Peter K Burian (talk | contribs) →Signature: replied |
RGloucester (talk | contribs) →Notice: new section |
||
Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692054221 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692054221 --> |
||
== Notice == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''Please read this notification carefully:'''<br>A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]], such as [[:November 2015 Paris attacks]], which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''[[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|one revert per twenty-four hours restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
Revision as of 21:37, 23 November 2015
See bio on my web site www.peterkburian.com
Reference errors on 10 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Danby (appliances) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Stephen Harper. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You can find citation templates here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the Welcome but I have been contributing to Wikipedia for several years. Sorry, I did not notice that I had removed a template. Peter K Burian
- Admittedly, I didn't check you full edit history, but, did notice signs that possibly indicate you haven't been contributing very long (such as not indenting in talk page discussions...). Regardless, it's a boilerplate notice.
- It's good you use citations, but, please try and give some kind of information about them so as to prevent WP:LINKROT.
- Best. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have contributed many times but my strength does not lie in HTML coding. I try very hard not to remove templates and when I do (rarely), I definitely appreciate a fix by someone with more HTML experience. Frankly, I know three individuals (including a retired Professor of Natural History and Environmental Biology) with great expertise in several topics who would be a huge benefit to Wikipedia, but they find the HTML to be confusing, so they have given up trying to contribute. Such is life. Cheers! Peter--Peter K Burian 22:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
National varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, and I now understand the concept. e.g. If the dates are done like this, 10 November 2015, then all dates in that article should be in that format and none as November 10, 2015. (In Canada both are correct, just as color is used more often than colour, but both of those are also correct.) It's tough being a Canadian in this respect. Americans and the British have it easier; they have one way of doing dates, spelling, etc.--Peter K Burian 22:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toronto Blue Jays, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Shapiro (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) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to One-child policy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- China’s Most Radical Experiment|year=2015| publisher=[[Houghton Mifflin Harcourt]]|ASIN: B00QPHNV4E)}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 24 Sussex Drive may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- du Canada |access-date=November 15, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> and confirmed by Heritage Ottawa.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://heritageottawa.org/news/heritage-ottawas-leslie-maitland-discusses-24-sussex-
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I found it and added the missing }}. Peter K Burian 18:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Need Administrator to review revision
Peter K Burian 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC) HELP ... need an administrator to mediate dispute re:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Ponta
.... is the revision by Dan Mihai Pitea valid or not?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Ponta&diff=next&oldid=689229444 AND (cur | prev) 21:37, 5 November 2015 Dan Mihai Pitea (talk | contribs) . . (59,463 bytes) (-866) . . (Reverted 1 edit by Peter K Burian (talk): Yes, and in the meantime read WP:CRYSTALBALL. . (TW)) updated since my last visit (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:34, 5 November 2015 Peter K Burian (talk | contribs) . . (60,329 bytes) (+866) . . (Will need to get an Administrator to mediate this issue. Undid revision 689244709 by Dan Mihai Pitea (talk)) (undo) Peter K Burian 21:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Howdy. TBH, the Interim leadership section shoudl be removed entirely, if not trimmed down. The article is suppose to be about the Leadership race and Leadership candidates. Not the Interim leadership race or Interim leadership candidates. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Peter K Burian 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Hello. I don't disagree. ... OK, I went in and deleted the entire section as to who ran for interim leader and condensed the issue as to who was allowed to vote.
- Personally, I'd delete the entire Interim leader section. But, that'll likely eventually occur as we near the (yet named) date of the Leadership Convention. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Peter K Burian 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Yes, makes sense; are you satisfied with the current version? Cheers! Peter K Burian 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Signing your posts
See WP:SIGNATURES, for how to sign your posts in discussions. Also, see WP:INDENT for how to place your posts in discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, will do.
- You still haven't grasped onto how to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm... talk) I though I just did this (adding the tilde). Is that not correct? Peter K Burian 22:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The one by our expert looks like this --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are 4 tilde below and if I click on that field, it automatically inserts them. Like this.--Peter K Burian 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I use a Canadian Windows computer and I cannot even find a tilde symbol anywhere on my keyboard. (Oh and before the tilde, I have to insert the --, I believe. Man, I love this HTML nightmare.)--Peter K Burian 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's two ways available:
- At the top, left of the editing window is a small icon with a blue pencil writing cursive;
- at the bottom, right of the editing window are four tildes "~~~~" immediately following the words "Sign your posts on talk pages".
