User talk:User-duck

3706:(4) My note about existing references considers the normal editing process as you start work on an article. You find a reference and use it early in the article. You give it a refname, because you expect to use it again as you continue to work on the article. In the edit I queried, you put a page number in the reference. (This is that ref, copied from the article:}}) On the second use of that source, you are highly likely to be citing a different page. Therefore it creates unnecessary work for editors if the first use (when you gave it a refname) has a page number in it. If you don't spot it, the referencing is a mess. If you do, you have to find the first use and amend the reference. So this is simple time-and-motion study. 3698:

another article: Just hover over the little blue 1 in square brackets. (If you try this, you need to scroll the page so that the reflist is not visible on your screen, or else it just highlights the ref in the reflist.) The big advantage of this citation method is that if you click on the reference's number, you get taken to the full reference in the reflist, but you can return again by clicking on the up arrow, or the letter denoting the occurrence of the ref. You cannot return to the text so easily with sfn referencing. Nor can you easily and quickly assess how often a particular source is used for an article. For the editor, on the second use of this reference, you only need to type in {{r|MacGregor 1993|p=1}}.

2842: 7041: 3585: 1703: 3150:. I am moving the "Weems (1800)" source (and its home page) to External links. It appears to be an incomplete duplicate of the "Weems (1918)" book. This is what ref=none is intended for. I do not know if this source was ever referenced (besides Internet Archive is a better source) and the article body says the book was written in 1809. Nothing on the website says in was published in 1800 by "Keatings of Baltimore". Also, the home page has other tidbits that might interest somebody. 2985: 3307: 575: 305: 210: 7230: 6718: 4962: 4100: 3349: 2498: 1522: 756: 6227: 1836: 3111:. The cite templates were updated in April to automatically generate the harv/sfn link. A tracking category was also created for the articles with ref=harv. I remove ref=harv when I work on correcting the Harv/Sfn errors and warnings. It will be a long time before the template change will propagate to all the editors. I often need to add ref=none for cites in the Further reading, etc. sections. I am wondering about the ref=none cite. 3830:

was planning to replace some of the citations as I've gained more knowledge of the topic and been able to view more top-quality citations (e.g. the Dearden citation will probably go soon), but the French Ministry of Culture citations might end up at more locations. They also need fixing, because very annoyingly the French Ministry of Culture shut that website down. Fortunately the Internet Archive has copies.

7638: 6973: 6898: 6808: 6113: 6038: 5967: 5896: 5825: 5754: 5679: 5285: 5214: 5110: 721: 7142:, "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists using footnotes groups." In a real article this sentence would get a "vague" tag. Should they be separate or not? I believe explanatory notes should be separate from references, they are statements, not sources for statements. 520: 263: 155: 1408: 7330:(For whatever it's worth, while on that note, the Silverstein 1997 book is very strange - it truly has no publisher, and seems like it was just independently printed with grant money or something? It didn't even have an ISBN, which is very unusual for 1997. What you see in the citation is truly all that can be discerned from the opening pages.) 6946: 2217:). I apparently misinterpreted the "Jovito Abellana" ref. I did not recognize "ibidem" as one of the Latin terms that I am not fluent with. And the "Scott 1992, pp. 50–53, notes 24 and 25 on pp. 62–63." footnote is still missing its full citation. There are full citations for "Scott, William Henry (1984)" and "Scott, William Henry (1994)". 6157: 6852: 1148: 2765:, but you caused an edit conflict while that section undergoing a fairly major re-write which resulted in quite a bit of new content being lost. Did you get any edit conflict notification when you were making the edit? Were you using a script? I was aware of the CS1 error and it had been fixed as part of the revision. -- 7682: 4883:|website=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |publisher=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}{{title missing|partial=yes |date=September 2022}} 7017: 5635: 6469:

The problem occurs mostly for images that I uploaded when I first starting editing last fall, and then took a break until recently. I plan to modify some of those uploads so that the original image is much smaller, and not have the appearance of a "coffee table book," which was not my intent but then

5497:

Yes it is a guideline. I cannot point you directly to the Knowledge page. It might be in the referencing guidelines. But it falls into the general guidelines for complete citations, bare URLs, etc. Many articles do not link their SFNs to the source citations. Often I think this is intentional so that

5413:

SFNs work well if the source is authored and dated. I know Knowledge documents using publisher if the author is not known and n.d. if it is undated. The source cite can be difficult ot locate using publisher. Remember, the articles should be written as if the reader is reading a printed copy; this is

4632:

parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.). If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc.", or "GmbH"

4311:

Really, I was checking the "long volume" warnings. Two of the OCLC numbers pointed to the same Worldcat entry that did not match the rest of the source cite in anyway (not even the year). "volume=" is used for a volume of a series. The values were already in the title, they may have been suitable for

3703:

appears to be something of a gamble. I presume that you do not have a copy of Mayne's book to hand. In which case, you do not know whether or not the page number is redundant. It is if "breastrope" has its own entry in this book. But if "breastrope" is dealt with under, say "mooring", the page number

3657:

When you mention "existing reference" ae you talking about an existing source or a complete reference? A different page for an existing source is easily done with a "short footnote" which is facilitated by the sfn, sfnp, or one of the many templates in the harv family, "{{sfn|Smith|Jones|2020|p=23}}"

2960:

Hi User-duck. You reviewed the Polynesian Paralysis page on Feb 6 at 2201. I have made significant edits to the page as a more cultural article and included several additional print citations and removed some of the internet citations. I resubmitted the article for review and approval on March 13. Is

