User talk:Jonesey95/Archive2020

2398:. I have both Harverrors.js (Trappist's version) and .harv-error enabled. What I see is (a) the first footnote, which is a very common error, is noticed by the js, but does not emit a sfn error (b) the 2nd footnote, also an error noticed by the js although less likely in practice, does not emit a sfn error because the author is whitelisted (c) the 3rd footnote is OK all round: it's valid and not marked as an error, but that's just because I chose an author in your current whitelist (d) the fourth footnote is correct, but emits an sfn error because the author is not whitelisted. Although it does suppress the majority of false positives, I still don't think it hits the mark. #1 is a false negative, #4 is a false positive, and both are pretty common. I appreciate the detailed work you've done, but I think the larger the whitelist gets, the more likely it is to miss genuine errors, especially the first category. 7186:: Thanks for the note. My toes are fine; I don't take things personally on WP as long as editors engage in good faith. I disagree that the new wording, which you have reverted, represented a reduction in the template's message, since most of the reduction in word count came from removal of a redundant sentence. I think that the new wording actually added more words that explained the template's reason for existence more fully. In any event, let's not banter here; please propose new text that matches the name of the template on the template's talk page. I will be happy to engage there. 1565: 7009: 4980: 3047: 5196: 4950: 6463: 5726: 81: 1322:, who appears to have missed adding a few parameters to the unknown parameter check. I have redone the parameter check to include those missing parameters. It is possible that there is a larger plan to deprecate certain parameters, but that is usually done with a separate parameter check (since deprecated is different from unsupported) and I didn't see any recent discussions on the talk page. Primefac is an active and competent editor and may have more insight than I. – 1693: 8438:

messages; a month or three ago, I received (what, in my memory, seems like) a few dozen semi-automated category deletion messages when a large set of categories that I had created (that were needed at the time) were renamed as part of a large template/category improvement project. That's just how it goes. I just let them post to my talk page, and then deleted them in a batch or reverted or archived them. No big deal. I knew that it wasn't personal. –

7920: 7973: 6712: 3079: 1235: 8460: 682: 7664: 4137: 4119: 4101: 4083: 4065: 4047: 4029: 4011: 3993: 3975: 3957: 3939: 3921: 3903: 3885: 3867: 3849: 3831: 3813: 3795: 3777: 3759: 3741: 3723: 3705: 3687: 3655: 8120: 2419:

silently ignored by the module (but still caught by Harverrors). Also, an incomplete whitelist causes something like 3% of module "no target" errors (about 1,000 out of 30,000, I estimate) to be displayed when there is no error; updating the whitelist will eliminate those. So that's something like a 97% improvement so far, on our way to 99.5% improvement. I'll take that any day of the week. –

4707:(please note, I can't read Portuguese). Each Knowledge (whether English, Portuguese or another) is a separate project, and each is free to decide upon its own rules (provided that they abide by the terms laid down by the WMF). This means that the policies, guidelines and other conventions of one Knowledge do not necessarily apply on any other Knowledge. Our policy on custom signatures is at 7453: 7626: 7267: 6833: 6349: 5370: 3362: 1761: 927: 2413:

whitelisting is imperfect. The key thing to remember is what we had before: a tiny population of editors using a Harverrors script, no way to find the errors except by stumbling upon them, and no way to tell regular editors or readers that something was wrong with the reference. Now we have a way to show and categorize these errors for everyone to see (if we unhide them).

8076: 3290:

warts and all, just like the also-buggy Visual Editor. The syntax highlighter doesn't work right unless br is self-closed; Visual Editor leaves trashy wikicode lying around. There is no perfect tool, apparently, and developers appear to have other priorities. At least we gnomes won't be unemployed any time soon!

7966: 6705: 6065:

is clear but, perhaps I made such a hash at the start (as I mentioned in the edit summary hadn't started one in ages) that it needs to be rerun. I get what you are saying about the other pages and can handle those separately. Apologies for all the confusion. If you can give me an idea what to do next

5883:

Thanks for the note, and welcome to Knowledge. We have our own Manual of Style (MOS) here that may take some getting used to. It looks like you have undone some of the fixes that I put into the article (removing spaces before the sfn templates, for example) to help the article comply better with MOS.

3289:

As I said above, I would rather have cleaner diffs as well; I would leave the br tags alone if it were an option compatible with the tools that I am able to use. The syntax highlighter is a standard Gadget that is provided as part of the en.WP Preferences, which implies that it has community support,

3072: 2764:

M-W tries to be nice about it, but "hone in" is nonstandard usage that has crept into common usage (see also "irregardless"). I compromised by marking the word with a template, like this: {sic|hone|hide=y}. That should ensure that other editors know that this error is in the article intentionally and

2626:

I did a more thorough analysis. If I did the template parsing right (it wasn't thoroughly tested), I found 440 authors or author pairs mentioned in EB1911 templates but not on the whitelist. Some of these may be typos of course. And, as I said, I occasionally come across new ones. However, I wouldn't

2468:

tweak, although I'm always comfortable with the semantics of the word "positive" in the case of finding an error. But they do bother me because, as I said right at the beginning, the messages are impenetrable jargon to the casual reader and require a very technical fix. On the other hand, the same is

2333:

I'm unclear what the actual request is here, and I do not see any discussion on the talk page. The documentation page already contains "Sandbox other". Adding a logo for an artist doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but if there is consensus on the talk page, you are welcome to add an edit request.

1379:

Fooled me! You're a goofball. Happy April 1, BG. Sorry for the instinctive revert; it looked too much like the inexplicable junk that newbie editors sometimes do, without enough of a bizarre streak. Next time you want to self-block, feel free to leave a message on my talk page first, verbally abusing

1228: 532: 3295:

As I said above, if there is a syntax highlighter that works, I will use it, but I haven't found one yet. I gave the one included with the 2010 wikitext editor a try, and I found two serious show-stopping bugs in the first hour, so I'm back to the functional (although not ideal, obviously) old-timey

2931:

I put some possible patterns on your frwiki talk page. It will help me find patterns if you always start your runs from the beginning of the alphabet, as you have done so far. Just for the record, there are 22,860 "Links in links" Linter errors at this writing. I think your bot will be able to fix a

1791:

I don't think I have seen that happen. I add items to the whitelist when a short citation shows a new, red, hidden "no target" error, but when Ucucha's script does not complain about that same short citation. In those situations, the link from the short citation to the full citation is working fine,

7601:

There is not a convenient way to watchlist a single category page for changes to its contents, but I put a note on that page saying to post on the talk page (which I just created). I also have that template and talk page on my watchlist. I agree that it probably won't happen again for many years. –

6274:

That's nice of you to say. As I recently told a friend of mine whose novel I copy-edited, it's actually a curse rather than a gift. It makes it hard to read just about anything, because the grammar and usage errors pop out at me! I typically find a copy-editing error every 10 to 50 pages in popular

6189:

I did not look for errors past the first three sentences, in which I quickly found three errors. I recommend reverting your edits and letting someone else try improving the article. Unfortunately, I think that copy editing may not be your strength, and that you may want to look for a way to improve