- While your curser is located at the end of your post, clicking either of those aforementioned options once should result in your signature appearing after your post in page space. (Though 1 includes two dashes and 2 doesn't. I'm not sure why. I always use option 1.)
- Your signature seems to be appearing just fine; it shows your user name and has a date stamp. Mine is different only because I customised it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's two ways available:
- I use a Canadian Windows computer and I cannot even find a tilde symbol anywhere on my keyboard. (Oh and before the tilde, I have to insert the --, I believe. Man, I love this HTML nightmare.)--Peter K Burian 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are 4 tilde below and if I click on that field, it automatically inserts them. Like this.--Peter K Burian 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- You still haven't grasped onto how to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Signature linking
You also need to provide a link in your signature to back to your user, talk page or contributions. See wp:SIGLINK. 220 of Borg 18:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015 fixing urls as citations
Please stop using bare urls as citations. Templates are available at WP:CIT. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- There are many other "Gadgets", "Tools", "Scripts" and "Bots" intended to simplify, make more efficient editing, Many of theses "Wikipedia Tools" are hosted on external sites and perform a variety of task such as reFill, that edits references by adding basic information to bare URLs in citations after they are in articles....and Google book tool that converts bare Google book urls into {{cite book}} format before being put into articles....and so see Help:Citation tools. -- Moxy (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- What is the difficulty you are having with formatting citations properly? You've been directed both to where the appropriate templates are and to tools you can use that will (somewhat) fill out references. Yet, you continue to punch in bare urls all over the place. Is there something specific you're not understanding and someone can assist you with? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The difficulty I am having would be simple to understand for any layman, who is not a programmer or web designer. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_tools page has vast amounts of information and I have no idea where to even start. What I need is a section that provides examples of citations as they should be formatted.
- 1 Bot-filled templates
- 2 Tools
- 3 Not working
- 4 Templates
- 5 Citation tools
- 6 User scripts
- 7 Beta and obsolete
- 8 Documentation
- Peter K Burian 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it might be a bit more laborious, but the citation templates I directed you to can be filled out by you. It's what I do. I rarely use tools or gadgets to fill out refs (mostly because they only do half the job). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ok lets do it this way (all will have to give you time to do this in two steps)......add your ref as you have been doing ("<ref>" the url in between this coding you see "</ref>")....then go to this external tool (that you can bookmark) and type out the articles name then click on the FIX PAGE and then fill in any missing data if need be (it will guide you all the way.). -- Moxy (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Moxy OK, I used that tool to fix the citations on this Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danby_(appliances) (I wrote much of the content). It was simple but I don't know if it worked properly.
- Looks good to me :-) ...we also have a cool tool to do just one ref at a time when your looking at it. See this tool - Just drag the (blue) button there onto your browser's bookmark bar to use it. Then, just click the bookmark when you want to generate a reference from the page your on. For a book at Google-books use this tool -- Moxy (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that one too, Moxy; for the next few days, I will use only those two tools. Once I am fully comfortable with them, I might be willing to try another one. Cheers! Peter K Burian 20:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- See, it doesn't fill in the access date or give the proper publisher; I don't think it does dates of publication at all... That's why I don't like the tools.
- But, I suppose there's no rule that says you have to use one way of filling out a reference over another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm ... no? So I can use bare URLs? Peter K Burian 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Using bare urls is the opposite of filling out references; it is the absolute absence of citation information.
- See WP:LINKROT: "prevention of link rot strengthens the encyclopedia. This guide provides strategies for preventing link rot before it happens. These include the use of web archiving services and the judicious use of citation templates [emphasis mine]." Properly presented references also just makes for a more professional product. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm ... no? So I can use bare URLs? Peter K Burian 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good to me :-) ...we also have a cool tool to do just one ref at a time when your looking at it. See this tool - Just drag the (blue) button there onto your browser's bookmark bar to use it. Then, just click the bookmark when you want to generate a reference from the page your on. For a book at Google-books use this tool -- Moxy (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Moxy OK, I used that tool to fix the citations on this Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danby_(appliances) (I wrote much of the content). It was simple but I don't know if it worked properly.