7458:

It would be a mis-use of publisher=. I often see location and publisher together in the publisher= parameter. I know of no way to tag the cite as being checked for correctness. I believe only book cites have the "requirement" of the publisher= when using location=. I have not found the "requirement"

7131:

I wish the Knowledge overseers would define their terms. I consider "style" and "method" as two different things, "style" is what the user sees and "method" is how it is done. Users of my software did not care if it was written in FORTRAN or C. Thanks to the referenced discussion, I now realize they

6278:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

5511:

The guideline (or suggestion) that publisher (or website) be used if author is missing is short-sighted. Too often there are multiple sources from the same website. Year is then suppose to differentiate them. But too many time multiple articles are published in the same year and the sfn templates to

5168:

I do it by hand. Need to access URL and DOI to see if they are the same URL page and to determine if doi-access=free. I have been doing editing for a long time. I know there is some software out there that is putting in these redundant URLs and does not or cannot check for doi-access. Lately, I have

4425:

Thank you for your hard work in addressing citation errors. This makes it only a shade less thankless (for what it is worth). But the effort serves a variety of purposes other than the prima facie apparent — in revealing problems in need of solving, and solidifying content that is valuable. And so I

3709:

I am sorry if this all sounds a bit "preachy", but referencing is an irritatingly complicated subject in Knowledge because it has to accommodate the personal preferences of a number of editors. That is why the Knowledge compromise of sticking to the first style used in an article is so important. It

3266:

it was the only variant that came close. The main issue I have is that if someone goes straight to the Vadakan article there is nothing at the article itself that states *when the article was written and *what magazine/etc the article was written for. There are some partial attributions elsewhere on

2452:

In addition, your changed image caption "The central bubble in a mathematical model of a four-bubble planar soap bubble cluster is a Reuleaux triangle" makes it incorrect. Not all four-bubble clusters have a Reuleaux center. The previous caption more correctly stated that it was true of the specific

7345:

Does it have Cramer as the editor? It is also unusual to have a publication location without a printer or publisher and this generates a CS1 maintenance message. Eventhough the WorldCat info is incorrect the OCLC number should be included if it refers to the correct book. I just googled "Apocalypse

6397:

User-duck, I'm a bit perplexed as to what is the point of all these images size and placement changes. This article constantly attracts attention of users, who jump out of the blue and in a big way start to change the various aspects of the article, this pushy approach is unfortunately nothing new,

4915:

The bigger problem is 'Where is the information supporting the statement in the article?'. The cited website does not have any statement that supports it. The website does list 23 reports and I assume one of them supports the statement. I did not add the statement or the reference and I do not plan

3829:

One thing I do have concerns about though is removing reference names. Although it's not a very focused plan I have often thought about getting the article to FA status, so it's possible that a reference that's right now only got one citation position could be moved in future to have two or more. I

3631:

is much cited by the more technical maritime historians. It is highly likely to be used again in this article. Yet, where this appears as a reference to "Yawl" (defn 2), you have embedded the page number in the reference. Therefore a second cite of this work, at a different page number, is directed

1095:

2598:

Hi, again; i tried to invoke this ref again, further in the same article: i copied-pasted another "ref invoking" that works in the same article, i wrote weisstein instead of ogawa... but mine doesn't work. Knowledge is "contributor-unfriendly" about this other issue, too... §:-P If by miracle

2448:

for one reason why not. The article is a Good Article and an explicit Good Article criterion is that all citations be consistent in style. An additional reason is that CS2 by default supports harv-style parnthetical referencing, which the Reuleaux triangle article uses, whereas CS1 by default does

6501:

I changed the font size in the images to 14 pt and uploaded again with lower resolution, making a few other changes to the source. I did adjust upright for one file. I looked at the results on my desktop, cell phone and tablet and the readability issues appears resolved when the default for every

4700:

Nothing on this webpage supports the statement "Among others, the Nigerian Government acknowledged FREEE Recycle's incorporation as a contribution to its national effort at the adoption of recycling and the promotion of efficient waste management through the provision of a Pioneer certificate". I

3235:

I don't agree that the original The Early America Review website was "usurped" (it could have been sold to Varsity Tutors). But this is a matter of personal opinion. All the journal websites are "for-profit". Have you encounters a website that has been "usurped" for advertising? Also, it would be

2581:

Hi! Thank you A LOT for your decisive help on my web citing in the golden rhombus article! §:-) I would NOT have found how to do it by myself... I was going desperate, & i'm still "angry" at Knowledge for being so "contributor-unfriendly"... Such issues are definitely not for me... §:-P

7387:

WorldCat and Google are often incorrect for citing sources. That is why I dug deeper. Academic journals don't "grasp at straws". It is strange that I found no reference to P. Cramer as an editor. P. Cramer may have "commissioned" the book. "Publisher" appears to have a much broader definition. I

3697:

Unless you have a browser that does not co-operate, it is very easy to see the full reference and page number without moving away from the article text. If you hover your mouse cursor over the reference number in the text, you should see the full reference appear. This is an example plucked from

2629:

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it.

6563:

My concern was that some of the images I first uploaded to Knowledge last summer ended up having text that was not readable after your changes, but later ones I did appeared OK. I only made changes to what you did to one image as a test (I can't remember which one), before I went looking in the

6473:

Another thing that I did over time was to increase the text font size in the original and reduce its overall size that seems to display better with "default" on my desktop, cell phone and tablet. Other images that I took from Wikimedia Commons did not have this issue and I will look to them for

5601:

I try to focus on technical edits. I do little verification. Even with the web links, the actual content is often not available online. Yes, the BBC 2003 source is poor. I do sometimes update cites to web sources with current URLs. I rarely add content. There are plenty who like to add content.

