This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well Sam, seeing as you are admin is there any chance too remove what I stated in NeilN talk page in relation too OReilly puppeteering thanks PjdW97 (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way around, NeilN is an admin, I'm not, so you should talk to him. I have removed the mention of L. from, well, you know from which page. I think the less we talk about the matter, the better. Very soon all messages will be archived and nobody will think about it. Take care, — SamSailor 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Your email address has been removed from almost everywhere. I've left it up to another admin to take care of their talk page. The post to my talk page will not be revdelled (hidden) as it contains no personally identifiable information. You will, I trust, think twice about what you're posting in the future. --NeilNtalk to me 05:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
And that admin has hidden it on their talk page now. Hopefully that's the end of it. --NeilNtalk to me 05:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
SF9 Members
Hello!
The SF9 members (Rowoon, Taeyang and Dawon) do NOT have any individual activities besides being alongside their group, SF9. The too soon clause is enough, but I expanded the AfD rationales. They are NOT independently notable, so they can't have their own page as of now. Hope you understand!
Making final fixes to initial version of Federation (needed to be able to use Wikidata items and properties to describe media on Commons in the future)
More work on baseline for Lexeme entity type for Wiktionary support
Wikidata Query Service got additional servers, the data has been reloaded to fix a number of issues caused by missed updates and an increase of the time-out of 30s is being looked into.
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you for your edits to Akatombo (and to Midsommer before that). It's pretty inspiring, and I'm learning a lot from watching how you work on these articles. Mortee (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind of you. I know the feeling; not a day goes by without seeing someone else here do things in a smart way, using a template I never heard of before, pointing to a WP shortcut that I didn't know existed, or just wording something in a way I wish I could have done half as good. Best, — SamSailor 17:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Good work. Ethanbas(talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 812 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
You can now make your Harvest Templates tasks run automatically. After you have generated a permalink to your task, add &run= to the url. When you open it next time, it will load and then run automatically. Alternatively, you can use &load= which will only prepare the task for running.
Continued to finalize the initial version of Federation (needed to be able to use Wikidata items and properties to describe media on Commons in the future)
More work on baseline for Lexeme entity type for Wiktionary support
Jung Myung-seok was arrested in May 2007, and sentenced to 10 years in 2009. I don't think it's a coincidence that we, after a period of relative calm surrounding Providence (religious movement), see a big push now prior to what must be his expected release from jail. Buckle up! — SamSailor
10:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
About OmarGosh
Hey man, I saw you deleted my article on OmarGosh because it had been previously deleted. I just want to let you know that I fixed the initial issue of it not having a single relevant source, but this time I actually provided several news articles. I would appreciate if you would help me do all that I can to get this page back. Thank you very much! User: MrProEdits (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)MrProEdits
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Converted undo/restore interface to use OOUI. You can test it here (phab:T134643).
Fixed an other rounding issue on geo coordinates (phab:T158772).
Added thumbnail images to the Wikimedia Commons suggester (phab:T160319).
Continued working on introducing Lexeme entity type.
Finishing federation prototype.
We are going to change all snak, reference, and qualifier hashes with the planned DataModel 7.0 release. If you are a tool developer, make sure you do not persist hashes, and never use them to request edits to entities. Statement IDs are safe (phab:T157965).
most-loved Japanese songs according to a 1989 survey? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Akatombo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page
Le Crocodile, for the wealth of information hidden on your seemingly concise user page, for helping with articles for creation, - Sam, you are an awesome Wikipedian
A warm welcome to our new intern, Lucas Werkmeister! You may now him for his work on queries as WikidataFacts. He will work in the team for the next months.
There's now also a #100wikidays challenge on Wikidata, aptly named #100wikidatadays! It is a personal challenge in which a person very significantly improves (at least) one Wikidata items per day, for 100 days in a row. There was already a version of the challenge on various Wikipedias, on Commons and on Wikisource - now on Wikidata as well. Participate and make Wikidata shine!