- I understand but the complexity is so great, how does anyone without any training or experience in coding ever figure it all out? Sometimes I wonder if Wikipedia is like a secret society, where you can come for a visit occasionally, but you will never be accepted because you don't know the secret handshake or the rituals. The need for HTML complexity definitely keeps many, many people -- who might be valuable resources on certain topics -- from contributing; so the secret society stays small and insular. Perhaps that is one of the (unstated) intentions. Or, you can visit France, and speak the French you learned in high school and in university as I did, but you will never be accepted because you are not fluent and your vocabulary is limited. (Do les gens Français then ignore any opinion you might have, on any topic, even in if it's the one where you are an expert, because it's not stated in the purist manner? Yes, some do but others are more open to the content than to the format.) In any event, Moxy said it was OK to use the tools he recommended which do not produce citations in exactly the purist manner. For now, that is the best I can do.--Peter K Burian 22:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- "[H]ow does anyone without any training or experience in coding ever figure it all out?" I just followed the examples of citations already present and got better with practice. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Rideau Hall is not the monarch's residence
While I may not be an expert at HTML and formatting of citations, I am Canadian, studied a great deal of Canadian History, and am a full-time writer (co-author of over a dozen books and occasionally a magazine editor with a great deal of experience in research. I revised Rideau Hall extensively, partly because the citations that I provided confirmed that it is not the official residence in Canada of the monarch, and that the queen and her family visit there by invitation of the Governor General of Canada. e.g. Mme Sauvé received a number of distinguished visitors at Rideau Hall, including The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
I also added a great deal of new information, with many citations. All of those appear to have been deleted. Does someone own this Wikipedia listing? Were none of my revisions acceptable because he did not write them? Did I add absolutely nothing of value to readers? Was none of the content I provided of value because the citations were bare URL's ... or because some of them confirmed that Rideau Hall is not the residence of the monarch...?
This type of heavy-handed rejection of every single edit by another individual cannot be a benefit to Wikipedia. I am studying the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page to determine how to file a request for review of this issue. (New or infrequent Wikipedia contributors, like me, find the processes to be complicated ... but I will persevere, and learn how to do it.) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Yes, I will certainly be doing so within the next 24 hours. Peter K Burian 13:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Within your massive change to the article Rideau Hall were dozens of problematic moves; it was best to undo the whole lot. For established articles, a more refined and gradual process of change is better than drastic overhauls, at least without prior warning and call for opinion at the article's talk page. You also appear to be a novice editor and some of the problems with what you did to Rideau Hall likely stem from that.
- There's still too many issues for me to go through one by one, but I will try to summarise the major ones I can recall:
- You used bare urls for references (already dealt with).
- You duplicated, triplicated, and possibly more, the same url through the article. There is a way to use one citation as a source for different material throughout the article.
- Perhaps related to the above, you used too many sources. More specifically, you filled the lede with sources, which isn't necessary when the lede summarises material in the article proper that's already sourced.
- You removed properly cited material (see your remarks above). The hall being the monarch's official residence in Ottawa is a fact well supported by reliable sources. As such, you cannot delete it simply because you disagree with it; that is a violation of WP:NPOV. You also cannot take material from other sources out of context and put it together in a way that supports your personal theory; that is a violation of WP:OR.
- You added into the article itself too much extraneous detail about article dates and the journals they appeared in. That's what the citations are for.
- You gave too much coverage to a minor part of the article. Rideau Cottage, for example, is only one, small building on the grounds of Rideau Hall. Per WP:SPLIT, if a section on a particular matter has grown to a size disproportionate to the rest of the page, an article on that specific subject is created and a smaller summary left at the original article with a link to the new article. That's already been done with splitting Rideau Cottage out from Rideau Hall.
- You altered content because you felt it was wrong and I simply disagree with you. Per WP:BRD, it is within my right to revert you and then you can start a discussion about whatever particular matter it was you wanted in or out of the article to see if a consensus can be found to make some kind of change.