1712:

thanks for the help on the Lunar Lander page fixing my references. I'm not at all sure how you can find all of that information about the articles I'm citing. I look on the journal websites but can't find it to that depth. Do you use some other system or are you seeing something I'm missing?

4381:

Hi, Recently i noticed that you fixed the error on page Hinduism in West Bengal. i want to thank you for that because User:Arjayay is constantly changing the numbers of bengali hindus although those links suggest that reporters have done a good reserach from that particular area and listed the

3861:

linking that edit of yours, and explaining what you did? The reason is, if you guessed wrong, at some point someone trying to track what looks to them like invalid citations, will have a place to start. Just a link, plus your thought process or any hints to give some future editor-analysis of

3560:

You need to realize that the moment you deleted the Ivanov reference, parts of the article are no longer supported by a verifiable source. The argument that the review was 5 years ago is likewise null because 99% of the edits made since then are cosmetic. Maybe try discussing the issue before

5539:

Putng the last references into a usable SFN format is tough. And often does little to improve the article. But doing it to complete the task is justification enough. Feel free to do what you think is best. That is what I did. You stated, "I was hoping to switch as many as possible to sfn for

6934: 5786: 768:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5466:

Thanks for the clarification and the additional cleanup on the page. I mainly agree, though I wonder why we should write as though the reader is reading a printed copy. Is that a Knowledge guideline? It seems unlikely that more than a handful of readers actually print Knowledge pages.

3654:, thanks for asking. Personally, I find the use of the r and rp templates confusing. The most obvious problem is that a reader needs to look at the article text (for the page) and the reference for the source. I do not have time for other examples at the moment but will add more later. 3626:

as "removal of rp template". Please would you explain what you have against the rp template? It appears to me that you have substantially damaged the capability of editors to use existing reference on a second occasion without extra unnecessary work. For example, the reference McKee,

1534:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2626:, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Knowledge. 5525:

A lot of my edits are influenced by personal preference, BUT I try to keep them in check. I must have had some difficulty with the "BBC 2003" source or I would not have changed it. My biggest personal preference is consistency which the Knowledge guidlines support but many editors

6237:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 6145: 5579:

Thanks for explaining and no worries about the long response! It is helpful hearing this from someone with your expertise. I will try to change a few more to sfn style but I'm going to take your advice to not switch all of them. Quite a few references on the page do not meet

6840: 4865:{{Cite web |title=Pioneer Status Incentive Reports |url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |website=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}} 4874:|url=https://www.nipc.gov.ng/product-category/opportunities-incentives/incentives/pioneer-status-incentive-reports-incentives/ |access-date=2022-09-09 |website=Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission |language=en-US}}{{title missing|partial=yes |date=September 2022}} 2349: 4603:. I could not find the statement "do not use publisher when citing a website. I.e. the website should be included as well as, or in preference to, the publisher which is not typically used on its own." In fact I could not find the word "preference" used anywhere in 5082:

You have to click “view in context” on the Lantern page and then scroll until you find a page/masthead/cover with the issue date. It’s a pain in the butt since Internet Archive is very sensitive if you click "too fast" and will slide in or out or up or down, etc.

5321: 4027:

Hello, I remember you did some excellent work in that article a while back. Things have changed a lot since then. In particular, some users are pushing very strongly to add a new map in the article, that I find controversial. I've opened a discussion thread here

6536:

Also noticed ]. This calculates out to 164.96x272px and should display at 160x254px because of rounding. I would of changed it to "upright" which should display at 170x280px and respond to the user's preference setting. P.S. I do not trust Knowledge arthimetic

3802:

there. I just saw that one of the later images is named "Figure 1", apparently a left-over from a reordering some time ago. However, I hesitate to (re-)assign numbers by hand, since this will cause a lot of manual maintenance work after each future image move.

5999: 5928: 5512:

not support full dates. Personally, I like using title, maybe shortened, but never an acronym. Title is the first thing printed if author or editor is not available. Making it easier for the reader to find is the reason to sort sources in the bibliography.

7670: 5246: 6086: 6011: 5940: 5869: 5798: 5727: 5333: 5258: 5857: 5128:

Wasn't obvious to me either. I believe title= should have worked without url=, BUT it didn't work for me either. So I tried plaintitle=. The cite wikisource template is a little bizarre and the documentation is confusing but I have figured out worse.

565: 6074: 5715: 1912: 4537:. I avoid enrolling in unneeded websites, I get enough junk e-mail. I did not know the source contents were "random". I would have tried to find an archive page if an access date were specified. I would of done a web search if a title were given. 1026: 7005: 1814:

so the cite journal template is a better fit. I'd fix it myself, but the article is currently in the middle of a dispute resolution, and I don't want to touch it out of respect for that process. Could you change the template back? Thanks! -

3806:

Do you know an elegant method to assign numbers (or other labels) to images, refer to them from the text, and automatically maintaining the references after images moves (similar to LaTeX's \label{} and \ref{} concept)? Thanks in advance. -

4934:

No. you seem intent on being combative. If you can include websites in 'cite web', either in addition to or instead of, publisher and there are no further misunderstandings or disagreements. I do not feel this warrants further discussion.