3498:

You have to evaluate any tool's recommendation critically; tools make errors, and you as the human operating the tool are responsible for your edits. Your brain is your best tool; use it every time you make an edit. As for the person's name, we go with what the source says. In this case, the source

3233:

of my sandbox, turn on syntax highlighting, and run my custom AutoEd script that fixes missing italics, it does not make an edit. If I click the pencil icon to turn off syntax highlighting and then run the script, it fixes the missing italics. I know that not many people use AutoEd, but I use it to

2498:

Well, I did look for all the articles with (a) an EB1911 reference (b) a specific non-Chisholm author (c) a Chisholm 1911 short footnote. I didn't find many but I seem to recall I made a pass at them some time back. This time I caught the following. Some should be fixed in the source but I'll leave

2433:

I admit I was lazy (it was late at night) and used my own name as a proxy for those EB authors who have one or two articles. I still come across new ones from time to time. Most of all, though, thanks for the detailed math in your reply; it's convincing. I do know I have seen some Chisholm1911 tags

1875:

Thanks for the detail, as I admit I haven't been following closely enough. And I assume that, if the editor includes an overriding name or year in the citation template, that too would be accepted as correct. Also, to see if the 'smaller "no target" message is not displayed, I'll need to turn them

1128:

I take no position on whether the use of country abbreviations should be allowed, but having a short description of "School in USA" seemed less good than "School in the United States". If support for conversion of country abbreviations is taken away after all of the abbreviations are fixed, that is

7796:

As for a recommendation that improves accessibility and semantic validity but is incompatible due to a bug in, or inadequate programming of, the beta Visual Editor, that's how it goes with beta software; there are plenty of higher-priority VE bugs in phabricator that have gone unfixed for years. –

6131:

You improved the article quite a bit, and added some errors ("relaxed, Dimensional"; "interlooping" was correct; "Fibers to fabric conversion imply" is wrong; "brand can lose its reputation" should not have been changed). Try reading the article aloud to find additional errors, including ones that

5171:

Actually, I think it says "English-born". I agree it is confusing and perhaps I will change it to "born in England". I don't understand the logic of importing the descriptions - it isn't as if I am ever going to edit Wikidata to fix the problem, the interface of which is even more arcane than that

5156:

I always check the wikidata description against the summary in the lead, which said "English" and that he was born in London. That was good enough for me. I agree that we should not use wikidata for unsourced statements, which is one reason why I am importing them; page watchers who care about the

7689:

I expect that I explained the reason for my edit in the edit summary. In any event, always link to a diff, or at least to an article, when you have a question about a particular edit that someone has made. I have edited over 100,000 different articles, so there is no chance that I will recall the

4223:

is being unnecessarily confrontational over it, but I also advise you to remove that comment out of your own accord. People with disorders ought to be included, not framed as "different", especially in cases like this where they do not like being singled out. This is something I have learned from

3248:

Also, when I am working on a long page, and the edit window is scrolled down to a section in the middle of the page, if I click Preview, the edit window now shows the top of the page instead of the section I had been working on. I have to scroll in the edit window to get back to the section I was

150:

shows you how to use it from a web page, and if you scroll down a bit, there are instructions for adding a line to your common.js file (a bit technical), which will give you a "reFill" link on the left side of every WP article, in the "Tools" sidebar to the left of the article. Let me know if you

8437:

I'm not sure why you're asking me. It looks like you created a bunch of articles that are barely sourced and uploaded files that are no longer used, and it is polite to notify creators when their creations are nominated. You could clean them up yourself, I guess. I don't know how to suppress the

7831:

The conversation looked like it had reached consensus, and the edit request was marked as unanswered (which is supposed to happen only if there is consensus or a non-controversial request), so I implemented it after testing it in the sandbox (the sandbox had not been edited, so I figured that no

4667:

Thanks but I don't want to get involved and I'm not interested in what happens over there. English Knowledge and Portuguese Knowledge clearly have different rules; you should respect the rules of the wiki you are working in. It's possible to use a different sig for each wiki, and imo it would be

2182:

I'm not going to claim the formatting there was perfect – it wasn't, but it worked at least for some readers (I've just tried in another browser and it works there too). I've had a look again, and the characters concerned appear to be sequences of normal and non-breaking spaces (U+00A0). I don't

2020:

A small group of editors seems determined to move these tabs somewhere or substitute them, even though editors are effectively using them as templates. Someone should have turned them into real templates long ago, probably, but that's not what happened, and now we are unwinding a tangled ball of

1806:

Sorry, but I may be misunderstanding. Is the whitelist applied at a template level? Not per-article, surely? Then although in the majority of uses it would be correct to suppress the error, in cases when an editor screws up (mis-spells the default author name, or mismatches an explicit value for

7558:

The mystery deepens! I was trusting the "0" in the previous rollover count, but of course that was wrong. I went back to the July drive Barnstars page and found the correct number. I think it's all fixed up now. We're going to have to make a new barnstar for you if you hit two million words; we

5537:

If you're looking at the page in Firefox, for example, go to Tools - Web Developer - Page Source, or press Ctrl-U or Command-U. That will show you a new tab with the HTML code that renders the page. Scroll down almost to the bottom to see a commented section that resembles in the one in the VPT

2418:

The whitelist causes a minuscule percentage of those errors to be suppressed and ignored, but the Harverrors script still catches them. So we have gone from a situation where 100% of errors were silently ignored to a situation where probably less than 0.5% of errors (1 out of every 200) will be

3460:

templates to articles with in-line references but no reflist template, but the new heading you added was not like anything I have ever seen. If you want to separate the reflist from the general references, a heading like "General references" above the general references is much more common and

2412:

You are basically correct in your assessment, except that I have not found a real-world instance of CITEREFBrooks1911, so I have not put it in the whitelist, so the module rightly tags it as an error. It's basically the same as CITEREFChisolm1911, or any other misspelling. You are correct that

2446:

parameters, wouldn't that be something the footnotes code could handle directly? After all, it's already parsing the args. It would eliminate much whitelist maintenance. I realize not every such template is obliged to use that pattern, but the big ones probably do. Perhaps I should ask on the

7761:

But is objectionable for worse reasons to the same people who rejected a fix to affected guidelines pages prior. I assert content should generally not follow a formula in the same way we do not generally follow blockquotes with content (or at least references, since those are not part of the

8382: 7076:

I just noticed it pasted the contents of my signature template onto your talk page. On the RuneScape Wiki (the independent one, not Fandom), we paste the template call onto talk/discussion pages and not the contents of it. And I was wondering which way is preferred on the English Knowledge?