- If you want dispute resolution, it begins at WP:DS. However, you're unlikely to receive assistance if you haven't even begun to resolve the dispute yourself via discussion at the related article talk page. I suggest you go to Talk:Rideau Hall and there start a discussion about one aspect of the article you think needs altered. Then, if it gets resolved, move on to the next thing you think needs changed. And so on. With basic things like inserting citations, I can assist. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Since I also have magazine articles to write to earn a living, I do not have time today to figure out the entire dispute resolution and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents process. Several of your reasons indicate citations that are not formatted exactly as recommended. Again, to delete massive amounts of content for that reason seems inappropriate to me. (And what is more important? The formatting or the content? (Reminds me of the analogy of throwing out the baby with the bath water.)
- OK, you are convinced that the Queen has an official residence in Canada, in spite of quite a few citations that I had included which clearly indicate that she does not. No problem. I will find another 25, from equally reliable sources such as highly reputable daily newspapers, that confirm the facts as I stated them before the dispute resolution process. And that issue will need to be a primary one in the dispute resolution. (Why did I have too many citations? Because I knew that whoever was so convinced that the Hall is the queen's residence in Canada would not agree with some of my edits. Three citations proving that it is not the monarch's residence -- including one that confirms the royal family are invited to stay there by the Governor General -- seemed to make my case stronger.)
- I agree that you have a right to delete the sections I added indicating that the Hall is not the official residence of the monarch ... and the many citations that proved my point. (After all, I had done the same to your sections claiming the opposite. I believed that to be appropriate given the evidence confirming my understanding of the residence issue as provided in my citations.) But to delete every word of the entire edit, most of which did not relate to this topic, seems heavy-handed to me.
- I would have no problem with your removing extraneous content such as dates/articles where quotes appeared or some of my discussion about Rideau Cottage but surely something that I added to Rideau Hall -- even a single paragraph -- had merit. Other Editors have condensed text that I added to other topics on Wikipedia, and I certainly did not complain. People disagree on how much information about a small part of a topic is appropriate; apparently, I tend to include too much and am willing to concede that to an individual with much more experience on Wikipedia. But I cannot do so when they delete every word that I had added in an entire topic like Rideau Hall. Peter K Burian 21:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, you cannot delete material that's reliably sourced. There are many references supporting the fact Rideau Hall is the Canadian sovereign's Ottawa residence (you'll see the most recent topic discussed at Talk:Rideau Hall was the apparent overabundance of sources that were being used to support the statement the hall is the sovereign's home when in Ottawa). If you can find one that says explicitly it is not the monarch's residence, let's see it. Otherwise, taking a source that says Rideau Hall is the residence of the governor general and splicing it with a source that says Queen Elizabeth II was a guest at Rideau Hall and concluding Rideau Hall is not the monarch's residence constitutes WP:OR and ignores WP:V.
- Rideau Cottage does not deserve a whole paragraph, in my opinion. Rideau Hall is the subject of the article; Rideau Cottage is an out-building on the grounds of Rideau Hall that has had essentially zero attention paid to it until Trudeau decided to use it as a temporary residence. Its own article is barely more than a stub. If, though, you disagree with me, that's one of the things you can raise at Talk:Rideau Hall and see what the community has to say.
- There may have been some worthwhile edits in among the dozens you made all at once. But, making dozens all at once, the majority of which were problematic in some way, makes it very difficult to find the good ones. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with your removing extraneous content such as dates/articles where quotes appeared or some of my discussion about Rideau Cottage but surely something that I added to Rideau Hall -- even a single paragraph -- had merit. Other Editors have condensed text that I added to other topics on Wikipedia, and I certainly did not complain. People disagree on how much information about a small part of a topic is appropriate; apparently, I tend to include too much and am willing to concede that to an individual with much more experience on Wikipedia. But I cannot do so when they delete every word that I had added in an entire topic like Rideau Hall. Peter K Burian 21:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, Peter. I'm in agreement with you, that the Canadian monarch isn't an official resident or current tenant of Rideau Hall. The Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom. Otherwise, Canada wouldn't need a governor general. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; are you encouraging a new editor to ignore reliable sources in favour of your personal opinion? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks GoodDay. Your view on whose residence this is (not the monarch's) is based on fact, including at least five citations that my Edit included .... until every word of that content was deleted. Thanks for your support. Not many people would get involved and risk getting flamed. Cheers! Peter K Burian 21:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Using citations
Hey Peter. I think you would find if you try to engage that placing basic referencing is not nearly as hard as it seems at first blush. First, you do not need to use citation templates. It is perfectly okay to place handwritten citations. It's not as good; lots of formatting will be missing and probably inconsistent; but if you provide good attribution to the source, that's what really matters and it's easily fixable by others. What is insufficient is a naked link, making verifiability much more difficult. So, let's take an example of a citation you added in your edit, this one. I know you already know how to make it into an inline citation by using ref tags around it (<ref>...</ref>) because you actually did that. Look how easy it is to make that into an acceptable citation.
