A bowl of strawberries for you!
Hi I’ve just reviewed A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Thanks for creating such a good article. Let me know on my talk page if you ever need any help with anything. Happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
- Can I second this? Great work on Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Reverting BLP violations
Hi Footlessmouse, just following up from your report to AIV (regarding User:69.131.149.70). There is always an exemption from edit warring and the 3 revert rule for reverting obvious vandalism and negative and unsourced or poorly sourced statements about living people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Repeated references
Hi Footlessmouse, it's been a while. I've recently discovered (yes, I'm coronavirus-new here too) this Rp template[1] that adds a little note about the page or chapter or section number next to the citation, I find it more convenient than to repeat the same reference over and over again. What u think? Mind using it? I absolutely hate when people cite a note that cites a page in a reference they cite, that's just too many jumps when reading an article that are too distracting. Love when you don't need to go back and forth and can check and open a reference from an overlay. But that's just me... The Feynman lectures (which I love) is online, I'll be changing the references to the book so more people can discover it. Do you think a chapter reference is enough? Section? I'd like to avoid page references, given many editions and forms. Take care, Ponor (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Ponor: I hope all is well. Yes, I have seen that template around, I don't mind using it. To be honest, I prefer the Template:harvnb, but I believe that is the one you are saying you dislike, because it leaves a note with a page number and links to the further reading for full cite. I have no problem using template:Rp from now on for these pages. As far as how selective, I believe that if you are citing a direct quote, it should contain an exact page number, otherwise section or chapter is appropriate depending on how much material is devoted to the topic at hand in the original source. I apologize for bogging down the article with all the references a few minutes ago, I copied the content from my sandbox which used harvnb but I didn't copy the cite, and as a quick fix I decided to just replace all the harvnb templates with the full citation using regex. I can help fix these up and use the rp template. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Footlessmouse:What you seem to use Template:harvnb for in [[Magnetic field] is fine with me. You hover the little [note], and you get what's in the (foot(less))note in an overlay. What I said I hated (shouldn't have used such a strong word) is the way citations are added in, e.g. Violin acoustics. First, they add a huge chapter of nothing but page numbers at the bottom. Then, say you're at 37% of the article, and need to check a reference. I don't see how I can get to it without scrolling down to find it, at least in my browser. But how do you then get back to where you left off? That citation style is OK for (paper) books, where you can use a few (paper) bookmarks, but not for the web. IMHO, of course. OK, back to work. Cheers! :) Ponor (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Carbonaceous sulfur hydride
Hello! Your submission of Carbonaceous sulfur hydride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
GAs
Hey there, I'll admit that astronomy and space is not really my field, but I took a look at your reviews and the articles. Both of your reviews were excellent; can't really go wrong sticking to the criteria, and it looked like you did a thorough job with both articles. I have no objections to passing either one. I did give NASA Astronaut Group 8 a bit of a copyedit in the latter half; I would suggest just going ahead and fixing trivial grammar/spelling issues as you find them, leaving the more confusing or unclear cases for the nominator to fix.
I'll also note that some of the spelling errors that you pointed out are because the nominator is from Australia, which is why the article had things like realized/realised, counseled/counselled, or totaling/totalling, not to mention that the general lack of a serial comma throughout the article. It's best to just ensure the article is consistent throughout, per MOS:ENGVAR. bibliomaniac15 19:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)