2159:

I don't see any pattern of alignment in the "before" page. I see that there is excess whitespace between words, but my browser does not render it in a consistent pattern. I did not deliberately change any whitespace characters, so I'm guessing that there were some unusual Unicode whitespace

1792:

and the "no target" error is a false positive, i.e. not actually an error. They appear because the code that generates the error does not have the ability to look at the rendered page or inside of transcluded templates; Ucucha's script does have the ability to look at the rendered page. –

7497: 6960: 5834: 2597:

The ones that say "Chisholm 1911" but should use another author's name are real errors, as the Harverrors script indicates. Those are in the uncategorized 0.5% that I referred to above, since "Chisholm 1911" is whitelisted when Template:EB1911 is present. I fixed the CITEREFChisholm1922,

1508: 2434:

used for citations with a named author (due to editors who copy existing patterns, or those (ahem) who use an AWB hotkey), and I can probably scan and find any that are left. But I do want to return to the question: when it comes to cite-wrapping templates that pass through the standard

857:

Thanks for the note. That makes sense; I wasn't sure about the publisher parameter, so I left it alone while separating the volume parameters. I didn't look on worldcat or other library sites to check the details of each source; I just fixed the most obvious stuff that I came across. –

6035:, which is not a wrapper for Infobox person, so I don't feel comfortable applying the results of a discussion at an unrelated template. I recommend setting this discussion up as a real RFC, advertising it on all of the pages that you want to affect, and getting a real consensus. – 3163:

fine (and are fairly reasonable at pointing out where things start and end). RTD's script at this time is broken TBH: wikitext is not and has never been XHTML and will not be XHTML into the future. (It should be disabled accordingly if the author is unable or unwilling to fix it.

7832:

template editors were involved in the conversation yet; checking the user rights of all of the conversation participants is beyond what I am willing to do for an easy request). It was no big deal to undo the edit, and I certainly don't take any of it personally. Happy editing! –

2631:

represented in sfn/harv links. I came up with 34 of them, but I discovered didn't parse the sfn's properly because of the occasional disambiguation years (e.g. 1911a, 1911b). So I may have to tweak the code. Here are a couple of examples from both ends of the alphabetical list:

4238:

As a final message, I'd like to apologize for reverting your edit. In my anger about what I perceived as someone removing my agency, I attempted to deprive you of yours. I would still like the comment in question to be removed, but I will leave that for you to decide.

4650: 3207:

tags. I then turned off the Syntax Highlighter gadget in Gadgets and noticed that the 2010 editor has a pencil in the toolbar that enables syntax highlighting, which seemed to work. It is pretty different. I'll try it for a while to see if it works for me. Thanks. –

309:

Your series of edits reintroduced Linter errors that I had already fixed, and also removed the navbox and categories. Rather than try to sort out the good from the bad, I reverted to a better version. I have sorted out the bullets now, as far as I can tell. Pinging

6413:

Page has been through GA review. I have addressed the reviewers criticisms and am awaiting a final determination. Please feel free to check prose. There are other references I wish to add before submitting for FAC, but need to wait until they can be sourced (the

8221:

has a cited source that explains the formation of that faction on page 23. If you can find a reliable source that says that the faction no longer exists, please add it to that article and change the word "present" in the template to the correct end date. –

2654:

Thanks for the detective work. My initial thought is that my search results were incomplete either because the error category had not yet been assigned to these articles after a module update, or my search string was inadequate. I'll do another search. –

120:

Thanks for noticing. I hope that it helps the developers as well. Sometimes additional examples of a problem can help debug more effectively. If there is anything I can do to help with the tasks (as a non-developer but experienced editor), please ask! –

6555:

I noticed the off-wiki page claims the text was copied from a 2010 blog post and posted without permission as a WP article in July 2011. I can't confirm the reliability of this claim and I've no intention of searching for the claimed original. Cheers,

4076: 3134:

or anyone else wants to provide a syntax highlighter gadget as part of the en.WP preferences page that can handle unclosed br tags and works as well as or better than the provided gadget, I'll be happy to use it. I'd rather have cleaner, clearer diffs

6232: 1052:. Opened tags must be closed. We can't always count on the Mediawiki software to fix editors' coding errors; in many situations, unclosed tags cause unintended formatting to be applied to text beyond the intended endpoint of the tag that was opened. 8202:

But this history is wrong, Iranian regime has made! Real history is another thing. Can you correct? Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan – Reunification Faction (2008–2014) Socialist Faction of Komala (2009–present) the following do not exist Thanks

2563:, written by Yorke and Chisholm (as author, not editor). Correctly coded, but CITEREFYorkeChisholm1911 is not in whitelist. I know there are quite a number of 2-3 author sfn's out there; would you consider putting all the combinations in the list? 5760:

It was my pleasure. I think the article's prose is still a bit stilted, but I believe that I improved it quite a bit. We'll see what the reviewers say. Feel free to ping me from the review page if there are prose issues that need addressing. –

6328:. Could I please ask that you add this page to your watch list? I have made many revisions at the request of peer review as I have submitted this article for GA nomination. However, I will not be submitting it for FA consideration until the 2383:, it thinks aha! the defaults are "Chisholm" and "1911", so this will generate a CITEREFChisholm1911, so there is a correct hook for the sfn. And I had further assumed that if the template had a "last" parameter ("year" is very unlikely), say 2960:, it only works on articles where an error was detected by WPC at the time of the dump analysis, so only a partial list. Since then the configuration has been enhanced and the program also, so WPC can fix articles that are not in this list... 5172:

for this project. To be honest, I'm not even sure what benefit short descriptions have in any event and they're an absolute minefield for POV/nationalism/casteism in Indian/Pakistani articles, often so subtle that they seem to be missed. -

7233:

If the article had been in Draft space, I would not have tagged it. If you choose to create an article and put it in article space before it is fully cleaned up and referenced, you are essentially inviting any other editor to edit and tag

2311:

Excellent idea, and it should have worked on my tiny lizard brain, but I had already written most of my reply before I noticed that you had archived it, so I posted a reply anyway. I semi-apologized on your talk page a few minutes ago. –

4130: 3648: 2483:

I can't speak to what the module code might or might not be able to do; I am not a programmer. As for coming across EB1911 citation authors who are not whitelisted, I thought I had gotten all of them, but if you find one, let me know. –

4125: 3643: 4112: 4107: 7670: 7875: 4089: 4053: 1147:

If it allows country abbreviations to be converted into full country names then that's perfect, I guess the code you added could be removed when all abbreviations have been changed to full, but maybe there is no need to. Thank you,

4094: 4017: 3999: 3981: 2183:

imagine non-breaking spaces to be disallowed, so could it be that the action of copy-and-pasting replaces non-breaking spaces with normal spaces? My experience has been that Firefox makes such a substitution in the text window. –

5316:

I looked at a couple of the requests and fixed one of them. I don't have the energy to figure out the rest right now. You are welcome to modify the template's sandbox if you have any aptitude with somewhat unpleasant wikicode. –

4058: 3963: 4071: 4035: 3945: 6384:

I have had the page on my watchlist, and I haven't seen anything I objected to. I think I dropped in for an edit or two. If reviewers have specific problems with the copy, ping me from the review page and I will take a look. –

4022: 4004: 3986: 3927: 3675: 3909: 3891: 2669:

I have a .txt file of every find in AWB-ready format, and a .csv summary. Would you like them via email, or better a cloud link? As I said, there are a few mistakes due to custom citerefs, but I think most of them are valid.