- You placed it with this:
- <ref>https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19270628&id=N_AuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qtkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6772,4152719</ref>
All you would need to make this acceptable is add the attribution details of the source in prose after the URL (in red for emphasis):
- <ref>https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19270628&id=N_AuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qtkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6772,4152719 "Historic Rideau Hall Was Built in 1837". Ottowa Citizen (Ottowa, Canada). June 28, 1927. p. 24.</ref>
However, using a citation template is not that hard. Each has documentation on their talk pages, and mostly you can just copy and paste them and then just add the obvious details after each equal sign. But let's break down one to see it's not all that hard.
- All templates start and end with curly braces – they start with "{{" and end with "}}"
- All templates have their separate "fields/parameters" separated by pipe symbols "|"
- Fields in templates usually have some kind of intuitive name (always in all lowercase), followed by an equal sign for you to fill in the blank. For example title= .
- As I stated at the Teahouse, there are four templates that can basically be used to make consistent citations for any source you can think of:
{{cite book}}
,{{cite news}}
,{{cite journal}}
and{{cite web}}
. Clicking on them will lead you documentaton explaining them and allowing you to copy and paste.
- To cite this source, a news source, you can copy and paste from the cite news template's page, mix and match as you see fit, and just add the relevant information. It does not matter where each field is in the template. And of course it goes between ref tags just like you've already done:
- <ref>
{{cite news |date= |title= |url= |newspaper= |location= |page= }}
</ref>
- <ref>
You can even do it vertically to see it better, it makes no difference to the output:
<ref>{{cite news |date= |title= |url= |newspaper= |location= |page= }}</ref>
- Just add in the information after each equal sign:
<ref>{{cite news |date= June 28, 1927 |title= Historic Rideau Hall Was Built in 1837 |url= https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19270628&id=N_AuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qtkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6772,4152719 |newspaper= Ottowa Citizen |location= Ottowa, Canada |page=24 }}</ref>
Placing that would format like this:
- "Historic Rideau Hall Was Built in 1837". Ottowa Citizen. Ottowa, Canada. June 28, 1927. p. 24.
Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. Will try it tomorrow. When I don't do the citations in a perfect manner, someone often deletes everything I wrote. Peter K Burian 02:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up issues
- Hellow Fuhghettaboutit. I tried doing a news citation with the template you had suggested. #99 on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad#Syrian_Civil_War:_2011.E2.80.93present It then looks like this: "Ward, Olivia (11 November 2015). "Bashar Assad a minor player in Syrian turmoil". Toronto Star (Toronto, ON, Canada). Retrieved 12 November 2015.
- But I also use that same news reference in another section of the article on Assad. I know there is a different format for the second reference to the same news article, Citation 190, but what is the template for that use?
- Also in the edit that I wrote I refer to a new book (Syria), citation number 98. I have not found a template that shows how to do the ref for that. ... But I added the book to Further Reading (hmm ... should I have put it into Bibliography?), and I'm quite sure I did that correctly. == Further reading == Abboud, Samer (2015). Syria (Hot Spots in Global Politics). Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-9797-0. I would love to be sure I am doing the primary types of citations correctly; I usually quote from newspaper articles (on-line version) and occasionally from books.
- You did a good job with the Assad citation, even putting in parameters I did not tell you about (|last= and |first=). And it is important to add the author if there is one. (The example I had used above for illustration did not have one). You put in an accessdate too, which is good. Just note that if the source is clearly a paper one (like the source I used as an example; a scan of a newspaper image) there's no need for an accessdate. On to the two issues:
- I fixed the Assad issue for you and left edit summaries to explain it. See here and here. I was thinking of explaining this in my original post here, but I didn't want to overwhelm you with more and more. Anyway, it's not all that difficult. The first time you want to use a citation that you're going to be using more than once, instead of opening it with a <ref> tag, use a ref tag with a name, in this form (choose the name intuitively – the last name of the author of the source is often a good choice (which is why I used "Ward", or the name of the newspaper and so forth.
