]
- Now I put together a little idea, intended to illustrate my "suggestion" for a way that the template page (
- PS: @Mz7 (talk), please [feel free to] read the above. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would having two paths to the same destination, be [sorta] "wasteful"? Maybe! I am not an expert on nav boxes. But my experience (I think it was related here, or somewhere, in a little travelog) seems to show that, if there were a link that DID actually display as [in part] "getting started", then it would make it easier to find -- for at least some searchers. Before I started hovering my mouse pointer, checking the little "preview" URLs for each link, (shown by my browser down at the bottom of the page) ... the FIRST thing I did, was to use the "Ctrl-F" ["Find"] feature of my browser, to search for one of those words ("getting" and "started"). I probably tried both of them -- one at a time. No luck. But it would have worked, *if* there had been a link [somewhere, in that nav box] that DID actually display "getting started". Even an extraneous ["redundant"] link would have made a difference. ...and IMHO, the number of links already in that nav box, is already so large, that I "for one" would not object if there were more. YMMV...
- Would having two paths to the same destination, be [sorta] "wasteful"? Maybe! I am not an expert on nav boxes. But my experience (I think it was related here, or somewhere, in a little travelog) seems to show that, if there were a link that DID actually display as [in part] "getting started", then it would make it easier to find -- for at least some searchers. Before I started hovering my mouse pointer, checking the little "preview" URLs for each link, (shown by my browser down at the bottom of the page) ... the FIRST thing I did, was to use the "Ctrl-F" ["Find"] feature of my browser, to search for one of those words ("getting" and "started"). I probably tried both of them -- one at a time. No luck. But it would have worked, *if* there had been a link [somewhere, in that nav box] that DID actually display "getting started". Even an extraneous ["redundant"] link would have made a difference. ...and IMHO, the number of links already in that nav box, is already so large, that I "for one" would not object if there were more.
- To sum up, I am OK with whatever is decided. I know what would have been [more] helpful to me, but I am not sure how "typical" my own outlook and mind-set is. (Maybe not very!) So... I hope that some consensus can be reached, and that something (if appropriate) gets done. Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- UPDATE [...snip... ("deleted" comments -- visible in a previous version) ...]
- --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Aha! How about this idea, for a way to modify the template? IMHO, this new "idea" does address the "concern" (which some might share more than I do...) about being careful to avoid having two links that both point to the same web page. However, this new "idea" also addresses my "concern", (which is, about being more helpful in a certain kind of situation, to a person who is looking for a certain thing [e.g., a certain "help" page], in a case where the page does exist, but the searcher just does not know how to find it).
- Aha! How about this idea, for a way to modify the template?
- I removed (deleted) some of my old comments from earlier today. They [are visible in a non-latest version of this "User_talk:" page, but they] probably are not needed now -- since [I think] this new "idea" gets away from the ["zero sum game"] idea (or "mind set"), where [one tends to assume that] achieving one goal would necessarily "have to" be at the expense of achieving some other goal.
- I hope this seems OK. (Any comments? e.g., 'Mz7 (talk)'?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK Mz7, that sounds fine to me. I realized, after reading your message of 22:57 (UTC), that I had been (perhaps sub consciously) "worrying" about violating some rule, about upending the previous "status quo" wherein the words "(Introductions & tutorials)" were used for a certain "clickable" link on the left-hand-side "NAV" bar.
- (Originally, they were used there *without* the words "Getting started" -- which is what caused me to waste what seemed like a ton of time [it was probably [more like] at least 17 minutes] "searching" for something that I had seen before, and that [I knew] was called something like "Getting started", and that DID exist (!), ... but that was just hard for me to find).
- OK Mz7, that sounds fine to me. I realized, after reading your message of 22:57 (UTC), that I had been (perhaps sub consciously) "worrying" about violating some rule, about upending the previous "status quo" wherein the words "(Introductions & tutorials)" were used for a certain "clickable" link on the left-hand-side "NAV" bar.
- Actually, if anyone [ever] does object to the idea of "getting rid of" the words (Introductions & tutorials) there, and using the words "Getting started" instead ... then, at that time, (call it "time T1"), the option will still be available, of just going back and using this idea, after all -- which means, using BOTH the words "Getting started" AND the words "(Introductions & tutorials)" there, in the displayed hyperlink.