1825:

The whitelist, in almost all cases, contains one-line entries that contain a CITEREF identifier matched with the name of a template. For example, one line might contain the identifier "CITEREFDrury1993" and the template name

3968: 3873: 3855: 3837: 3819: 3801: 3783: 2202:

or  . Using spaces or tabs with non-monospace text is not a valid way to align text in columns, however, since it will not work consistently from browser to browser. If you want columns, use columns or a table. –

6979: 4040: 3950: 3765: 3747: 3729: 8283:

template shows when a statement in a Knowledge article needs a source. If you click on it when you edit with the visual editor there is a popup that explains this. Now it can also show the reason and when it was added.

8139: 8095: 3932: 3711: 3693: 3680: 7747:(see the last section), and it has problems when there is additional content following the math formula, like a reference. Wrapping the whole line in a div looks like the best way to maintain the desired formatting. – 3914: 3896: 1851:

If someone mistakenly writes "sfn|Drury|1983" (wrong year) or "sfn|Drurty|1993" (author typo) in an attempt to use that template as a full reference, a red error message will appear. You can see an example of this at

634: 6641:

I don't know much about File space, but I presume there is a way to tag files to say "this was tagged as a potential move to Commons, but it should stay here on en.WP". If not, a way to do that should be created. –

3878: 3860: 3842: 3824: 3806: 3788: 6508:

can be tricky to figure out, so the speedy nomination was understandable. If you think that the current page should be deleted from Knowledge because it is original research, I think there is a process for that. –

3770: 3752: 3734: 1527: 5922:

templates where there are short references (e.g. Curtis 1880) without matching full references. To see that they are missing, click on one and see that it does not take you to the full citation. Happy editing! –

5378: 7652: 6602:. I note that that source states "This text of this article was previously available on my community blog in 2010 and was subsequently posted as a Knowledge article. (18 July 2011)". The question then arises is 5485: 4253:

I have removed the comment. It was an attempt to be helpful, provide context, and encourage other editors to look at the conversation in a different light, but it did not have the desired effect. I apologize. –

3716: 3698: 3021: 2819:

That documentation appears to be out of date. I have tagged it. I don't understand substing as well as I should, but some parts of the template need to be wrapped in some sort of tags to make it subst cleanly.

540: 7191:

As for the requester's original suggestion and their other suggestions, you can see if you read that talk page that I disagreed with most of it, so you and I are probably more aligned than in opposition. –

4190:

As you appear to be either offline or AFK, I've reverted it with an explanation. As I said in the edit message, please feel free to rewrite in a way that does not remove my agency by bringing up my autism.

3335: 2765:

should not be "fixed". Where "hone in" appears in text that is not a direct quotation from a source, I usually convert it to more widely acceptable standard prose, as one would do with any poor writing. –

4152:

The easiest thing to do it let it go. Remove the page from your watchlist. Multiple people gave this person feedback, but they apparently did not listen. It's not worth getting in a big fight about it. –

7657: 5056:

When I do something like this with code I'm not familiar with, I usually find something else that's close, fiddle around with it until I get what I want, and move on. Sometimes only to later discover it

6293:

has been through peer review and I put it up for GA nomination. The article has been expanded with additional text since you last looked at it. Could I ask you for another peek? Thanks in advance!

5349:

Per your suggestion, I made some changes to the template's sandbox that appear to working properly. Would you be able to apply the same changes to the live version of the template for me? Thank you.

7672: 6234: 2120:

I did all of the cleanup I could find. I did not answer all of the questions, but things like missing authors or missing page ranges should be easy to fill in if you have access to the sources. –

2786: 1175: 3302: 3253:(the naming of various editing interfaces is quite confusing). I am headed back to the old wikitext interface unless you know of a fix for either of these issues. Thanks for trying to help. – 2598:

CITEREFMayChisholm1911, and CITEREFYorkeChisholm1911 entries by whitelisting them (after checking the EB entries for authorship); I don't know how my searches missed those. "Chisholm 1910" in

6592: 5662: 3521:

Thanks. What about BJJ? Using my brain says it should be how I edited it, which you undid. Since there is an article on Knowledge that lists it in sentence case, would it be correct? Thanks

7743:

Thanks for the note. I don't know why I would be reverted for recommending a seamless (as far as I can tell) change that improves HTML validity and accessibility. As for display="block", I

3668: 2000:

Between the edits being made to my profile page, and notes being left across multiple spaces, I'm so confused, but I'll just keep an eye on my profile page to see how things sort out. ---

1605: 2161: 444:

Thanks for the revisions and repairs, folks. Looks pretty clean now. For the first major rollback i did, I thought a bot was in there making a mess of the coding. Glad we got it sorted.

5609:

It's just that I've got time ATM and I'd really like to track/reformat these transclusions. I've done more troubleshooting with the latest code and everything seems to work smoothly. ‑‑

2702:

Done, as you probably saw. Admittedly the list that generates false positives is short (42 lines, some of them dups). The remaining 864 may do so some, but more than somewhat unlikely!

5129:

I had looked through the navbox doc before and don't remember seeing abovestyle, or realizing it's exactly what I should have been using all along. Thank you very much for the help. --

2025:, the apparent discussion page for those tab pages, to let editors there know that pages are being broken and that they should maybe slow down a bit. I'll keep an eye on your pages. – 4451:

It might help to use a hidden tracking category to see what is out there, then figure out the best way to deal with it. If you need specific help coding the sandbox, you could ask at

2265:

It is up to individual editors to modify the leaderboard table. That is why it says "(Please update your own figures)" above the table. The leaderboard is not automated in any way. –

2075: 1120: 8401: 6246:

Done. It needs a sentence or two early in the article explaining why the town was created in the first place. It becomes obvious after a while, but it should be mentioned sooner. –

801: 8013:

Based on the content of your user and user talk pages, I don't think copy editing is a good choice for you. I hope you find something useful to work on. I encourage you to look at

7933: 7516: 5466: 3580: 3002: 1644: 782: 615: 8329: 5853: 4347: 3628:, formatting can be tricky. The key is to get the bold or italic marks symmetrical, either all outside brackets/braces or all inside brackets/braces, on a given line of text. – 1572: 7822:

Thanks for the note. FWIW, I have found it helpful to mark template edit requests as "answered=yes" if a consensus has not yet been reached. That way, TPEs and admins who have

7243:, with unreferenced sections or stray numbers littering the prose is unprofessional and should be tagged as such. And now I'm off for my own cup of tea; thanks for the idea. – 4885: 2085: 1663: 6922:. Those should provide some good advice for you. Content that is added needs to be sourced with references to reliable sources, formatted correctly (look at the wikicode for 6184:". Using "etc." is not recommended in normal prose, and you neglected to insert a space after the full stop after "etc". You are missing a full stop after the word "journey". 943: 3599: 5742:

and pointing out the various issues. I addressed all those issues and was able to improve the article because of them. I did additional research and found more references.