4549:

In case your interested, the only reason I accessed this article was the "Citation bot" replaced an "Archived copy" title with one with a control character. The "Archived copy" is truly a "ppor" job. I am use to fixing bot induced errors.

3021:

You have been making a large number of edits to this article. Would you like to give a rationale for them on the talk page? Your edits look OK, but this article is often a target for fringe cranks, so it would be good to see your reasons.

200: 6422:

I reduced the size of most images because of another "statement" that large images interfere with text flow on mobile devices that are being used more and more by Knowledge users. I do not remember reducing any image to the "default"

6930: 505: 3862:

verifiability on that topic. In a way, I hate to ask, because you've already done the hard work to resolve it, but if you could, that'd be great. Thanks again for your edit, and for your contributions to the encyclopedia! Cheers,

3599:

By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the large amount of work you have put into the project improving the referencing of articles. It is appreciated.

295: 5782: 7197:

Even if you don't want to spend time arguing your points here, I think it's valuable if you point them out on either the guideline or MOS talkpage. Not saying this as a "go gripe somewhere else", but because I think it's valid

7372:

OCLC identifier is fairly harmless although not super-useful, so I normally skip adding it, but I suppose I wouldn't complain if it was added. (One of those identifiers that isn't in the printed book itself, of course.)

123: 6141: 7364:

I checked the book back in at the library ages ago, but my guess is that those sources are grasping at straws. Cramer was probably the "publisher" in the sense of "getting it published" but I kind of assume that the

6836: 4393: 2606: 2589: 4920:(edit) is calling Template:Cite web with more than one value for the "website" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help) ' message. I am sure that the website was not examined when making the edit. 4404:

I will NOT be monitoring the article. I am fixing cite errors and warnings. I fix other items I notice. This time I noticed that the refs were three online sources for the same article. I simply removed the clones.

5241:" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( 4431: 1762:

Hello, thanks for your instructions & guidance. The spaces before the ref have been removed. I was a little unsure as to what your last command may have meant. Any further guidance? Thanks for your time, Jess

1404: 6441:

Feel free to increase the upright factors. I did not discern any rational for the various sizes and most of the text was too small for me to read. Try not to use too many different sizes since this can be very

5317: 3884:, Thanks for the advice. I did a little more checking to verify that my guess was correct. I do not know how to link a particular version of an article and have found little value in talk pages. Thanks again, 2615: 140: 6526:

There was a semantics misunderstanding. My interpretation of "default" is the size of the image if px or upright were not used. I changed use of px to upright, reducing the size of many images a little, 0 to

5995: 5924: 7459:

documented anywhere. I infer it from the articles in the maintenance category. Don't worry about fixing the cite, the article can remain one of the 54k that have the message. I have enjoyed this discussion.

6318:

I asked you to gain consensus for your change of source formatting, which is pointless and unhelpful as you are unstandardizing the references during an FA nomination. You reverted me. You refused to follow

7443:

wrong, I think that this case might be one of the very rare cases of it being legitimate. But I suppose we can put this off until I take another look - I'll upload a picture of the intro page if need be.

6419:

There is some "Knowledge policy" to use upright instead of px. This allows the user to set image sizes to their preference. The info is in the morass of Knowledge documentation and I encounter it randomly.

4483:

source: Added cite template with title. I just accessed the webpage again. It is a "dynamic" (changing} page. Makes it an "unreliable" source as cited. I documented what I saw. Apparently this is a "home"

6140:" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5994:" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 2321: 1884: 1380: 1120: 998: 425: 335: 7666: 6461:

I found the following in the "morass of Knowledge documentation" (as a relatively new editor I am still learning). Here is a reference that describes thumbnail sizes, upright and other aspects of images:

5242: 4540:

I was hoping the "failed verification" tag would attract the attention of a SME. It did. I have come to realize that many editors just add tags and do not attempt to fix. Lots of edits with minimal work.

7665:

error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (

7404:, 54,000+ articles). This could be accomplished by using Geneva as the publisher (I have seen worse mis-use of a parameter). I like to include DOI, ISBN, or OCLC as evidence the source actually exists. 6398:

and also in this case, I don't see a strong reason why long standing image sizes should be changed, other than based on how they look on your individual screen. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

4683:

Contained within a linked report is the statement "... Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) is pleased to provide details of Pioneer Status Incentive (PSI) applications ...". Sounds like an

5853: 2224:

footnote. Looks like you have done a lot of research which I do not want to do. If you are not comfortable with the use of sfn (or whatever) let be know the info and I will gladly implement the change.

6070: 5711: 3452:, which was promoted with such a method as recently as last month. I think (at least this is the reason I use it) this is because the efn notes are tiny and often blend in with the references. Best - 2821: 1654:

edit, you added a reference from a website but did not add the URL of the reference. I have found the site, but can you please provide the URL to make the reference complete? Thank you. Happy days,

7111:

Sorry to revert you, but I genuinely don't agree that switching styles is an improvement. If I accidentally reverted something unrelated to splitting notes, please let me know. Or just reinstate it.

6747:. 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 4991:. 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 4127:. 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 3376:. 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 2525:. 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 1546:. 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 780:. 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 248: 3129:

I left the cite in because I think the original version/edition should be retained for verifiability/research purposes. It could possibly be moved to primary sources or further reading I suppose.

3687:. You should not do this without obtaining consensus on the article talk page. Note that the principle of not changing the way an article deals with references is discussed in several places in 2756: 1144: 7439:

I suspect that "Geneva" isn't quite correct either as a publisher! It sounds like I need to check the book out of the library again... but more generally, while location-with-no-publisher is

7001: 3232:

Re: 1800 date, interesting info and would seem to contradict the 1809 date. My point was that there was nothing in the source to support the 1800 date or Keatings of Baltimore as a publisher.