- That sounds like a plan. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done. I've implemented the change as proposed. See Template:Wikipedia help pages. It may take some time for it to update across all help pages—you can purge the page to force it to update. Mz7 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds like a plan. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank You.
- Resolved– "Case Closed"
- --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- After seeing the change....thus following the edit summary link to here...I have decided to also add the link at Help:Contents (Edit an article) -- Moxy (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thanks for this edit! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Square brackets
Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that suggested edits should be placed on the talk page of an article, instead of using square brackets. In your edit [1] to the MMS article, you put the words "acts as a relay, and" in square brackets, presumably to suggest that this would be a better way to phrase the sentence. Be bold, my man! Just insert your suggestions, and if they don't work, someone will let you know or correct it. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope you'll stick around and keep editing! Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 22:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I may not understand them 100%, but if so, then the process of "clearing up" the misunderstanding -- "if any" -- can start now. ("Let the fun begin.")
- For one thing, I was trying to know that the word "relay" there, meant the MMSC. Actually, there could have been something wrong with my take on things, in a technical sense!; but I don't think (from the wording of your comments, "so far") that your point [whatever it was] was a concern about that. (right?)
- Thank you for your patience with me, if (say) your point about [the use of] "Square brackets" was lost on me. It might well be, that the meaning of what you were saying, should have been obvious, to any normal human... ("other than" me). It seemed to me (at the time, and it still does) that, the information inside the "square brackets", is just as visible to the human reader, -- (including, to the [hypothetical] reader of an ink on paper copy of the Wikipedia article involved!) -- as the ["ordinary"] information, in that Wikipedia article, that is OUTside of the "square brackets"! (right?)
- So, no hurry; but you are welcome to [feel free to] clarify what you had in mind. For example, you might want to make a small mock-up (probably not more than a sentence, or a small number of sentences) somewhere, to illustrate what you were (/slash you "are") suggesting could be done [by me, or by someone] instead of what was already done, by me, on 13 March 2014 (see the diff of my edit that day). IMHOthat might go a long way toward explaining, what you had in mind.
- The small mock-up -- "if any!" -- could be placed, e.g., in a "sandbox" subpage of this "Talk:" page ... or maybe even right here, in the "== Square brackets ==" section of this "Talk:" page.
- On the other hand, maybe my explanation (see above) about the use of square brackets in order to achieve certain goals [involving reader understanding] has enlightened you in some way. If so, and if you no longer think 100% the same way as, the way you were thinking circa "22:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)" (see the comment above with that date/time stamp!) ... then ... in that case ... maybe "NRN"! ("No reply needed"). Whatever! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Mike Schwartz! 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
- Hi Mike Schwartz! 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.
-- 23:39, Sunday, March 27, 2016 (
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Mike Schwartz. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you please not do this? Post it to the relevant talk pages if you think its needs addressed. Leaving big commentary style hidden notes doesn't help future editors who edit the article. Use the article's talk page. I think this is the second time I've asked you not to do it. -- ferret (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @reFill".
- I already made an entry (one of the recent edits) there. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Mike Schwartz. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Mike Schwartz. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Notes about a section that got moved when it got archived
There is a section that is "now" probably at a URL that is unlikely to change any more ... since it has already been archived; ... but it "IS" at a different place, from where it originally started out.
It is now at:
... and if (for any reason) that hyperlink does not work, then, this link to one of its sub-sections, should work OK:
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_24#What_my_question_is [2]
Note that [wikitext "partial"] URL labeled "[2]", does not contain as many "double quote" marks within the section name (or, sub-section name); (maybe ZERO! of them...) so maybe it will be less likely to encounter some "violation of a rule" that I am not very familiar with.
PS: This might be a little bit off-topic, but the recent posting at
Just "FYI"... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Emanu-El
Hi Mike Schwartz, I have added a blue link to Temple Emanu-El (Houston) and removed the <ref> bit that you had added (they're not used on disambiguation pages). It is fine to have a red link or even an unlinked entry as long as there is a blue-linked article that includes the term in question (as per
]- @Leschnei: Thanks, but I was hoping to increase the chances of readers being encouraged to visit the "Talk:" page ... partly because it contains a hyperlink to [the URL] http://www.emanuelhouston.org/ ... which (due to Wikipedia policy, I think) is not allowed on the disambiguation [“dab”] page itself.