- Instead of starting with:
- <ref>, use
- <ref name="Ward">
- Instead of starting with:
- That's the only change to what you would normally do to make the initial citation; after that opening change, the rest of the citation is what you would normally do. However the next time you want to use it – to recycle that same citation in the same article – all you need to do is place the named opening part, but with a forward slash just before the end, like so:
- <ref name-"Ward" />.
- I fixed the Assad issue for you and left edit summaries to explain it. See here and here. I was thinking of explaining this in my original post here, but I didn't want to overwhelm you with more and more. Anyway, it's not all that difficult. The first time you want to use a citation that you're going to be using more than once, instead of opening it with a <ref> tag, use a ref tag with a name, in this form (choose the name intuitively – the last name of the author of the source is often a good choice (which is why I used "Ward", or the name of the newspaper and so forth.
- As to the second question, I don't really understand. You figured out how to format the citation using the
{{cite book}}
template, but you placed that in further reading? You do understand that the cite templates just go between ref tags? So why didn't you use that citation template between ref tags in the text, instead of using a naked link? Replace the naked link that you placed between the ref tags for no. 98 with the filled-out cite book template you made and voilà, an attributed citation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Will do. Peter K Burian 01:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Rideau Hall is not the monarch's residence, Page 2
Tough to find journalists publishing any material claiming that a known fact is not true. But see this one[1] from Canada's National Capitol Commission. (I don't see any mention of it being the queen's residence in Canada.) The official residences in Canada’s Capital are owned and operated by the National Capital Commission. Rideau Hall, the home of the Governor General, is the only official residence open for public visits. Public Works and Government Services Canada provides the same role for The Citadelle, the Governor General's historic second residence in Quebec City. Peter K Burian 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's entirely up to you. But, shouldn't you be bringing this up at Rideau Hall's talkpage? Peter K Burian 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
</ref>
You have to fix the "</<ref>" buried in your comment above to "</ref>"- Thanks for the fix tip.
- There's no dispute Rideau Hall is the governor general's residence. You're trying to assert it is not the monarch's residence. An absence of a fact in one source doesn't mean the fact isn't true. Other sources (including the Queen herself) say Rideau Hall is the monarch's residence in Ottawa. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- PKB, I hope you can read the French language. You may need to, at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Merci GoodDay; Oui. I can read French. One of the benefits of being a Canadian who studied French for 8 years. (Also studied Spanish for 4 years, not typical in Canada, of course.) Peter K Burian 14:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 15 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the 24 Sussex Drive page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gogo Inflight Internet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virgin Airlines (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) 10:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I fixed Virgin as well as roach motel
Coordinates
Just letting you know, at Rideau Cottage, I didn't undo your good faith change to the coordinates to be obstinate; what I wrote in my edit summary is true. That is, for me, following the link the way I said I did. I don't know if it somehow appears differently on others' computers or using some of the other options (Bing Maps, MapTech, etc.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- No objection at all; I am still trying to figure out what coordinates should be used on Wikipedia. The center of a building? That's what is provided at White House for example, and I wonder if that's a good idea in terms of national security; should we give such a specific location? Or is such info readily available anyway, on other sources. (Or are all coordinates a bit off, intentionally, for security reasons.) AND I wonder, if I want to go to a location that I find on Wikipedia, such as Rideau Hall or Rideau Cottage, would the coordinates for the parking lot not be more useful than those for the center of the building? For many buildings, such as Rideau Cottage, now the residence of the Prime Minister, the public is not allowed anywhere near the actual building anyway. Peter K Burian 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia articles that show co-ordinates, there is an icon above the data; click on that and it shows you exactly where those coordinates would take you: to the center of the White House, for example. Of course, I have no idea if that map is accurate. Peter K Burian 21:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as I said elsewhere, I see the coordinates for Rideau Cottage as being directly within the walls of Rideau Cottage. I don't see why the same can't be done for Rideau Hall (though, it's not as neatly square as Rideau Cottage). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia articles that show co-ordinates, there is an icon above the data; click on that and it shows you exactly where those coordinates would take you: to the center of the White House, for example. Of course, I have no idea if that map is accurate. Peter K Burian 21:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Responding
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
REACTIONS article does not include countries' plans to admit more refugees after Paris attacks
This is a continuation of the topic re: deleted sections from government reactions in other countries.
