Index
|
|
Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
Thanks for those eyes
On Tops Friendly Markets and Conklin, New York you reverted an ip who reverted you back about insertion of shooter details. It turns out when I blocked them to prevent more BLP vios, another admin recognized the pattern and was able to use the info to further hinder an LTA from Downunder. Good on ya. I appreciate your help acknowledging: you were just doing what you do. If I can ever be of help, please feel invited to call on me. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BusterD: Oh wow! I thought it was just the average disruptive editing those articles have been seeing since that shooting. Glad to be of help! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Please see the MRDA talk page
re your revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingboth (talk • contribs) 07:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Ton courriel
Oui, oui, et oui.
You might want to read Wikipediocracy forums, if only for the popcorn. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- And pictures of my top-tier wood working and gardening. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: I have indeed been reading that forum. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Claims of July 2022
Hi User talk:Sideswipe9th... on my talk page, you made a claim: "a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template." Kindly point me to: a) The exact edit that you refer to, and, b) the exact "warning or blocking template" that was "a misuse".
Wisefroggy (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Wisefroggy: the misuse of the warning template by yourself was in this edit; where you used the templates {{uw-ew}} and {{uw-3rr}}. If you check the edit history at Marci Bowers, you'll see that I've only made a single revert of content that you had boldly added at 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC), had reverted by another editor at 12:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC), which you then restored at 14:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC) and then extended at 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC).
- As of the time of this reply, you have restored the content that you boldly added twice; [1] and [2] which is a technical violation of our edit war policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Embedded signatures and ordered list continuity
I updated the conversion definitions page you added to recently, moving Roxy's {{unsig}} back to proper position, after her number #2 entry. I suspect that what you were going for here, was the ability to have the refs be numbered continuously, so yours starts with #3; maybe you tried a couple of ways and it didn't work? Anyway, here's how you can get continuous numbering, even with the embedded sig between numbered entries. This also ensures that new refs added after yours will start with the next number, instead of #1 all over again. The trick is to remove the extraneous newline(s) which break the ordered list, and start it over at #1 again. If you wish to maintain a visual break in the wikicode so you can find the end of your list and the beginning of the next one more easily, you can still do that using HTML comment delimiters, like this:
# Some ref before yours by User1 # Last ref by them. User1 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy # Your refs, ending with: #: {{cite web |url=https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Policy_Statements/2018/Conversion_Therapy.aspx |title=Conversion Therapy |website=[[American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry]] |date=February 2018}}<!-- --><small> — Entries 3-17 added by/on [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)</small> # Some ref added after yours by User3 # Another ref User3 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy
Note the comment delimiters surrounding the white space. This renders as:
- Some ref before yours by User1
- Last ref by them. User1 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy
- Your refs, ending with:
- "Conversion Therapy". American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. February 2018. — Entries 3-17 added by/on Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some ref added after yours by User3
- Another ref User3 (talk) at hh:mm dd Month yyyy
The blank line disappears in the display, and the numbering is continuous. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: no worries. I wasn't sure what Roxy's intent was for that list; whether it was something we all added to and made a note separately of our contributions to it, or if it was intended as a list for just her investigations. I'll likely not get another look at the page again until after the weekend, as I'll be keeping a close eye on J. K. Rowling while it's featured on the front page as part of WP:TFA, but what you've done seems to be fine. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Jo Rowling
Are you sure about this edit? It restores at least two outright errors to the article. Could you please look again at this? Thanks in advance. --Wubslin (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Wubslin: I've opened a discussion on it over at Talk:J._K._Rowling#Wubslin_edits. I'd appreciate if you could elaborate there what the errors are please. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your prompt and courteous response. I have answered over there. --Wubslin (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to help @Wubslin:. Sorry for reverting it wholesale like that. As the article is currently featured on the main page as part of the today's featured article segment/portal, I was being a bit over cautious on restoring an older version, with the intent of looking in depth at any edits I'd reverted once the flurry from being on the main page had died down. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's no problem, I quite understand. Thanks for your vigilance and positivity. --Wubslin (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Wubslin: Oh and feel free to ping me here again if you need a hand or want a second opinion on something elsewhere on wiki. I'm happy to help wherever I can :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's no problem, I quite understand. Thanks for your vigilance and positivity. --Wubslin (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to help @Wubslin:. Sorry for reverting it wholesale like that. As the article is currently featured on the main page as part of the today's featured article segment/portal, I was being a bit over cautious on restoring an older version, with the intent of looking in depth at any edits I'd reverted once the flurry from being on the main page had died down. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your prompt and courteous response. I have answered over there. --Wubslin (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Citation bot
Hi Sideswipe9th, I've been away for a few weeks and have not kept up with the discussion. Since you seem to be driving it somewhat I thought you might be in the best position to catch me up with how it is going. I personally have very little interest in continuing to argue with the editors that run the bot, but I do still feel strongly that wider consensus needs to be determined for or against having the bot make those automatic conversions. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- There hasn't really been any changes in the last couple of weeks. I still would like someone to check my summaries in the "Reasoning to use X" table, just to make sure I haven't missed anything and have summarised all of the positions fairly, but so far no-one has been willing to do that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think they look fine in the second draft section, though I would clarify one point in the "Reasoning to use {{cite web}}" section like this (or similar):
Specialised templates should only be used for print or digital editions of a publication. Not content on their websites.