Sorry, Geo, but you are mistaken here. This page is a user talk page, technically that's in namespace 3; my talk page comment to the unsourced material in Marianne Ihlen is found on the talk page associated with the article, Talk:Marianne Ihlen, technically that's in namespace 1. SamSailor 11:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
People routinely refer to the page associated with their wiki-id, in the "User talk" namespace, as their talk page. I suspect most contributors would interpret your comment as referring to a comment you left on your talk page -- ie what you would refer to as "my talk page". "Per my comment on the article's talk page...", or "per my comment on Talk:Marianne Ihlen..." would be better choices. Why include the link? What if, the talk page becomes long enough to require archiving of old comments? What if you make additional comment(s) at some future date?
Fwiw, I shared your concern over the Lena connection, and put a {{
cn
}} tag on it several months ago. But you undermined the utility of the revision control system, but combining a genuine change to the article's editorial content -- what our readers see, with purely cosmetic -- and frankly unnecessary -- refactoring of how the article's raw markup source appeared in the editor.
The revision control system depends on linefeeds to recognize the addition of new paragraphs. So the unnecessary addition of cosmetic line-feeds, or the cosmetic elimination of line-feeds, obfuscates the actual editorial change. You did this here. If you had shown restraint, and had merely changed the editorial content you and I were concerned about, your editorial change would have clearly stood out. The revision control system would have recognized just your editorial change, and highlighted your editorial change.
However, by combining a genuine editorial change with "tidying", the revision control system saw, instead, the deletion of one whole paragraph, and the addition of a brand new paragraph. "Tidying" masked your relatively small editorial change.
When a paragraph is made up of multiple adjacent lines, eliminating the internal line-feeds, making the paragraph one long logical line is a bad idea, for the same reason, and it confuses the revision control system the same way. And adding internal line-feeds to a paragraph that was one long logical line, also confuses the revision control system.
When is this kind of purely cosmetic tidying a good idea? I dunno. Rarely. One problem is that different people have different ideas of what is cosmetically pleasing, when viewed in the editor.
If you absolutely cannot resist "tidying" the internal appearance of articles, would you please try to make sure edits that "tidy" articles don't also contain genuine changes to the article's editorial content -- what our readers actually read?
, so I suspect they are perfectly capable of understanding that "my talk page comment" does not mean "a comment on my user page", but means my comment on the talk page. That is where we put comments related to pages in main space. There's a difference between "my talk page" and "my talk page comment". When you searched in vain for anything regarding Marianne Ihlen here on my user talk page, you should have asked yourself if you were mistaken. A lot of time can be saved with a bit of common sense.
General fixes, corrections typically done by script to common MOS errors or to clarify formatting, are routinely done concurrently with editorial changes, and I have never before heard anyone making a big deal out of it, please also see
WP:COSMETICBOT
. I will however, whenever I notice we edit the same article, in the future make it a habit to separate edits.
While
revision control systems we simply refer to the page history
on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects running MediaWiki, we don't call it "the revision control system".
When you last edited Marianne Ihlen in 2016 on 12 November, you left the LDRs as an inconsistent mixture of horizontally aligned references, e.g.
<ref name="Scotsman2016">{{Cite web | title = Obituary: Marianne Ihlen, Leonard Cohen’s muse | last = Davidson | first = Phil | work = scotsman.com | date = 13 Aug 2016 | accessdate = 2016-08-14 | url = http://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-marianne-ihlen-leonard-cohen-s-muse-1-4201857 | quote = | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20160822233848/http://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-marianne-ihlen-leonard-cohen-s-muse-1-4201857 | archivedate = 2016-08-22 | deadurl = No }}</ref>
and vertically aligned references, e.g.
<ref name=IrishTimes2014-08-06>
{{cite news
| url = http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/leonard-cohen-s-quest-for-something-higher-1.1888286
| title = Leonard Cohen’s quest for something higher
| publisher = [[Irish Times]]
| author = Kevin Courtney
| date = 2014-08-06
| accessdate = 2014-08-06
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| deadurl = No
| quote = And it brought him to the Greek island of Hydra, a haven for poets, writers and artists. One of those was a young Norwegian writer, Axel Jensen, who had moved to Hydra with his wife, Marianne Ihlen, and their infant son. Abandoned by the volatile and capricious Jensen, Ihlen met and began a relationship with the fascinating young Canadian writer with the gentle, measured personality.
}}
</ref>
although it is probably preferable to aim for formatting consistency.
I did so as part of my tidying up on 28 November 2016, I ran the fine Tidy citations.js that harmonizes the whitespace in citation templates, resulting in e.g.