3181:

Thanks for the advice. VE is FAR too buggy for me to trust; I have submitted many VE bugs over the years, and not many of them have been fixed. I spend too much of my time

1336:

No future plans, just somehow managed to miss adding... quite a few parameters actually. I'm genuinely not sure how that happened, but thanks for picking up after my mess.

1119:. As far as I know, the change I made allows country abbreviations to be converted into full country names, just as the infobox itself does for the country parameters. See 660:

I read a lot, but I had never seen the word used in this way, and I could not find it in half a dozen dictionaries. That is why we have wikilinks. Thanks for adding one. –

6896: 3492: 1394:

Haha, yes, I'll have to lift my game next year. I hope you found some levity yesterday, I think we could all do with some fun right now. Cheers and wibbles, stay well. :)

513: 6871: 5873: 2612:

template, in which the full citation and the short citation match, but I think they are both wrong. That template should probably be replaced with an EB1911 template. –

6807:

amazing, thank you so much for the feedback. The lighter edits I have made accoring to your suggestions. The more substantive stuff will take a bit of time to tidy up!

1856:, where someone has used the invalid "sfnp|EB|1911" instead of the valid "sfnp|Chisholm|1911" to reference an EB1911 template with an identifier of CITEREFChisholm1911. 6824: 6580:. That seems to give some credence to the G12. It's a complicated mess that like you I'm not particularly interested in handling unless it goes into main space. 5959: 4626:). The Portuguese Knowledge may have different rules so it would be best to consult the guidelines there. If you want to be certain, just remove the ✍ symbol. Cheers, 7776:

Your solution also does not play so nicely with VE which can't deal with the math inside a template natively, but can in either the prior form or the display form. --

7718:??? You came to me with a question. If you want an answer, I have explained how to help me provide one. I can't read minds or otherwise inhabit your consciousness. – 2755: 6117: 1861:

If you see instances where Ucucha's script shows a big red error but the smaller "no target" message is not displayed, please let me know and I will take a look. –

8239:

two are the same so does not exist click ok names and view articles (Komala Kurdistan's Organization of the Communist Party of Iran)(Socialist Faction of Komala)--

7996: 7589: 7316: 6735: 3199:

I went to my Editing preferences and turned on "Enable the editing toolbar / This is sometimes called the '2010 wikitext editor'." When I went to edit a page like

3102: 1243: 594: 4437:). Any thoughts, or suggestions for a more relevant page to flag this up? Or does it seem fine to leave the live templates adding extra apostrophes everywhere? -- 388:

yourself, all you need to do is install it in your common.js page and you're good to go. It's VERY useful I have found, along with a ton of other user scripts. –

7158: 6686: 2824:

And yes, the divbox "worked" when you substed it, but ick, was that code horrible. I like the new look, though! You are right that it looks nicer than before. –

406:

Thanks. I used to use it, but it had a bug that broke DOI values, so I disabled it. It looks like that bug may have been fixed, I haven't gone back to try it. –

7445: 7943: 5111:, you will find basestyle, abovestyle, and belowstyle, which are probably what you are looking for. Read the descriptions for each and experiment with them. – 2369:

I'm referring to the concerns I had on April 22/23 above, but didn't follow up. I assumed you and Trappist were constructing a list of cite-wrapping templates

2015: 1753: 1380:

me and violating ten different policies in one message, then link to that from the block message! Nice job logging out and making the edit as an IP, though. –

5946: 5932: 4434: 6586: 5973:

Each listed work should have its own WP article before being listed there. The same thing is explained in a hidden comment at the start of each section. See

867: 5594: 2716:

I added all of the "has sfn" CITEREFs to the whitelist and checked all of those articles to make sure it worked. I didn't do anything with the long list. –

7427: 5513:

Yes, and you can too. Use your web browser's View Source feature, then you can see the page statistics in an HTML comment near the bottom of the source. –

5362: 5279: 4365:

Yes, that is why I came here. I could not reproduce old (faulty) situations. Overall: how can a category sortlabel (aka after the | pipe) disrupt a page? -

2067: 474: 7568: 6031:

This situation is unclear to me. I do not see an RFC header or an RFC closure at that page. I do not see that the discussion was advertised at pages like

7888: 7385:

I love that there is so much academic commentary on this B movie. Publish or perish (which also might be a good name for a zombie grad school comedy). –

7367: 6935:

Thanks for asking, and please respond here if you have further questions. Remember to sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~ –

5986: 5301: 2355:

I don't understand your proposed algorithm. I just know how the current whitelist works, which is indeed a brute-force method for almost all CITEREFs. –

1293: 6619: 6543: 6529: 6518: 5792: 4813: 4797: 4704: 3637: 3185: 2910:, which is just a div tag that makes everything inside it small, in order to work around these errors. There are a few thousand pages left to fix.... – 2145: 2129: 2069: 2057: 2034: 1777: 1432: 7472:. Click on the "New section" link there and propose a specific change. Changing the concise summary of a long-standing page is probably not optimal. – 7150: 7111: 7071: 6816: 6802: 6171: 4478:

The signature looks OK to me, and the checking tool says that it is fine, so I would not worry about it if I were you. It definitely does not have any

4446: 3486: 1157: 1138: 271: 6567: 5400: 5344: 5326: 5293: 4696: 4679: 4662: 4637: 2321: 1488: 1470: 1457: 1405: 1389: 8447: 8185:

The template is meant to show the history of the party and its successors. The problem is that you keep breaking the template. Please use Preview. –

7320: 5784: 5770: 5686: 5656: 5630: 5035:

that you added, the footer will go back to normal. I don't know if that's what you want, but that is what is causing the footer colors, I believe. –

4248: 4231: 4200: 4176: 4162: 3402: 212: 8345: 8248: 8231: 8212: 8194: 7902: 6213: 6199: 6155: 6141: 5448: 5434: 4464: 3560: 3530: 3512: 3470: 1070:

for an explanation of the modern way to center table text. Unfortunately, I do not have a script that can convert table cells to the new code, so I

250: 8453: 7646: 7439: 7340: 7299: 7283: 7252: 7219: 7201: 6019: 5801:

had nine misnested tag errors and a lot of misapplied bold formatting. Also, we don't use bullets like that. We use prose in article sections. See

5708: 5252: 5226: 5209: 4963: 4748: 4263: 3378: 2725: 2711: 2697: 2679: 2664: 2649: 2621: 2592: 2493: 2478: 2428: 2407: 2364: 2299: 1957: 1943: 1885: 1870: 1820: 1801: 1271: 999: 966: 7408: 7394: 7380: 7361: 4700: 3127: 2858: 2833: 2274: 1988: 1285: 1101: 1083: 220: 206: 8060: 8042: 8026: 7847: 7328: 7324: 7227: 6944: 6678: 6482: 6419: 6408: 6371: 6333: 6307: 6294: 6261: 6092: 6074: 6058: 6050: 6044: 4727: 4595: 4523: 4505: 4491: 3393:

Thanks for the note. I have commented there. I'm happy to help work on the ruby templates if the consensus is that their format should change. –

3243: 2919: 2883: 2774: 2103: 1726: 181: 130: 8173: 7841: 7727: 7713: 7699: 6890: 6863: 6849: 6651: 6427: 6394: 6379: 6365: 6341: 6319: 6302: 6284: 6269: 6255: 5818: 4286: 3318: 3284: 3157: 2227:). I only flagged this up with you because your edit had unintended consequences and I thought that was something you would be interested in. – 1807:

example) then wouldn't this genuine error be suppressed by the whitelisting? IOW I'm talking about per-article instances when the Ucucha script

1363: 1345: 292: 6523:

I think it will end up back at AfD if it's accepted into mainspace, but possible others will have different takes on it as you did here.