- I looked at that edit, -- of "15:06, 14 March 2019" -- and ...
- For one thing, that statement about << "added a blue link to Temple Emanu-El (Houston)" >> does not sound correct to me. The blue link that was added appears to be a link to [the article about] (the city) "Houston". I don't think there is an article (on the English Wikipedia) about "Temple Emanu-El (Houston)", <--(Look! is that link there red? or not?) and if I had found such an article (on the English Wikipedia), then I probably would have linked to it myself -- either on "24 July 2012" or on March 8, 2019;
- For another thing, you may have forgotten (or ignored) (or never read) what it says in the portion dated "24 July 2012" of the "Talk:Emanu-El#Temple Emanu-El (Houston, Texas)" section of that "Talk:" page. One of my goals in adding that section to that "Talk:" page, was to make the URL http://www.emanuelhouston.org/ available to readers, ... at least, to readers who did not mind visiting that "Talk:" page. I was (and I am still) under the impression that including that URL (as I did) is allowed on a "Talk:" page, but is not allowed -- (not even inside a
"<ref>"
tag!) -- on a disambiguation [“dab”] page. - Among the reasons to make sure that the URL http://www.emanuelhouston.org/ is available to readers ... is the fact that, one of those readers might want to start (to create) an article about "Temple Emanu-El (Houston)".
- I do not understand the part about [quote]:
It is fine to have a red link [...]
- I also do not understand the part about [quote]:
Does that perhaps relate (in some way) to ... the fact that the article about Houston does mention "Emanu-El"? (under "Religion") -- ? --as long as there is a blue-linked article that includes the term in question [...]
- Rock on ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mike Schwartz,
- You remember correctly - since disambiguation pages are only intended to help readers distinguish between existing articles, no outside links. And you are also correct that it is fine to put it on the Talk page.
- "added a blue link to Temple Emanu-El" - I added the link to MOS:DABREDand the next section on 'Items appearing within other articles'.
- As to directing potential editors to the external link, I don't think that it is necessary. The first thing that any editor would do is Google 'Temple Emanu-El houston' and the first hit is the website for the temple. You could put a comment after the entry, like
<!-- See talk page -->
or<!-- http://www.emanuelhouston.org/ -->
, but there's no guarantee that someone else won't remove it. Leschnei (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Leschnei:
- OK, thanks for explaining.
- Actually, I did read some more of the documentation about rules and guidellines and policies, etc. -- e.g. at "MOS:DAB" -- after I had already typed my reply of "08:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)".
- [QUOTE:] << "there's no guarantee that someone else won't remove it." >> Right! That is pretty much the story of, the episode -- (described in the Talk:Emanu-El#Update -- as of March 8, 2019 "Talk:" page "sub-section" ... as having occurred in several "one at a time" steps) -- leading up to the point where someone eventually removed the entry that I added (in the "Revision as of 01:30, 24 July 2012") ... even though there was already an explanation, existing -- (in the beginning part of the "Talk:Emanu-El#Temple Emanu-El (Houston, Texas)" "Talk:" page section) -- that was intended to try to explain why the entry for << "* Temple Emanu-El (Houston, Texas)" >> was added, and why [I thought] that it should be kept and not deleted.
- ...and I was pretty sure then (and I still think so, now) that at every step along the way, of those several "one at a time" steps, leading up to the deletion of that entry that was added (in the "Revision as of 01:30, 24 July 2012") ... everyone had good intentions, and was just trying to help.
- Enjoy ... ! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
James White
I fixed "Alice" in James White film. Thanks. Eschoryii (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I figured that it might be ...something like that.
- Resolved– "case closed"
- --Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Hi Mike Schwartz! The thread you created at the archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to .
|
Thanks for notifying me about that
- Thanks for notifying me about that.
- My gratitude is for
- (a) the fact that I had a way to find out at all,
- as well as for
- (b) the fact that, as a result of this notification, I now have possession of (or at least, "access" to) the NEW URL, -- which is
- -- as well as to the OLD URL, ... the URL of where that "section" used to be located, ... before it got archived.