<ref name="Scotsman2016">{{Cite web
| title = Obituary: Marianne Ihlen, Leonard Cohen’s muse
| last = Davidson
| first = Phil
| work = scotsman.com
| date = 13 Aug 2016
| accessdate = 2016-08-14
| url = http://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-marianne-ihlen-leonard-cohen-s-muse-1-4201857
| quote =
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20160822233848/http://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-marianne-ihlen-leonard-cohen-s-muse-1-4201857
| archivedate = 2016-08-22
| deadurl = No
}}</ref>
and
<ref name=IrishTimes2014-08-06>{{cite news
| url = http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/leonard-cohen-s-quest-for-something-higher-1.1888286
| title = Leonard Cohen’s quest for something higher
| publisher = [[Irish Times]]
| author = Kevin Courtney
| date = 2014-08-06
| accessdate = 2014-08-06
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| deadurl = No
| quote = And it brought him to the Greek island of Hydra, a haven for poets, writers and artists. One of those was a young Norwegian writer, Axel Jensen, who had moved to Hydra with his wife, Marianne Ihlen, and their infant son. Abandoned by the volatile and capricious Jensen, Ihlen met and began a relationship with the fascinating young Canadian writer with the gentle, measured personality.
}}</ref>
But between 21:27 and 21:45 on 5 April 2017, you returned to the article making 11 individual edits to Marianne Ihlen with the obscure and repeated edit summary "please don't unnecessarily rewrite references, it erodes the utility of the revision control system". Let's just take IrishTimes2014-08-06 as an example that formatted with Tidy citations.js looked like this
<ref name=IrishTimes2014-08-06>{{cite news
| url = http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/leonard-cohen-s-quest-for-something-higher-1.1888286
| title = Leonard Cohen’s quest for something higher
| publisher = [[Irish Times]]
| author = Kevin Courtney
| date = 2014-08-06
| accessdate = 2014-08-06
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| deadurl = No
| quote = And it brought him to the Greek island of Hydra, a haven for poets, writers and artists. One of those was a young Norwegian writer, Axel Jensen, who had moved to Hydra with his wife, Marianne Ihlen, and their infant son. Abandoned by the volatile and capricious Jensen, Ihlen met and began a relationship with the fascinating young Canadian writer with the gentle, measured personality.
}}</ref>
<ref name=IrishTimes2014-08-06>
{{cite news
| url = http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/leonard-cohen-s-quest-for-something-higher-1.1888286
| title = Leonard Cohen’s quest for something higher
| publisher = [[Irish Times]]
| author = Kevin Courtney
| date = 2014-08-06
| accessdate = 2014-08-06
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| deadurl = No
| quote = And it brought him to the Greek island of Hydra, a haven for poets, writers and artists. One of those was a young Norwegian writer, Axel Jensen, who had moved to Hydra with his wife, Marianne Ihlen, and their infant son. Abandoned by the volatile and capricious Jensen, Ihlen met and began a relationship with the fascinating young Canadian writer with the gentle, measured personality.
}}
</ref>
The changes are
(a) adding a line break after the opening ref tag before the template's curly brackets
(b) removing the two indenting spaces before the pipe characters
(c) adding a line break after the template's curly brackets before the closing ref tag
I am all for clarity of the code by e.g. using LDRs and vertically aligned citation templates, but your changes add nothing in that respect and are a waste of time compared to what can be done with Tidy citations.js in seconds.
11 edits like this are not only a waste of time, they are clogging up the page history.
And finally, you do not even apply your preferred formatting to all references. When you are "done" with your 11th edit here, some references are still in the format made by Tidy citations.js. If you attempt to do a job, try to do it properly. It is, ironically, you who "unnecessarily rewrite citations".
Please make edit summaries that describe your changes, not edit summaries that cast doubtful aspersions on other editors. For this purpose, please acquaint yourself with
H:ES
.
You go on to make two edits here and here with the repeated edit summary "removal of linefeeds has to be done with care, or it erodes the utility of the revision control system". Again you are casting aspersion instead of describing your edits. Please become aware that a blank line after a section heading is optional, read
MOS:HEAD. Paradoxically this kind of edits fully qualify, in your own words, as purely cosmetic -- and frankly unnecessary -- refactoring of how the article's raw markup source appeared in the editor, and again, your edits are applied without any consistency: you add a blank line after the headings Relationships with Axel Jensen and Leonard Cohen and Legacy but the headings Early life, Later life, and Illness and death are left without a blank line after the section headings (edit view
).