6567:

Please make the changes you believe appropriate "to responding to the user's preference setting," and I will enlarge the text if necessary (in some cases I enlarged it from 10 pt to 14 pt).

4633:

are not usually included. Not normally used for periodicals. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes

4397: 4272:- what I'd meant to do was to revert to the version prior to some socks adding some stuff, it looked like you were just tidying up after them. I've gone back to the version I intended. Best 2008:

Thanks for the info. I may start to use the bot if I can figure it out. What I do know is that I have fixed far too many errors that have been either generated by bots or people using bots.

889:, these things should be done only with consensus for established articles. No problem here, just wanted to make sure you knew about it in case you wanted to do the same to other articles. 6484:

I will be doing some experimentation with the upload file sizes and/or the upright factors and look at the results on my desktop, cell phone and tablet using the above Knowledge references.

4376: 6869: 4476:

source: Besides replacing control character in title. "WesternPeople" is not part of the title. Added author and date. Changed blurb "Blue Whale spotted off Achill" to quote from article.

4242: 2610: 2593: 3826:

Hi, many thanks for your citation polishing on the Garamond article. I know there were some problems with references on there, and it's very kind of you to take the time to fix it up.

2855: 7201:

Regarding the style consistency, what did you react to specifically? Was it that the sfn template wasn't used specifically, or that you felt that the formatting overall didn't add up?

3491: 2040:

article isn't really the topic here -- it's an example. Editing that article recently, I noticed some circular links and, looking at them, I see that they seem to come from edits like

7727:

No, I don't have any expertise in the subject. I have been doing technical editing for several years now. Feel free to contact me about any technical issues, I would be glad to help.

6763: 6680:, Can you left justify and align the left-side text in "Artifical Magnetospheric model.jpg"? Also removing the left and right white margins would improve the appearance of the image. 5007: 4143: 3392: 2955: 2541: 1562: 796: 5540:

consistency." The statement left the possibility of "not all". You can manipulate any reference to use an sfn template, but that does not make them an SFN (I hope that makes sense).

4230: 2576: 7591: 4581:

clearly says do not use publisher when citing a website. I.e. the website should be included as well as, or in preference to, the publisher which is not typically used on its own.

6732: 6184: 4976: 4822:

The 'quote' from the guideline ended at the end of the sentence (I.e. after 'website'). The website should be included as well, as I implied, thus producing the required italics.

4113: 3362: 2511: 2599:

you knew how to fix this other cite, & if you had a little time for it... i would have to thank you again! & afterwards, i hope i would know how to do this, too. §:-)

602: 2655: 2862:

for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a

2794:

Just wanted to add that I'm not really mad or anything about this; just trying to figure out whether you also got a "Edit conflict" notice when you were making that edit. --

4389: 3236:

nice if the difference between "usurped" and "unfit" was documented if there is a difference. I reserve "unfit" for sites that cause my malware protection software to block.

2602: 2585: 6530:

I found the change to ] This is a change of only 3% and is smaller than the size I specified. It also has the disadvantage of not responding to the user preference setting.

97: 7218: 3255:

Weems' 1st publication of his Washington bio was in 1800 and he went through many iterations - the apocryphal/famous cherry tree incident wasn't even in the first edition.

4529:

Is this a question? The answer is "No, I did not try the search function." I might have searched if search function was presented when I accessed the page. I now see the

4056:

I am more skilled now as an cite/ref editor and I see numerous Sfn/Harv messages that I can eliminate/correct. I do wish contributors were more careful about referencing.

2345: 6888: 5443:

I would suggest to change the remaining authored inline citations to SFNs first. Verify that the unauthored onas are really unauthored and change them in the next phase.

4427: 243: 541: 176: 4916:

on reading the individual reports. I was hoping my edit with the 'title missing' tag would fix the problem. The goal of the 'Ira Leviton' edit was to eliminate the '

320: 2085:, Thanks for the message. I am replying via my talk page. Primarily so I have a record of the message. Even after 10,000 edits, I am not sure of the "talk" protocol. 7369:

is expected to be an organization or company, not a person (and that when there's a truly independent "publishing" going on, Knowledge just leaves the field blank).

4414: 4180: 2892: 1096:

and also in this case, I don't see a strong reason why long standing image sizes should be changed, other than based on how they look on your individual screen. --

5744: 4246: 1599: 1472: 359: 7154:

I did not detect a consistent style (SFN or full citations) or method (templates or not). SFN and templates appeared to be the majority so I converted to them.

2774: 4009: 651: 5410:

I support your attempts to standardize the referencing format. After thousands of edits, I believe it may be impractical to use only one format in an article.

2970: 2898: 2637:

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

6883: 6458:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. In the diff I sent it shows that when you deleted the "123x456px" it stated "Size changed from 123x456px to Default"

3710:

should (and generally does) avoid disputes on style if we all stick to the rules. Then we can concentrate on the important bit: the encyclopaedia content.

3541:

Thanks for taking the trouble to de-harvid citations etc, I've been doing it piecemeal as I spring clean the articles I watch but it's a long job. Regards

1764: 931: 4053:. You have a better memory than me. It has been almost 2 years! I am more of an editor than a contributor and I really have no opinion about this content. 7436:

Hmm, I wonder if this is a case for the "others" parameter as a way to credit Cramer. It does sound like editor might not be ideal or entirely accurate.