- As mentioned in my EDIT COMMENT, in my opinion there is some room for improvement in the way Wikipedia's current way of doing things (including, notably, the way it currently re-names the URL's of stuff that is getting archived) ... may actually [act to] "contribute" to the problem ... of a web page -- or a "section" of a web page, or something like that -- now having "URL#2" as its URL, even though it originally (and perhaps just yesterday!) had "URL#1" as its URL. This (of course) matters partly because of the fact that ... one or more hyperlinks using -- or "based on" "URL#1" may have carved themselves into the stone of History, ... with or without some convenient algorithms (and I do mean, "convenient" in the sense of "convenient for a LAZY [and/or ignorant] person", to use -- ! --) for figuring out what the new URL is ("URL#2") ... while [or "based upon"] already knowing what the old URL is ("URL#1").
- This could be regarded as ironic or something, ... partly because }} template.
- Those (external dead link) situations are typically due to circumstances that are beyond the control of the Wikipedia community ... including not only the editors of articles [etc.] on Wikipedia, but also the planners and designers of "how stuff works" on Wikipedia ... the people who probably are mainly responsible for deciding -- and 'figuring out' -- "how to do" stuff on Wikipedia... e.g., from the point of view of an editor.
- Those "circumstances that are beyond our control" situations strike me as being different (in at least some ways) from other kinds of situations, where the planners and designers of "how stuff works" on on dead link" -type situations, from arising (so much) in the first place.
- This has been on my mind for some time.
- Wikipedia's current way of doing things (including, the changing of the URL's of stuff that is getting archived) ... is not a principle of the universe. It might be difficult to "refactor" how things are done, and to re-consider the whole "philosophy" as well as the technical "implementation" of ... how archiving is done; but ...IMHO that should be considered.
- Any comments? (anyone)? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Typos on Letterwise
I was on that article and I confess unfortunately to being the worlds worst speller and grammar person and have a triage of followers who go around after me. This article and at least one associate one was subject to some heavy AfD's so may have exhausted me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- The above "reply" was probably in "response" to (or at least... after) this edit was done: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LetterWise&diff=prev&oldid=1020210368.
- (right?)
- (Here is a partial QUOTE from the "edit" comment [part of the above "diff"]):
- (→History: Change ONE LETTER in order to correct a MINOR mistake [...] This was probably just a minor TYPO [...])
- --Mike Schwartz (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Your thread has been archived
Hi Mike Schwartz! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
REPLY from User:Mike_Schwartz:
- Thanks.
- This message was informative, but it did NOT include the info that the new URL (or ... the new wikilink) for that "moved" section, is now
- That would have been more helpful. (especially the specific number -- 1153 -- before the # sign.)
- In fact, it would have been even more helpful, if there had been some way, ... that a "permalink" (-like) (or ... maybe even "DOI" -like) URL, could have been created and provided to me ... as soon as that section [called "#Missing TOCs! (with 2022 skin)"] was created! (It was created by me.)
- Just my 0.02.
- Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
"Correction" to edit comment
I would almost say that ... this is (like) one that "got away".
When I edit an article, if I forget to include one of the changes, or ... if I include one or more "incorrect" (or otherwise "regrettable") changes, then ... there is still an opportunity -- perhaps the next day, or even sooner ... to edit that same article again, and make some correction[s].
However, in the case of ... where a slip of the mouse or keyboard has resulted in (unintentionally) finalizing an edit, when the "edit comment" is (in the opinion of the editor) not really ready for prime time, then ... there is no such second chance.
NOTE: The finalizing of the edit, can be caused -- unintentionally or not -- by
clicking on "Publish Changes
", but I think it is possible for it to [instead] be caused by a slip of the keyboard.
Just for the record, before I decided -- today -- to "intentionally" finalize this recent edit, I was planning to change the "edit comment" to say:
/* top */ change the brackets in the wikilink for the entry about "Fellow, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)". Instead of having the brackets surround the entire entry there, which [before this edit] caused the entire entry there to be displayed as a red link, instead, retain the red link for the word "Fellow", and make (most of) the rest of that entry, a [blue] link, pointing to the article about [the organization] "SIAM".
However, by then it was too late ... my changes to the article itself, had already happened. (With ... apparently ... an older version of the "edit comment".)
Maybe I could have added (or deleted) a blank somewhere (one that does not matter), and inserted the newer (more "up to date") comment; but instead I decided to add this little section (will anyone read it? maybe not...) here.
Enjoy . . . Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review