Daily Mail reference at David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville
Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Robby.is.on:, I have carefully read WP:Deprecated sources and noted the following sentence: "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint." The Daily Mail was a widely circulated and popular tabloid and therefore I feel that its opinion pieces are legitimate to cite for the line "contemporary press reports described him as 'unsackable.'". If the article asserted that he actually was unsackable, then of course a reliable source would be needed. It would be great if the originally cited Independent article was also still available, but it isn't. User:GKFXtalk 10:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- To use the Daily Mail article to support the sentence "contemporary press reports described him as 'unsackable.'" would be original research. We would "reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source". If anything, the "unsackable" claim would have to be attributed to the Daily Mail. But, considering Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight, the DM's opinion is likely WP:UNDUE. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Template editor granted
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
- Useful links
- All template-protected pages
- User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
- Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection
Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Problem with Template:Charmap
I don't know enough about templates to tell what the trouble is, but something you did to {{Charmap}} seems to be causing "The time allocated for running scripts has expired" errors to appear in several articles. (See, for instance, Number sign, Tsu (kana), and Radical 213). Perhaps it would be best to revert your edits unless you can quickly identify and fix the problem. Deor (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up! The problem lies in Template:GB18030 which for some reason is very slow. I have disabled it temporarily. User:GKFXtalk 18:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"Corporate media" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corporate media. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11#Corporate media until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Page tabs
Hi. I see that you redirected my Page tabs template in my User Talk space. I originally kept my own version of the template as the original only supported a limited number of tabs so I was managing it myself for my own purposes. Can you confirm that the new version does not have any such limitations? If it does not have any such limitations (and on cursory testing it doesn't seem to), thanks for redirecting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeffro77: Yep can confirm that the new implementation uses an actual loop and should work for as many tabs as you specify, provided they are put in consecutive parameters. (i.e. setting tabs 1, 2 and 5 probably won't work.) User:GKFXtalk 08:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Draft review
Hi, I would like to inform you that I have made changes to the article you are reviewing Draft:Laser Induced White Emission. I would be grateful if you could have a look there in your free time.
If this is not the right place to leave this type of message, I apologize in advance - I'm a novice on Wikipedia. LIWE 20 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)LIWE 20