3857:. I know what that's about, because I've had to do that before, too, in another article or two. Can I ask a favor? Could you please add a brief entry at 3185:

I went ahead and deleted the Weems/1800 ref. You're right the 1918 version is sufficient and that URL shows an actual book as opposed to a plain version.

1908: 709:

Hi User-duck. When pluralizing a word involves adding a simple 's' or 'es', there's no need to pipe the link. For instance, instead of typing ] to yield

6533:

I notice the ]. This image is the default size of 220px since it is square. If 220x220px were removed it would respond to the user's preference setting.

6487:

Once I have completed this, I will respond to this thread and ask if you could have a look at the article again to see if your concerns were addressed.

4170: 3418: 1716: 1022: 7327:. Despite the reversion notification, note that I put back 2 of your 3 changes. Sorry about the confusion and spicier edit summary than intended. 7000:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 6958: 6929:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 6835:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 6069:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5923:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5852:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5781:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5710:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 5316:" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( 2567: 1829: 1580: 814: 7563: 7313: 6346: 3498: 3164:

Point taken re: a duplicate. I thought it was to an original printing, my bad. But re: the original publication date being 1800, see the following:

7059: 2962: 2320: 1883: 1379: 1290:

It is. I don't know how to help you but I wanted to let you know you didn't get an answer. It's possible a question like this could be answered at

1119: 997: 449: 424: 334: 7149:, "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." What should be done if method is inconsistent? 6401:

Your changes make some of the text in the images too small. Is there some Knowledge policy regarding this, or did you do what E-960 stated above?

5810: 4798: 4697:

Clearly, "Pioneer Status Incentive Reports" is not similar to "Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission", so they should both appear in the cite.

4209: 2720:). They are on my cleanup list, particularly as they are higher profile (even more so than HA), and yet there are many low quality refs there. -- 1636: 1509: 1230: 7401: 7065:

Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Knowledge’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.

3701: 2284:. Funny, I am familiar with "ibid.", I did not know it was an abbreviation for "ibidem". (Save the keystrokes!) And I learned that tidbit from 1863: 699: 2950: 1811:. While fixing some cites in the article, you changed a cite journal template to a cite magazine, but the publication is an academic journal 7101: 6790: 5034: 983: 3719: 3672: 6103: 4672:"Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission", it appears at the bottom along side the copyright of the webpage, and which I interpret as the 2195:{{sfn|Jovito Abellana|Aginid|Bayok sa Atong Tawarik|1952}}, {{sfn|Ibidem|p=195}}, {{sfn|Scott|1992|pp=50–53, notes 24 and 25 on pp. 62–63}} 2023: 4370: 2301: 2271: 7346:

of Paul. A New Critical Edition of Three Long Latin Versions" there are a least 2 journal reviews that have Patrick Cramer as publisher.

6914: 6890: 6798: 4090: 3339: 6429:

I did not move any images. The [[File:... statements for thumbnails should be on separate lines. They break the flow of the paragraph.

2072: 7397: 6169: 5350: 3217: 3072: 2488: 1514: 1358: 1334: 1313: 1285: 923: 748: 6864: 6509:

If you could please take a look and see if everything looks better now and give me any other feedback that would be much appreciated!

3279: 3250: 3203: 3159: 3138: 2253: 7272: 6380: 6375: 4321: 3120: 3066: 2930: 2813: 1226: 963: 679: 3988: 3944: 3915: 3893: 3641: 2017: 6597:

Just so that I am clear regarding your instruction regarding enlargement, I should use the sizing option "upright" as described in

5649:

Thanks for your help with citations and for your tireless efforts improving citations across the encyclopedia! You are a top-notch

5420:

Personally, I have no problem mixing the two styles. I use SFN for authored sources and inline for unauthored. I seldom use "n.d.".

4082: 4068: 3683:

Unless I have misunderstood, you have been changing the citation style based solely on your personal preference. This is a case of

2997:

Thank you " User-duck" for fixing errors on my citation! I Appreciate it,may you and all your dear ones stay safe during covid-19!

1672: 5437:

I prefer inline for the "philosophyofreligion" source. But that really is personal preference and I could not justify changing it.

2961:

there anything else I need to do... or just wait for someone to provide more feedback or approval. Thanks again for your help! Jim

2397: 1960: 1724: 1456: 1325:

The Village Pump may very well be the correct forum. However, I see this as a "Policy" question rather than a "Technical" one. --

1196: 1074: 5770: 5746: 5238: 3935:, Thanks. I probably would have never found the page. Info is well hidden in the WP maze. I can seldom find the same page twice. 2311: 1874: 1370: 1110: 988: 7611: 5404: 4258: 2098:

template is designed to be used with full citations. A reference name is generated which would link to a citation created using

2041: 7293: 7034: 6710: 6689: 6023: 5144: 4954: 2737: 1617: 6413: 5345: 4448: 4435: 3331: 2751: 2129:

The problem is that the full citation does not exist and the link to the citation cannot be made. I call this a "broken link".

672:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5952: 5162: 4235: 3476: 3189: 2926: 2863: 1697: 1692: 1490: 959: 675: 2029: 1263: 7237: 7223: 7097: 6786: 5957: 5062:

Interesting article. Trying to get the technical aspects up to the level of the prose. Just a little polish at this point.

5030: 4649:"Pioneer Status Incentive Reports", boldly placed at the top of the page, and which I interpret as the name of the website. 4347: 4333: 4166: 3414: 2563: 2037: 1576: 1222: 906: 902: 810: 62: 7055:

is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.