I am going to re-apply consistent formatting, and hope we are not going to spend more time on such matters in the future. SamSailor 02:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You find that the tidy citations.js script is helpful to you, when you fill out a new {{
cite
}} templates that you create!
Are you saying, however, that you think it is a good thing to make unnecessary changes to existing templates? You seem to be saying that. And your recent edits seem to have made unnecessary changes to templates that worked already worked fine.
I leave references in the form I found them, unless they are broken. If they are broken, or are archaic bare-url references, I fix them in my preferred style. But if I add archiveurl fields to an existing {{
cite}} template that someone else wrote, all on one line, I add those fields in the least intrusive way I can, so the reference remains on one line, and doesn't erode the value of diffs. I did that here
.
Yes, I left some of the article's references with all fields on one line -- because that is how they were first drafted.
There is a well-known principle in practical engineering, and other practical activities, often paraphased as "If it is not broke, don't fix it."
You seem to be labouring under the misconception that I made unnecessary changes to the article's {{
cite
}} templates, when I instead restored them to their original condition. You wrote:
"And finally, you do not even apply your preferred formatting to all references. When you are 'done' with your 11th edit here, some references are still in the format made by Tidy citations.js. If you attempt to do a job, try to do it properly. It is, ironically, you who 'unnecessarily rewrite citations'".
Yes, yes, yes, if we try to do a job, we should do it properly. On November 11th, I added eleven new references to this article. Subsequently someone rewrote them, lapsing from the principle of "if it is not broke, don't fix it." No, I did not change the form of any references. So, what you point to as an inconsistency, on my part, is nothing of the kind, thank you very much. The job I set myself was to restore the references I added, to their original state, which I knew worked. Some of them had not only been refactored, they had had minor edits made. I had used google translate, for the translated titles of some of the references to Norwegian papers, and someone had replaced them with improved translations. If I had blithely pasted my original factoring back in, all at once, I would have disrespectfully have thrown away the improved translations. That's why I restored them one at a time, so I could individually check each reference, one at a time, to see if any actual improvements had been made.
No, I didn't unnecessarily alter any of the {{
cite
}} templates I didn't create myself. I didn't do this because, if I had done so, I would have been undermining the utility of diffs for everyone else.
You asserted:
"11 edits like this are not only a waste of time, they are clogging up the page history."
Let me help you out. Go take another look at the article revision history page. Over on the left hand side of the page there are two columns of circles. Did you know you can look at a whole sequence of revisions by clicking on those circles! Click on the circle next the first revision you want to look at, in the left most column; then click on the circle, in the other columen, next to the last revision in the sequence, and hit enter. You get shown a combined diff amalgamating all the revisions in that sequence. I hope this information helps you.
I have been contributing to the wikipedia since its golden age. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer people adding new content, and keeping existing articles up to date.
I routinely return to articles that I worked on, many years ago, because I have an update. Well, the first thing I do, is ask for a diff, usually between the last version I edited, years ago, and the current version. Alternately, between a version I know I read carefully, and the current version. I do so to look for genuine changes to what the article tells readers. There is no point adding an update to an article about new developments, if someone else had the same idea, and already added an update.
What I have found, in recent years, is that I will return to an article I started, and, when I look at the article's revision history, I'll see dozens of other editors had edited the article. Well, that sounds good, right, since this is a collaborative project. Then, when I do that diff, practically the whole article lights up. On closer scrutiny of that diff, there will be clues that many of the edits were merely cosmetic -- what you call "tidying" I find that, to really check for genuine editorial changes to the article's actual content I have to step through each individual revision, one at a time.
Increasingly, what I have found, is that although lot of other contributors made edits to the article, all of those edits were either replacing the templates the article used with more modern templates, or the tidying you seem to think is a good idea. I routinely find that the article's actual content, what it tells our readers, hasn't been altered at all.
That so many of the people who enjoyed adding new content, and enjoyed keeping articles current and up to date have been driven away is heartbreaking.