6054: 4828: 3347: 2245: 2231: 2212: 2187: 2177: 1109: 957:

There were manual line breaks in the middle of citation parameter values. A helpful gnome removed them for you and fixed a few other errors. –

908: 888: 669: 343: 8522: 8508: 8366: 8297: 5181: 5166: 5138: 5120: 5092: 5074: 5044: 4858: 4844: 4771: 4412: 4374: 4360: 4330: 4316: 63: 41: 7546: 4849:

Ooooh is that who it was... I'll have a look later. Actually, I'm hoping a smarter admin looks at it and figures out what we can do. Thanks,

3440: 2969: 2941: 2343: 453: 415: 401: 379: 361: 228: 160: 7806: 7785: 7771: 7756: 5557: 5547: 5532: 5522: 5019: 4931: 4913: 4899: 3430: 3416: 3217: 3176: 2287: 1612: 1586:

I think overriding is the best answer for this problem in the short term. You might ask at the template talk page for Infobox school, or at

813: 764: 750: 8151: 8107: 1628: 646: 256: 7611: 6991: 5865: 5079:

To clarify. By background "color", I mean it actually turns it white in this case. Without it, the default is the bluish-gray background.

3271: 1599: 1331: 1201: 1190: 7945: 7910: 7678: 4422: 2982: 2160:

characters being used in a not-very-successful attempt to align text in columns, and that copying and pasting the text removed them. Per

1675: 1539: 836: 5751: 3611: 2575:

has one of those odd "Chisholm 1910" entries (is that in the whitelist?) but also some genuine errors caught by both sfn and HarvErrors.

738: 487: 6490: 5412: 2556: 8320:. They can soon hide multiple entries at once using checkboxes. This works like hiding normal edits. It will happen in early January. 4211:

appropriate to frame another editor's actions as being due to a particular disorder, even when that editor has publicly declared one;

8351: 7327:. Interested editors are encouraged to participate." A non-neutral note would be something like "Hey guys, can you please go over to 5497: 4292: 8423: 6227: 4668:

silly to get blocked over such a minor issue as a sig. Now please go and improve some articles; isn't that why you're here? ;) Bye,

3033: 5809:, for starters. Try making smaller edits and using the Preview feature to ensure that you are getting the results that you want. – 5025: 4572: 4271: 2022: 106: 8261: 7040: 4351:. The first edit didn't actually solve the problem, but the second one did. A space was needed after the category sorting pipe. – 3229:

to fix Linter errors, and it appears to not work when I have syntax highlighting turned on in the 2010 wikitext editor. If I edit

2953:, it only retrieves a few thousand articles, so not everything is scanned. I should see to configure it to retrieve the full list. 726: 7290:

Sorry, but now I need a copyedit of the whole article. I nominated it already but it still takes a while for someone to respond.

6950: 6923: 4922:

has been consistent for several months now, so I anticipate that it will help for the week. Let me know if it continues after. --

4184: 2349: 5217:

I am watching that page and responding when I need to say something new. If you have a question for me, you can ask it there. –

5202: 5195: 4558: 234: 8300:

what technical improvements should be done for geographic information. This could be coordinates, maps or other related things.

7653: 7053: 7023:

I've been updating my stats less so I wouldn't have to do it as often, but I'll do it a bit more frequently for the next drive.

5260: 5189: 5001: 4762:

The short description is in a template at the top of the page. When you are viewing the page, click the Edit link to see it. –

4143: 4126: 4108: 4090: 4072: 4054: 4036: 4018: 4000: 3982: 3964: 3946: 3928: 3910: 3892: 3874: 3856: 3838: 3820: 3802: 3784: 3766: 3748: 3730: 3712: 3694: 3676: 3644: 3384: 2975: 2950: 2805: 772: 7528: 6332:

reopens after the COVID-19 pandemic since it will still need specific page citations from historical news articles. Regards,

1276:

No problem. I just wanted to be sure that people could check the list somehow, in case there were typos or erroneous links. –

1116: 8066: 7481: 7420: 5600: 5569: 5126: 3407:

Minor technical note that doesn't really have a bearing on the WP talk: you should add the CSS to the templatestyles page. --

2109: 1616: 605: 8304: 8217:

There are many articles on Knowledge about things that no longer exist. It is not a problem. The article that mentions the

7634: 6057:

though I initially put the box in the wrong place. The last response was on Aug 25th and then the RFC template was removed

5824: 5358: 5340: 4943: 4427: 4212: 3619: 1811:

show a red error when using an otherwise correctly constructed template. Which is, I think, Trappist's original intention.

507: 2871: 1049: 6785:

notability standards, so the article might be nominated for deletion. Format looks OK but could be tidied up: please see

4653:, and it is really controversial. Some editors agree others do not. But it seems that here on enwiki there is consensus. 1840: 1830: 1634: 1498: 8307:

to switch between writing systems or variants of a language. This can only be done for the entire page. There will be a

147: 5456: 3570: 2870:

Your edit removed closing italic formatting tags. Tags that are opened need to be closed. There is more information at

1973: 1476: 654: 6160:

Sir, I am sorry to bother you again, will appreciate your comments on the recent edits and the errors you pointed out.

5049:

You are correct, that's what causing it. But removing the basestyle also takes away the background color and from the

3126:

when rendered, and it makes the WP syntax highlighter gadget able to highlight formatting mismatches more easily. See

1448:, which says that it needs a thorough edit by someone familiar with Jainism and the sources. That person is not me. – 7168: 6453: 5676: 5646: 5620: 5242: 3421:

Feel free to do that; I don't have the confidence to do it, since I haven't messed around with templatestyles yet. –

3191: 3188: 2992: 755:

Oh hey, that's my fault, I made it not work the right way. Oof. Might be time for a break for not seeing that one. --

303: 7239:

Any page in article space, i.e. in the live encyclopedia that the whole world can see and that is supposed to meet

6907: 5942: 3140:

The br modifications make that diff a bit noisy; the goal of the edit was to close unclosed bold tags, e.g. around

2957: 2566: 1587: 1580: 459: 3274:) is not an authoritative statement regarding what wikitext is acceptable. There is nothing wrong with <br: --> 4307:, thanks for the note. I was working on the PROD templates and experimenting in my sandbox. I have cleared it. – 2925: 2839: 2327: 2080: 1706: 873: 821: 5661:

Would it not be OK in the meantime if I just included the code to track cases in a separate subcategory, namely

4550: 3338:. Add some citations to those sections before adding new content, please, as I have requested multiple times. – 3249:

working on. That is some pretty basic user-unfriendly behavior, but I was unable to find a bug report for it at

2580:

I can make a separate query for specific authors aren't in the whitelist, but are otherwise correctly marked up.