3971: 3816: 3188:

Re: Vadakan...The Early America Review website has been usurped by another entity, that "url-status=live" URL resolves to

3175: 3169: 3006: 5275: 3871: 1824: 1798: 1772: 898: 38: 7694: 5270: 4040: 3962: 3531: 2804:

Thanks you for clarifying. I did get an edit conflict notice, but most likely only because you made your edit first. --

2698: 6997: 6926: 6832: 6066: 5920: 5886: 5849: 5778: 5707: 5313: 4790:

This implies that both the website and publisher are included. Notice how I avoided the word clearly. Can one get more

3617: 2672: 1743:'s edits. The refs are all messed up. Judge1234 is making large changes adding and deleting without change description. 5881: 2916: 2462: 2193:

There were three other references that were not full citations, I interpreted them as short footnotes and coded them:

669: 7205: 7181: 6271: 6098: 5739: 5150: 3775: 3751: 3609: 3467:

Thank you for fixing up the sfn refs though, I was about to work on that article tonight so that saves me some time!

3031: 1777: 1678: 1352: 1307: 1257: 69: 7158: 7146: 5661: 5366:

you took one reference I had switched to sfn and placed the full reference back in the text. It is this reference:

3839: 2762: 1809: 949: 734: 7542: 7431: 7213: 6213: 5196: 5178: 4559: 4520: 4502: 3570: 2668: 7750: 7736: 7297: 7093: 6782: 5611: 5596: 5562: 5475: 5457: 5363: 5026: 4162: 4022: 3844: 3659:{{rp|23}}" and is even a few keystrokes shorter. For a complete reference "<ref name="SmithJones2020p23"/: --> 3410: 2559: 1572: 1235: 1212: 806: 555: 537: 507: 285: 250: 190: 142: 22: 7468: 7453: 7413: 7382: 7355: 6704: 6659: 6613: 6592: 6576: 6551: 6496: 6453: 4831: 4716: 4296:"meaningless volume and oclc parameters"? Ouch. Easy killer. Hee! Anyway, good work on the article. Bravo zulu1 7623: 6518: 6238: 5138: 4944: 3550: 3178:

This Footnote talks about the controversy of which printing - the Keating or the Georgetown edtion - was first.

2868: 2685: 2660: 2634:

and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

2483: 1995: 1613: 861: 236: 135: 107: 7029: 6338: 6313: 5071: 4701:

assune the contents of one of the linked reports does. The title of that report needs to be added to the cite.

4382:

numbers much differently compared to 2011. I hope you will control these wikipedia page monitoring thank you

1221:. It's a very interesting topic and your editing is undoubtedly enhancing its currency and usefulness. Cheers 7662: 7628: 7521: 7115: 6922: 6137: 6062: 5991: 5703: 5625: 5309: 5204: 4507:

You did not try the search function on Mountainviews to find the correct page and just dumped a random page?

4286: 3297: 1843: 1835: 1486: 743: 656:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

625: 551: 281: 186: 52: 5362:

article a couple months back! I've been working on standardizing the references to sfn style. I notice that

5122: 4355: 4341: 1752: 646: 453: 363: 7482: 6756: 6254: 6199: 6129: 6105: 5584:

and should be replaced anyway. (The BBC ref is RS, but it's used for the neuroscience section and it isn't

5103: 5000: 4531:"Welcome to MountainViews If you want to use the website often please enrol (quick and free) at top right." 4136: 3385: 2534: 1803: 1555: 914:

And elsewhere - I'm afraid this is an unashamed cite-bandit. Wholesale reversion is probably the only way.

866: 789: 57: 6386: 5396:

Was there an issue with my formatting? I was hoping to switch as many as possible to sfn for consistency.

4305: 4017: 1685:

Many thanks for fixing that citation!! I did not know how to translate/integrate the encyclopedia entry..

112: 7285: 7241: 7219: 6824: 6800: 6768: 6598: 6503: 6478: 6258: 5815: 5012: 4148: 3965:, it doesn't always deliver great results. A google "site search" often works a lot better; just include 3397: 2975: 2546: 2201: 1660: 1567: 1241: 1105: 801: 6304:

You state that I am in an "edit war". I know of none. Please provide the details, at least the article.

4219:

Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers!

3584: 1650: 415: 7517: 7289: 7122: 6874:

Thank you so much, Duck, for your cleanup of the error codes on my messy references! Much appreciated.

6540:

I will look at the article again. Enlarging the text (a little) in the images was probably a good idea.

6028: 5669: 3812: 3715: 3637: 3623: 3482: 3263: 3051: 2732: 1851: 1757: 1609: 1276:

No, I did not get an answer. This has happened before. (I hope this is the correct method to reply) --

854: 526: 511: 7606:

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article

4812: 2912: 885:, which is fine with me, but generally you should get ask on the article talk page before doing. Per 665: 25:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: 6618:

Correct, use "upright". I assume (hope?) you can enter upright when using Custom. Some common sizes:

6432:

I usually change all px dimensions to upright in thumbs, but I may have missed some File: statements.

6323:. It's edit warring and disruptive. Either you stop or gain consensus, or I will bring you to ANI. ~ 6266: 4590: 4013: 4008:

Where are you getting your information on Israel's page regarding their nuclear weapons? I want in.