-->Specialised templates only include additional parameters for print or digital editions of a publication. Those additional parameters do not apply to web pages.
- adamstom97 (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Specialised templates only include additional parameters for print or digital editions of a publication.
I'm not sure if that's entirely true? Could you link me a diff to the comment or set of comments where that was asserted? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- The only parameters in {{cite magazine}} that are not in {{cite web}}, according to the template documentation for both, are
|others=
,|magazine=
,|edition=
,|publication-date=
,|volume=
,|issue=
,|no-pp=
, and|registration=
. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- @Adamstom.97: pinging as I'm not sure if you've got my talk page watchlisted.
- I think I might have been unclear here. What I meant was, that I'm not sure that was an argument that had been made in the prior discussion. That's why I asked for a diff to a comment, or set of comments, where that was asserted and discussed. The purpose of the table is to summarise the key points of the prior discussion, and not to introduce new ones. Introducing new discussion points is best done at an RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- (Brought here from the User talk:Citation bot) This was mentioned briefly here and here, though I admit this wasn't a main argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- The only parameters in {{cite magazine}} that are not in {{cite web}}, according to the template documentation for both, are
- I think they look fine in the second draft section, though I would clarify one point in the "Reasoning to use {{cite web}}" section like this (or similar):
Thanks for getting the RfC started, Sideswipe9th. Do you think it would be considered WP:CANVASSING to post a notification on WP:MCU, since that is where the issue originally arose? Just wanted to make sure before I did anything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus: To be honest I'm not entirely sure. So far I've only notified Help talk:Citation Style 1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Citation cleanup, as while I'm certain there are other pages who should be notified, I'm not sure what those pages are. You're probably best asking that in the discussion section in the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will do, once I've finished structuring my response. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Northern Ireland Assembly elections, consistency
Howdy. If you're going to 'delete' the majority seats bit? Then do so for all the Northern Ireland Assembly election pages, not just two. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will happily do so, however I was in the process of typing up a message for your talk page explaining how the mandatory coalition required by statute in NI works. Reverting me is just making this take longer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you'll remove the 'majority' bit from all of them? I won't revert you. PS - I do understand the 'power-sharing' setup of Northern Ireland :) GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you understand the power-sharing setup of the Assembly, then why did you add the parameter to those two, and not remove it from the others? In any event, it is now removed from all of them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because, it's easier to add to the few, then delete from the many. PS - I don't know who added them to the pre-2022 elections, or when. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not easier, it's faster. There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way. Putting in the wrong information was definitely the Max Power way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Either way, hopefully the executive will be up & running soon. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly hope so as we still haven't recovered from the last prolonged period where our devolved government was absent, though I fear the Brexit power-play will continue for quite some time. It will be interesting to see though if the Secretary of State uses his new powers to call another election in 4/5 months time, or if he'll let the deadlock continue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Either way, hopefully the executive will be up & running soon. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not easier, it's faster. There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way. Putting in the wrong information was definitely the Max Power way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because, it's easier to add to the few, then delete from the many. PS - I don't know who added them to the pre-2022 elections, or when. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you understand the power-sharing setup of the Assembly, then why did you add the parameter to those two, and not remove it from the others? In any event, it is now removed from all of them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you'll remove the 'majority' bit from all of them? I won't revert you. PS - I do understand the 'power-sharing' setup of Northern Ireland :) GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
stop hounding
stop hounding me or I'll report it Taramalan (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Taramalan: All of the pages where we have interacted so far have been on my watchlist for a significant period of time. Responding to issues on my watchlist is not hounding. You are of course welcome to make a report to ANI if you are unsatisfied with this answer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sock is blocked.[3] Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Saw that! Thanks @Newimpartial:. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sock is blocked.[3] Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)