2509:, written by Schlesinger. She is in the whitelist so there's no sfn error, but there is, correctly, a HarvError. 6927: 6025: 6002: 5261: 4542: 2560: 5284:

Thanks for the note. It quacks like a sockpuppet of some sort, but I'll just watchlist the article for now. –

4557:. In none of these three posts did you mention either (i) that you had asked the question two days earlier at 7036: 6999: 6746: 5977:, bullet 1. When this important work by Rose Macaulay has its own article, it will be welcome on the list. – 5916: 5716: 5682: 5652: 5626: 5248: 4970: 4777: 4400: 3182: 1683: 1209: 983: 904: 6669:

is for files that are Knowledge-specific. That is the template for a logo that exists on one user's page. –

5101:

is what it looked like before your edits. More of a standard navbox look. If you read the documentation for

4554: 3309:

has pointed out a possible reason for the incompatibility; I don't know if anyone is available to fix it. –

8372: 8271: 7585: 6415: 6329: 6240: 6032: 5966: 4566: 3053: 2259: 1836:. Any time that any page contains a short citation of the form "sfn|Drury|1993" and the page also contains 1552: 7138: 7099: 5010:

Thanks. I've always enjoyed fixing templates, because a change to one page can fix so many other pages. –

8513:

Certainly. The particular subject follows related on-wiki developments and adjusts strategy accordingly.

8470: 8218: 7487: 6550: 6534:

I don't have a "take" on it. All I did was remove an inappropriately applied speedy deletion template. –

5938: 5579: 5505: 5444: 5098: 4873: 4610: 4472: 4338: 2153: 692: 71: 6598: 5585:. I just fix broken syntax. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers would be willing to take a look at it. – 4739:

I have improved the citations to make them more consistent. If you have specific issues, let me know. –

7879:, with over 100 hits. Some of these templates may be triggering Multiline table in list lint errors. — 7048: 6764:

Umbrello: The overall format is pretty good. Use the person's last name instead of his first name, per

6581: 6524: 6123: 5739: 4808: 2599: 2572: 2140: 2050: 2008: 1785: 1746: 1413: 1254: 731: 3305:

to see if anyone knew about the apparent incompatibility between the 2010 wikitext editor and AutoEd.

2583:

I'll be bold and make the algorithm comment on the module talk page. It'll probably not go down well.

2395: 675: 8478: 6812: 5937:

I'm much obliged and will attend to the necessary corrections. Your guidance is greatly appreciated.

4956: 4949: 4712: 3234:

make thousands of edits to fix Linter errors, and syntax highlighting is key to seeing the errors. –

1891: 1732: 1373: 1153: 1053: 700: 7744: 5575:

I don't actually know how to use the intricate and arcane formatting at the rail map templates like

4876:. You were blocked for edit warring and removing valid template parameters. Please get some help. – 3230: 2387:", the module would think "Bain overrides Chisholm, so this emits a CITEREFBain1911", so a matching 8468:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

7823: 7791: 7704:

I see, and of course you have edited these 100,000 articles within the past 24 hours... Take care.

6878: 6558: 5422: 5385: 5354: 5336: 5270: 4670: 4628: 2780: 1396: 690:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

490:

a "/" to the second span tag, which was an opening span tag before my edit. Each opening tag, like

7794:

for just one example of recommended and semantically valid usage that is common throughout en.WP.

6978:

for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the

1526:

for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the

7581: 7552: 7469: 7309: 7172: 6505: 5875: 5780: 5747: 5080: 4562: 4380: 4172: 3328: 3200: 2685: 1895: 1350:

Teamwork makes the dream work. I figured it was an innocent mistake, of which I make plenty, but

1005: 840: 143: 26: 7119: 7080: 7059: 2946:

Thanks. The bot works alphabetically, but what articles are scanned depends on how I launch it:

8244: 8208: 8179: 8007: 7884: 7462: 6663: 6498: 6209: 6167: 6151: 6003: 5440: 5418: 4442: 4297: 3526: 3482: 3203:, which has br tags in it, the syntax highlighter gadget showed the usual false positives with 2813: 7580:

Thanks for checking this out. A barnstar is really unnecessary, but I appreciate the thought.

6926:

to see examples), and non-promotional. If the university is your employer, you also must read

8431: 7790:

References can go inline inside of block content if it makes sense for them to be there. See

7295: 7215: 5670: 5640: 5614: 5236: 4803: 4244: 4228: 4196: 3625: 3353: 3162:

The highlighting provided with either VE or with wikitext editor 2010 both handle <br: -->

3141: 2787:

Knowledge talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#‎RfC on welcome template standardisation

2707: 2675: 2645: 2588: 2474: 2403: 2135: 2043: 2001: 1953: 1881: 1816: 1739: 1312: 828: 166: 6053:

as a discussion. A couple responses mentioned running it as a full RFC so I did that on the

6010:

Sorry, I am going to decline. I have been unable to communicate effectively on that page. –

5053:

text. And directly coloring the text without the background looks even worse, unfortunately.

8414: 8014: 7404: 7376: 7021:

Thank you (and Tdlsk) for giving out the leaderboard barnstars (and correcting my totals)!

6808: 6478: 6290: 6235:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes

6102: 5306: 5083:

for how it looks without the basestyle and directly coloring the sub-bar text. Not good. --

4623: 2547: 2221: 1438: 1302: 1266: 1165: 1149: 1097: 949: 480: 385: 298: 216: 102: 7826:

on their watchlists won't be made aware of the edit request before it is ready for action.

7430:

if that page could be used to delete, rather than rename, empty unsupported parameters. –

6606:

the same as the source article's creator, Dr. I. D. McCormick, and as such is it actually

5884:

Useful sections of the MOS that I have just applied, or reapplied, to the article include

5798: 1067: 8: 8504: 8443: 8362: 8341: 8227: 8190: 8169: 8094:

for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the

8056: 8037: 8022: 7898: 7837: 7802: 7752: 7723: 7695: 7642: 7607: 7564: 7542: 7477: 7435: 7390: 7357: 7336: 7279: 7248: 7197: 7067: 6940: 6886: 6845: 6798: 6778: 6674: 6647: 6635: 6615: 6575: 6539: 6514: 6404: 6390: 6361: 6315: 6280: 6251: 6195: 6137: 6113: 6088: 6071: 6062: 6040: 6015: 5982: 5928: 5814: 5766: 5704: 5635:

Again, none of these changes will be visible to readers, so there'll be no disruption. ‑‑

