User talk:Anderjef
Welcome!
Hi Anderjef, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! SamWilson989 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- You also may find it helpful to read WP:MINOR which explains what edits count as minor and which as major. From your contributions, it seems you are incorrectly marking your edits as minor. Hope this helps! SamWilson989 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback @SamWilson989! I saw that WP:MINOR page earlier, and I'm not sure where I went wrong. If you don't mind, could you provide an example or two of where you think I could have improved so I can avoid such mistakes in the future? Anderjef (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. WP:MINOR states that "Adding or removing references / citations, external links, or categories in an article" should not be marked as minor changes. This is because sometimes those additions (or removals) can be erroneous - an editor might add references that are unreliable. It is always a bit of a grey area what counts as minor and what counts as major but it's always safer to not mark it as minor if there's ever any doubt. You may find another editor comes along and tells me that I'm wrong. But in the case of your CGP Grey edits or your edits to History of Turpan (where you were adding lots of cleanup tags), I think it would be better if they were marked as major edits. Thanks! SamWilson989 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks so much! I see my error now in CGP Grey, but in History of Turpan I would have expected to fall under "Adding or correcting wikilinks", but I can keep in mind I should hedge if I'm modifying a significant number of them. Anyways thanks again! Anderjef (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, it wasn't the wikilink adding that made it a major edit but your addition of lots of various cleanup tags. Keeping those as major edits especially helps in flagging up to page-watchers that an article is in need of improvement as well as helping those editors in the future work out who added them and why. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see. That helps. Anderjef (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, it wasn't the wikilink adding that made it a major edit but your addition of lots of various cleanup tags. Keeping those as major edits especially helps in flagging up to page-watchers that an article is in need of improvement as well as helping those editors in the future work out who added them and why. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks so much! I see my error now in CGP Grey, but in History of Turpan I would have expected to fall under "Adding or correcting wikilinks", but I can keep in mind I should hedge if I'm modifying a significant number of them. Anyways thanks again! Anderjef (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. WP:MINOR states that "Adding or removing references / citations, external links, or categories in an article" should not be marked as minor changes. This is because sometimes those additions (or removals) can be erroneous - an editor might add references that are unreliable. It is always a bit of a grey area what counts as minor and what counts as major but it's always safer to not mark it as minor if there's ever any doubt. You may find another editor comes along and tells me that I'm wrong. But in the case of your CGP Grey edits or your edits to History of Turpan (where you were adding lots of cleanup tags), I think it would be better if they were marked as major edits. Thanks! SamWilson989 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback @SamWilson989! I saw that WP:MINOR page earlier, and I'm not sure where I went wrong. If you don't mind, could you provide an example or two of where you think I could have improved so I can avoid such mistakes in the future? Anderjef (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
List of common misconceptions
[edit]Ten citations is a bit much for one sentence. More than two is a tad excessive. Bkatcher (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I was just taking from the source which was condensing even more citations into that space. Feel free to reduce. :) Anderjef (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Spinach into List of common misconceptions. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Special:WantedTemplates
[edit]Hi, I have been cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and noticed that your javascript page is showing up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Anderjef. It looks like you do have <nowiki> at the top and </nowiki> at the bottom in comments, which is great. But, I think these are being effectively disabled around lines 155 and/or 176 and/or 269. So, by line 269 the {{formatnum:{{Template:Anderjef}}|R}}/1e6 round 0}} is being incorrectly parsed. It looks like it is the result of an expansion of a PAGENAME? One method that I have used to fix these premature substitutions is to breakup the string, so use say '{'+'{subst:PAGENAME}'+'}' instead of '{{subst:PAGENAME}}' which works the same, but the backend software doesn't prematurely expand it in the script. It would be great if you could fix this so we can reduce the entries in Special:WantedTemplates. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think I have solved the problem by doing what you suggested but with the closing nowiki tags I had in the code. As I said, I think this has solved the problem, but I'm not sure it has, so let me know if it still needs correction. Anderjef (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that worked. Your page is no longer showing any transcluded templates. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).
Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed; and, again, please do not edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BRD, of course, is optional, though I agree it has merits. Here, seeing as no edit summary justification or mention on the talk page was left (also see WP:BRD and WP:ENGAGE :P), I could only assume the revert was, at worst, accidental (I do not assume malicious just as I would hope you didn't assume I wanted war). Assuming you or someone else reverted me again (as you did), I would indeed bring it up for discussion without myself re-reverting. Anderjef (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I withdraw my objection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. You have saved my trust in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I could have been more conducive to your arriving at such a decision. Anderjef (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)