The other topic, Reactions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks, is very narrow in that it only discusses how sad other countries are that France was attacked. There is absolutely no coverage re: the countries' plans re: admitting refugees in the aftermath of the attacks.
However, the article about the attacks already does include comments of that type, so that is where I will be discussing this sub-topic: in the European Council section and in the International section re: Canada's intentions and plans. Peter K Burian 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Signature in User Talk
Hi Peter. I wanted to point out that your signature isn't proper, because you don't link your username to the respective page. Another editor previously called you out on this, so you should fix it before people get annoyed. Are you signing your posts manually? If so, be aware that typing four tildes (~~~~) will sign them automatically with a default signature. LjL (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I use the four tilde symbols so it shows as Peter K Burian 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC) If the default signature is not the acceptable format, could you show my how I should be signing it? I appreciate all guidance! Peter K Burian 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I haven't the foggiest idea how to customize anything on Wikipedia. So I just click on the four tilde symbols. (But if someone can tell me in a few steps how I should customize it, great. Although I have never gotten a complaint anywhere elses on Wikipedia.) Peter K Burian 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hm, well, that's strange, but I've never customized my own signature myself either, so I'm not sure about the details. See WP:SIG#CustomSig,
and check in your preferences if it looks like there is any customized string at all, I guess. LjL (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I found that page; remind me what my signature should be instead of this, please. Peter K Burian 21:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of looking like
- Peter K Burian 21:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- it should look something like
- Peter K Burian Peter K Burian 21:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- (except with the real time, of course). Note, also, that because I posted it on your talk page, the link to your talk page itself is bold solid text instead of an actual link, but that's incidental. LjL (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of looking like
If you click the "Preferences" tab up top, next to "beta" "sandbox" and "watchlist", then go to the Signature section, you can monkey around with the sig there. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marek; I still don't understand why I would do that. My full name is what I use, not a pseudonym, and when I click on the four tilde symbols, it automatically adds my name and the date that I entered something. Does that need to be corrected?? Peter K Burian 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- You don't have to if you don't want to. The only issue is that your user name should show up as a link so that other people can easily go to your talk page if they want to discuss something. Right now it's sort of a pain to come here - I have to make some edit you made in a history of some article and click through to here that way. I'm not sure what the issue is if you're using four tildes. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marek; I still don't understand why I would do that. My full name is what I use, not a pseudonym, and when I click on the four tilde symbols, it automatically adds my name and the date that I entered something. Does that need to be corrected?? Peter K Burian 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, now I get it. What if I were to customized by adding [[User: ......... or is there other coding that I would need to add? You're right, Marek, my name should show up as a link as most others' names do. Peter K Burian 17:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 22 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the November 2015 Paris attacks page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
If you need any help or have questions let me know
[1] I know we disagree on this but just wanted to let you know that if you have any questions about Wikipedia, policy, structure, governance, ambiance or anything else, please let me know. It's very easy to get lost in all the rules, regulations, policies, bureaucracy etc. and I'm genuinely willing to help out. Volunteer Marek 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we definitely disagree, Marek. But if the Attacks article is getting too long, perhaps an Admin should move large chunks of it to the Reactions article. That would make sense. (And I do keep mentioning that in the Talk.) Right now, that one contains little of value. There are SO many revisions that I simply cannot figure out who was deleting content that I had added about Poland and the Czech Republic. (I am absolutely convinced that those comments make for balanced coverage: i.e. some want no refugees admitted at all, while others believe there is a responsibility to the tens of thousands of families stuck outside European borders. My added content has included commentary on both aspects, and both are essential for balanced coverage. This has nothing to do with my own view of which side is right; I simply believe that both sides' comments need to be published. Whether that section is left in Attacks or moved to Reactions.) Cheers! Peter K Burian 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion has been continued in the other thread about reactions. Peter K Burian 16:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Notice
Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as November 2015 Paris attacks, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)