5590: 5543: 5518: 5506: 5484:

for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the

5396: 5350: 5332: 5322: 5289: 5222: 5162: 5116: 5040: 5015: 4909: 4881: 4840: 4793: 4767: 4744: 4723: 4708: 4658: 4644: 4591: 4580: 4519: 4501: 4487: 4460: 4408: 4356: 4312: 4282: 4259: 4158: 3633: 3556: 3508: 3466: 3426: 3398: 3374: 3343: 3314: 3258: 3239: 3213: 3153: 3020:

for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the

2937: 2915: 2879: 2854: 2829: 2801: 2770: 2721: 2693: 2660: 2617: 2489: 2424: 2360: 2339: 2317: 2305: 2295: 2270: 2241: 2208: 2173: 2168:

If you want tabs, use tabs. If you want tables or columns, use table or column markup. –

2125: 2099: 2030: 1984: 1939: 1866: 1797: 1773: 1722: 1624: 1595: 1484: 1467: 1453: 1428: 1385: 1359: 1327: 1281: 1186: 1134: 1079: 995: 962: 939: 884: 863: 746: 665: 633:

for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the

503: 470: 411: 375: 339: 288: 277: 267: 246: 202: 177: 156: 136: 126: 37: 17: 7515:

for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words (including rollover words) during the

5852:

for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words (including rollover words) during the

3145: 8147: 8103: 7816: 7709: 6915: 6859: 6486: 6423: 6375: 6337: 6298: 6265: 6124: 6080: 5861: 5776: 5743: 5696: 4511: 4479: 4168: 3607: 3280: 2889: 2864: 1671: 1535: 1341: 979: 879:

I copied and pasted the example code from the Template's documentation page. Try it. –

809: 718: 642: 2464:

When it comes to the 3% of false error messages, they can also be suppressed with the

8240: 8204: 7927: 7880: 7683: 7352:

Thanks. Which new article? I keep getting distracted by all of your porn stars.... –

7163: 7032: 6919: 6768:. I haven't checked the sources in detail, but I can't tell if this person meets the 6603: 6205: 6163: 6147: 5601: 5150: 4866: 4733: 4438: 3522: 3478: 3131: 3041: 2904: 2756: 2606: 2540: 2280: 2228: 2184: 1445: 900: 449: 328: 94: 6504:

I saw the AfD, and I looked at the history of the article and of the academia page.

8518: 8317: 7617: 7291: 7211: 7183: 5897: 5666: 5636: 5610: 5268:

I've started a discussion on the article's talk page and pinged you there. Cheers,

5232: 5177: 5134: 5088: 5070: 4854: 4754: 4370: 4326: 4240: 4225: 4218: 4192: 3535:

Two answers: 1. If the source lists a tournament name or award name or division in

3454: 3447: 3226: 3144:

and $ 2,605,102, which you can find near the end of the diff. Just standard boring

2703: 2671: 2641: 2584: 2470: 2399: 1949: 1877: 1812: 1181:. You need to add a line to that template. Copy the existing format (carefully). – 187: 59: 8075: 2637: 2528: 8405: 7737: 7524: 7400: 7372: 6987: 6790: 6180:(in fabric), aka dimensional stability, is the change of fabric dimensions when 5493: 5105: 4576: 3029: 2518: 2512: 2377: 1994: 1261: 1093: 972: 396: 356: 98: 6260:

Thanks, Jonesey! You have a gift. I really love having you copy edit my prose.

1564: 314:, whose useful dash fixes I also had to revert to get back to a working version. 8500: 8439: 8400:

for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the

8358: 8337: 8236: 8223: 8197: 8186: 8165: 8052: 8032: 8018: 7957: 7894: 7833: 7798: 7781: 7767: 7748: 7719: 7691: 7638: 7603: 7575: 7560: 7538: 7473: 7431: 7386: 7353: 7332: 7275: 7258: 7244: 7193: 7063: 6936: 6882: 6841: 6794: 6696: 6670: 6643: 6611: 6535: 6510: 6400: 6386: 6357: 6325: 6311: 6276: 6247: 6191: 6133: 6109: 6084: 6067: 6036: 6011: 5978: 5924: 5810: 5802: 5762: 5700: 5586: 5553: 5539: 5528: 5514: 5430: 5392: 5318: 5285: 5218: 5158: 5112: 5036: 5011: 4997: 4927: 4905: 4895: 4877: 4836: 4789: 4763: 4740: 4716: 4690: 4654: 4617: 4584: 4549:

On a less positive note, A.WagnerC - you posted basically the same question at

4537: 4515: 4497: 4483: 4456: 4404: 4352: 4308: 4293: 4278: 4255: 4154: 4144: 3629: 3598:

for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the

3552: 3504: 3462: 3422: 3412: 3394: 3370: 3339: 3310: 3254: 3235: 3209: 3172: 3149: 3063: 2933: 2911: 2875: 2850: 2825: 2797: 2766: 2717: 2689: 2656: 2613: 2543:

is wrong in a different way: it has a correct CITEREFChisholm1922, but it uses

2485: 2420: 2356: 2335: 2313: 2291: 2266: 2237: 2204: 2169: 2121: 2111: 2095: 2091: 2039: 2026: 1980: 1935: 1862: 1793: 1769: 1718: 1662:

for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the

1620: 1591: 1547: 1480: 1463: 1449: 1424: 1420: 1381: 1355: 1323: 1277: 1219: 1182: 1130: 1075: 991: 958: 935: 880: 859: 800:

for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the

760: 742: 661: 523: 499: 466: 432: 407: 371: 335: 284: 263: 242: 198: 173: 152: 122: 114: 33: 8260: 7319:. A "neutral note" means something like "There is a deletion discussion about 7008: 4979: 4433:

Been a few months now and the thread has been archived with no further input (

8328: 8161: 8143: 8099: 7851: 7705: 7346: 6855: 6782: 6769: 6656: 5974: 5905: 5893: 5857: 4919: 4452: 4224:

real life interactions with numerous people, including some with disorders.--

3603: 3386: 3276: 2796:

No comment. Please use a signature. Adding date stamp for the archive bot. –

2196: 2166:

The only invisible characters in the editable text should be spaces and tabs.

1667: 1531: 1351: 1337: 1319: 1295: 916: 805: 638: 172:

You're welcome. Thanks for walking through the correct process of testing. –

6462: 5725: 4904:

Thanks. We'll see if it stems the tide or if they continue to hop around. –

80: 8488: 7595: 7026: 6607: 5997: 5992: 5901: 5889: 3664: 3500: 2537:

has last=Ashby: Chisholm1911 should be Ashby1911; harv error not sfn error.

2531:

has last=Gosse: Chisholm1911 should be Gosse1911; harv error not sfn error.

1846:, no red "no target" error will appear after the "sfn|Drury|1993" citation. 950: 894: 710: 445: 4435:

Knowledge:Bot_requests/Archive_80#Clean_up_translation_template_quotemarks

1979:

I have no opinion. I came there because of the edit-requested template. –

8514: 7673:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2

7240: 6903: 6765: 5231:

OK, got it. Can you kindly pass comment on my latest proposal? Thanks, ‑‑

5173: 5130: 5084: 5066: 4850: 4832: 4821: 4779: 4391:{{Infobox drug/maintenance categories/sandbox|_drugtype=|_mab_data=foo}} 4366: 4322: 4304: 3046: 2846: 1692: 55: 7995: