User talk:Magioladitis: Difference between revisions

Thanks

Resolved

It was a setting under "list" which I don't remember seeing before. I deleted the bug report before I saw your message, but I got notified of it... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Main page topic

Resolved

Hello dear user. Today a russian boat crashed near Kamchatka Oblast, 54 people died. How can we add this info on the news section on main page? Thanks in advance for your respond. M.Karelin (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Миша Карелин: I believe Wikipedia:In the news has the information you're looking for. GoingBatty (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lawn Farm

Hi, I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. I would like to know the exact location of Lawn Farm. Does anyone know? 6km south of NN seems to be Boyer. Do you know anything about this Farm? I am researching Degraves family.----AnneAlphabet — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneAlphabet (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What did (does)Yobot do?

Hi Magioladitis,

I've been editing the Theo Travis page and you've made an edit in the last 24 hours with Yobot which, as I understand it (and I don't really, yet) is not as a direct user as such but rather with some sort of automated editing bot for doing long, boring editing tasks. I don't really understand what your edit achieved. (It may well have achieved something very useful - as I say, I don't really understand what. I wouldn't object to a simple explanation.)

Anyway, the reason for messaging you is, what I've been doing on this page is editing its discography which I subdivided into several sections for ease of managing it. For editing purposes, each section then had (and now has) its own edit facility. Since your Yobot edit, sections 2.2 and 2.3 (which is a particularly long section) no longer have this edit facility. Does this sound like your Yobot edit could have made this change? - and if I undo that change would that put those two facilities back? Also, what else would undo undo?

I'm at the low end of the learning curve here, so your comments would be much appreciated.

Also, it might be that some sort of bot would be very useful to me for sub-editing Discographies on Wikipedia. (Most of the editing I've done has been music and musicians related.) Advice welcome

Thanks in advance,

Alterations (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Alterations: It wasn't Yobot. The problem was introduced with this edit, where several {{nowrap| were added, at least one of which was without a closing }} - for every pair of opening double braces, there must be a matching pair of closing double braces; and when the opening pair is in a bulleted list item, the closing pair should normally be in the same bulleted list item. I fixed it like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I must have missed out a }} before I went to bed. I always check those things, but sometimes one gets past me! Thanks for spotting and fixing. I certainly won't be undoing that.

I'm still baffled as to the vanishing 2 facilities to edit, though.

Alterations (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Maybe the vanishing edit facility means you were editing (mistakes in) those sections at the time I looked? Yes? The 2 facilities have come back now. Alterations (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alterations: I made three edits. The two missing [edit] links reappeared after my first edit: I made the second and third edits by way of ensuring that no further imbalances remained. Prior to my first edit, what was in the article was basically this:

===Solo Albums===
*...
*{{nowrap|''Slow Life'' (2003) {{nowrap|Ether Sounds}}
*...

===Solo Compilation Albums===
*...

===Collaboration Albums===
*...
*[[Indigo Falls]]:}} {{nowrap|''Indigo Falls''}} (1998) {{nowrap|(Medium Productions Limited)}}
*...

which is to say, the {{nowrap}} begun immediately before Slow Life didn't end until just after Indigo Falls; and in between those points were two subheadings - and these are the ones for which there were no [edit] links.

However, on a more general note, why is it necessary to use {{nowrap}} so extensively? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Hello

I'm Mansour JE mjesfahani, could you please explain wikigrain to me? Is it related to to wikipedia?

Adrian Haworth

Resolved

You deleted a page with the title Adrian Haworth, thereby creating at least one redlink on one of my GA articles. Would you please restore it or point to a workaround - since it has gone I don't know what the problem was --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear Per WP:REDLINK, red links are a good thing. Red links help Wikipedia grow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not when a real link gets replaced by a redlink. The point is if you delete a page - surely that requires checking what directs there first. Otherwise the only 'growth' I see coming from this would be to replace the deleted page - which I suspect was a redirect. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking into this, I see that the Adrian Haworth page only had one revision at the time of its deletion, and that consisted of the single line

#REDIRECT [[Adrian Hardy Haworth|Adrian Hardy Haworth]]

The page Adrian Hardy Haworth already existed (having been created 12:13, 25 February 2005; and never moved, deleted or undeleted), and was not itself a redirect, so I don't think that either the deletion code (G6) or the extended rationale (Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Double redirect) was applicable. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 you are right. I recreated the redirect. I was pretty sure that the page title matched the redirect target and in fact AWB was telling me so. I was wrong. Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And that is a real problem with AWB I find - and why there is a caveat on it - see also below. Thanks for fixing. Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

AWB edits

Resolved

When you use AWB, you need to make sure it is doing the right thing. You converted to double hyphen to an em dash in "2000s—2010s", where an en dash is needed, at this edit; please fix. Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon thanks for the heads up. I fixed it. Please WP:BEBOLD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I could have just fixed it myself, but I thought it was more important to alert to not cause such problems. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

But you fixed it wrong, putting in a hyphen here, where an en dash is needed. See MOS:DASH to get up to speed on such things if you're going to be editing them. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You also botched Laguna Beach, Florida pretty badly. If you can't figure out what you're doing wrong, revert back to where you started and leave it or try again. In this case, you started by mangling the URL to one that doesn't work. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you actually look at that section and the URL it cites, you'll see it probably just a copyvio that needs to be removed. By mangling the URL you make it less likely that someone will ever notice and fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Consider focusing on quality of edits instead of quantity for a while? Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon just to make clear: The edit to Laguna Beach, Florida was manual and I did not even use AWB. (Just to clarify against the section title).

Now, on the text: I checked and I saw that the vital info was added in August 2014. It was in my plans to check for copyvio but I did not bother further to be honest. I can't help in every single article I find copyvio or vandalism for a long time. I recently found this that was there for a month. I try to to reduce some backlogs. I appreciate your comments but you can also help by fixing the things you dod not like instead of only reverting me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do plenty of constructive editing. My point here is that I your rapid editing is making as almost as many errros as fixing. Slow down and get it right, instead of making work for others. Please be sure and at least go back and fix the ones I pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon I think I fixed all of what you reported as soon as you reported them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow

You've been busy: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 Thanks for the appreciation! I hope it's because I became more active and not because those others editors became inactive. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mags, when you have that many substantive edits, we're not really comparing you to others, but others to you! Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange edits by Yobot

Resolved

I do not understand why Yobot is changing the quotes in a citation when the quotes were there in the source. See for this edit and the original article title with quotes here: case 1 and Case 2. The Banner talk 23:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Banner per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Perhaps someone of my talk page stalkers can find a better reference for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also MOS:QUOTE under "typographic conformity": "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers. ... Styling of apostrophes and quotation marks – These should all be straight, not curly or slanted. See § Quotation marks, below. When quoting a quotation that itself contains a quotation, single quotes may be replaced with double quotes, and vice versa. See § Quotations within quotations, below." —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that but it looks like altering a quotation what is usually a nono. The Banner talk 00:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:PUNCT too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to this report I finally updated the AWB manual. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

At least the total outcome of this question is positive action. The Banner talk 00:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yobot and underlinked tagging

Resolved

Hi. Yobot tagged IFI27 around a year ago as underlinked, despite it containing a lot of links (keeping in consideration the size of the article). I'm not sure if this is an old issue that's been dealt with, and I couldn't find anything about underlinked tags on Yobot's userpage so I thought I'd bring it to your attention here. Thanks. Bosstopher (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher Thanks for the heads up. It has already been fixed. No pages with {{PBB}} should be tagged as underlinked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I would like to switch to Multiple issues template new format in all Wikipedias or at least to those that use the English name "Multiple issues" (10 projects: as, bn, km, ml, ms, ne, or, si, ta) according to wikidata:Q6450720.