Now, if those dozens of people who made all those changes to the article's metadata had been more careful, the diffs I tried to use to look for genuine changes to the article's content would have shown me that their had been no editorial change.
You made a big edit, that included adding unnecessary linefeeds, justifying your edits saying:
"Please become aware that a blank line after a section heading is optional, read MOS:HEAD."
Please feel free to place a blank line after any new section heading you create. Or not. As you say, it is optional. Unfortunately, that MOS page is silent as to whether you or I should add a blank line after a section heading, to an existing section. IMO that MOS page should urge contributors to be careful to resist the temptation to add a cosmetic linefeed to an existing section heading, as you did in your big edit.
Ideally, the paragraphs in the before and after columns should line up, be adjacent. When the diff system places the same paragraphs adjacent to one another, it is smart enough to provide detailed inner highlighting of those paragraphs, showing individual changes to spelling, punctuation, and rephrasing. A reader can easily see where a sentence has been removed, or a new sentence added. They can see when a sentence has been rewritten.
But, because you added unnecessary linefeeds, for purely cosmetic reasons, the paragraphs DON'T line up. The diff engine can't help us by providing that detailed highlighting of the small scale changes. Consider the paragraph that begins with "She fell in love with Norwegian writer Axel Jensen when they were both teenagers." How can a reader tell if you altered that paragraph. They can't rely on diff to tell them. They have to visually recognize the paragraphs are the same, or similar. Are they the same? Or merely similar? Because you eroded the value of the diff engine with your extra linefeeds it place a very considerable -- and unnecessary -- cognitive burden on other contributors to recognize that you changed the references to use the {{r}} template. Maybe you made other changes? Maybe your purposely, or accidentally, changed the spelling of some words, or purposely or accidentally, changed some punctuation.
By adding unncessary linefeeds, motivated soley by a concern for the cosmetic, you changed checking your changes from seconds, to minutes.
I suggest that, from now on, when you read
MOS:HEAD saying a blank line following a section heading is optional, you should interpret this as,its optional for the person who first adds the section, and the first paragraph. If that person placed a blank line after the heading, every subsequent contributor should leave that blank line, even those who don't like how it looks. And if that person didn't leave one, even though some of us might prefer one, we should honor the principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."Geo Swan (talk
) 11:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
f you had been more respec
f you had been more respec ... Use preview before saving; for help read Show preview.
I notice that in no instance above do you point to a guideline that supports your ideas of editing and formatting.
The spirit of
WP:KISS
comes to mind. Feel free to open a RfC also in this regard, but please post no more personal opinions regarding formatting on my user talk page.
You made a big edit, that included adding unnecessary linefeeds. Cmt.: Wrong again, I removed your unnecessary blank lines. Check out
WP:WIKEDDIFF
and see if that could possibly eliminate some of the misreadings.
IMO that MOS page should urge contributors to be careful to resist the temptation to add a cosmetic linefeed to an existing section heading, as you did in your big edit. Cmt.: You are repeating yourself and you are still wrong, I removed your unnecessary blank lines, I added none. If you want the wording of
MOS:HEAD
changed, bring it up on the project talk page, but that's weird since you have added blank lines.
Because you eroded the value of the diff engine with your extra linefeeds it place a very considerable -- and unnecessary -- cognitive burden on other contributors to recognize that you changed the references to use the {{r}} template. Cmt.: I suppose we are now talking about this diff, but again, no extra line breaks were added, so if you find it difficult to recognize the change of e.g. <ref name=Nrk /> to {{R|Nrk}} perhaps the reason is something else.
By adding unncessary linefeeds, motivated soley by a concern for the cosmetic, you changed checking your changes from seconds, to minutes. Hmmm. I "changed checking my changes from seconds, to minutes"? Right. Sorry, such nonsense is not productive and calls for a wrap. Consider this section closed. SamSailor 08:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Netherlands report: Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform; photohunt Egmond aan Zee; Iconographia Zoologica
Spain report: Wikipedia course at La Yutera Library
Sweden report: Art+Feminism 2017; Connected Open Heritage; Digikult; Art on Wikipedia; Writing about Gothenburg's history; Updating image description with new research results
UK report: Wicipop project in Wales; Wikimedia UK's impact report
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