@Magioladitis: I'm going to be on wikibreak through April 17. Let's catch up after that to discuss how I can help. GoingBatty (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty This is a (kind) reminder. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I already finished as, bn, si, km. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Park Yeon-mi

Resolved

Why in the world do you think North Korean state media and a blog are reliable sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

NeilN they express the official position of North Korea. Moreover, 2 sources are English media. Why exactly are "bad sources"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is controversy and it's clear they were reactions for her statements. Why not mention this on the page? I do not get it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

re [2] while you provided two links, when making claims that someone is a "liar" [3] you need to provide actual high quality reliable sources WP:BLP / WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom The text I wrote does not call her liar. I quote exactly what the media wrote. I think if we remove euphemisms the sources claim she is a "liar". The word liar is only in the edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to ALL content in ALL spaces, including edit summaries. and the links that you provided are not appropriate for supporting such claims or implications about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The text I wrote after final revision Current version of 656878780 provide controversy in a neutral way. I do not like euphemisms. If a source claims that Parks is not telling the truth and a Korean association claims that she was paid to make her statements, then they call her liar. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom I could remove the edit summary from my text if you think it's insulting for Park but the text is OK. I could re-submit with a different edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

1) You cannot remove an edit summary. You can ask an admin to remove it. 2) The content itself is still entirely unacceptable. You need to back such assertions by reliably published sources, those with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight. Not a reputation propaganda and personal opinions. WP:RS-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom you claim that the official video by DPRK is not reliable to show DPRK's opinion on the matter? Moreover, thediplomat is not reliable? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

i claim that any opinion they may express about a living person is an opinion that is unacceptable per WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom I removed the edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom The edit summary was a mistake. I am not known for writing good edit summaries. Sometimes summarising can miss the point. I think my text was neutral and had no opinion included. Still feel free to improve. I corrected my mistake by hiding the edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

the text was ENTIRELY opinions from non reliable sources. If you are going to continue editing about Park you need to quickly begin to understand and follow WP:BLP and WP:RS. We are not here to further your crusade to present someone as a liar. Our "neutral point of view" policy is to present the subject as they are presented and covered by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Any further discussion should be continue at Talk:Park Yeon-mi. I resumed discussion about complains on the neutrality of that page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not in any crusade. My very first edit summary in the page says that "yet another ref that shows that the story may be not true" trying to cover the NPOV tag in the page and the many complains in the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Final warning

Resolved

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page.

You have been told that WP:BLP applies to all wikipedia space and that controversial claims require the highest quality reliable sources . Restoring inappropriate claims from inappropriate sources as you did [4] is not acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, according to you so I am not allowed to present links I found not even in talk page, as evidence to build a better article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Two out of four references/links I provided and you deleted were already present in talk page since December 2014 by other editors. Still you only gave my a "final warning" and you reverted only my edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, Magioladitis. I was asked to take a look at this. Thanks for removing that edit summary. But BLP applies to talkpages also, and statements like "I think X is a liar" could get Wikipedia in legal trouble. Also defamatory quotes from non-reliable sources. Please remove anything like that from article talk. (I don't mean revdel, which is in any case very clumsy for removing text as I'm sure you know, but just blank it from article talk with a [removed] note or something like that.) Bishonen | talk 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen thanks for the advice. Some parts of what I wrote were written by mistake and I have fixed them already. I'll finish the job but if if you see anything I missed feel free to tell me. -- Magioladitis (talk)

There are still problems on the talkpage, including the bit I quoted. Would you like me to remove them? Bishonen | talk 14:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen check again and tell me if there still problems. I was typing too fast in 2 similar discussions. Feel free to replace some of my text with [removed] if necessary. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I did remove a bit more (also in a post by Neil). Please see what you think. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen OK thanks for coming in help in this one. I do not like drama and somehow I sometimes participate in it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 April

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 Kenmore West Senior High School page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Explain please? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone I do not plan to impose any editing restrictions to any editor unless I miss something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe they are suggesting that because you and your bot both edit Biographies often, you are at risk of being sanctioned by the committee. My personal persepctive is that this is another extremely poor decision made by the Arbcom that will, as is often the case of their decisions, do more harm than good to this project. This decision of their will in fact cause people to avoid completely making changes, including positive improvements, to biographies. I could be wrong about OccultZones intent though. Either way, good luck. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)