3326: 3092:

Also, I was wondering why you stripped out all the "ref=harv" code in the various citations. Thanks,

3014: 2903:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1679: 1605: 936:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

7721: 3461: 325: 7690: 7502: 7025: 6954: 6860: 6174: 6165: 6094: 6019: 5948: 5877: 5806: 5735: 5341: 5266: 5097: 4856: 4732: 4464: 4351: 4337: 3821: 3789: 3555: 2651: 2458: 2267: 1859: 945: 6298: 5092: 7650: 6985: 6910: 6820: 6210: 6125: 6050: 5979: 5908: 5837: 5766: 5691: 5297: 5226: 5056: 3850: 3575: 3192:

so the archived version - to the original website - is more appropriate for Knowledge's purposes.

3002: 2467: 1768: 1478: 1218: 894: 621: 490:

This functionality is currently being tested. If you received this notification by error, please

400:

This functionality is currently being tested. If you received this notification by error, please

117: 3432:

Hi, the n notes method is (as far as I know) not deprecated, or unique. Random examples of FAs:

2712:. I hope you can also help fix / improve citations in the even more high profile article on the 2631: 2623: 7309: 7139: 6250: 6234: 4848: 4819: 4785:

the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)

4281: 4224: 3903: 3858: 3605: 3527: 3449: 2713: 2661: 2415: 1984: 91:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 43: 29: 7339: 6604:

And not click on Custom in visual editing and enter px values as I had been doing previously.

6464: 5385: 5370: 2152:. I believe these templates use the same method that links the to the ref/cites generated by 72:, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Knowledge. You can visit 7494: 6744: 4988: 4124: 3808: 3795: 3711: 3649: 3633: 3373: 2640:

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

2522: 1978: 1867: 1820: 1730: 1720: 1543: 1346: 1301: 1251: 845: 777: 84: 7587: 613: 6879: 6755:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5359: 5352: 5192: 5158: 4999:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4514: 4458: 4385: 4135:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4031:. I would highly value your opinion, as someone who is neutral in these disputes. Regards, 3536: 3384:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3320: 3275: 3213: 3199: 3134: 3097: 3027: 2920: 2533:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2344:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

2062: 1907:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

1689: 1554:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1403:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

1143:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

1021:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

953: 788:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 736: 642: 448:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

358:

because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion

318: 80: 33: 4658:"Annual Report of Issued and Cancelled Pioneer Certificates 01 January – 31 December 2021" 4249:

article. I've learned some editing techniques from you. A Barnstar of Diligence for you.--

3695:

a reader needs to look at the article text (for the page) and the reference for the source

3125:

Because if you remove it a warning/error will be generated since it is not directly cited

8: 7746: 7717: 7686: 7642: 7301: 7073: 7021: 6977: 6963: 6950: 6902: 6856: 6812: 6242: 6161: 6117: 6090: 6042: 6015: 5971: 5944: 5900: 5873: 5829: 5802: 5758: 5731: 5683: 5650: 5337: 5301: 5289: 5277: 5262: 5218: 4301: 4254: 3976: 3835: 3745:

British and American Clippers: A Comparison of their Design, Construction and Performance

3546: 2966: 2809: 2799: 2770: 2647: 2454: 2393: 2279: 2263: 2058:, so I stay clear of digging into Sfn but I thought I would mention this to you. Cheers, 1956: 1855: 1452: 1192: 1070: 657: 92: 7079:

If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider

4791: 2923:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 2888: 2859: 956:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 7449: 7393: 7378: 7335: 7324: 7202: 7119: 7080: 6700: 6609: 6572: 6514: 6492: 6409: 6387:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Magnetic_sail&diff=prev&oldid=1182109245

6245:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about

6205: 5983: 5959: 5912: 5888: 4940: 4827: 4586: 4543:

This reference would not have wasted so much time if the originator had done their job.

4269: 3984: 3911: 3867: 3566: 2998: 2681: 2337: 2184: 2112: 1900: 1396: 1136: 1090: 1014: 890: 834: 617: 597: 441: 351: 222: 105: 73: 6581:

I will replace uses of px to upright. I repeat, feel free to enlarge images as needed.

6249:. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant 4680:

of the webpage. It also appears in and alongside the logo at the top left of the page.

1789:

article. The changes you made have improved the appearance of the article. Thank you,

7305: 7268: 7162: 7114:

I recommend that you have a look at a discussion about the issue of ref styles here:

6726: 6436: 6426:

Remember these are "thumbnails' and a larger image is accessed by clicking the image.

6371: 5118: 4970: 4852: 4748: 4604: 4578: 4273: 4220: 4205: 4107: 4078: 4036: 3854: 3772: 3748: 3684: 3601: 3521: 3433: 3356: 3074: 3015: 2946: 2937:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2726: 2505: 2445: 2441: 2434: 2424: 2341: 2102: 1904: 1632: 1593: 1530: 1505: 1400: 1140: 1018: 979: 970:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

919: 886: 764: 704: 695: 686:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

491: 445: 401: 355: 7255: 3902:

Thanks. If you'd like to read about linking a particular version of an article, see

875:, and I just wanted to give you a heads up. You're changing the citation method to 7619: 7579: 7157:

I realize that chapter cites are a kind of hybrid. Their use should be included in

7058:

We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the

6775: 6740: 6331: 6291: 6283:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ 6246: 5417:

Inline citing works well for web sources. They are often unauthored and/or undated.

5088: 5052: 5019: 4984: 4573: 4186: 4155: 4120: 3404: 3369: 3090:

and that is the way I see Harvard cite problems like Harv errors and Harv warnings.

2904: 2841: 2747: 2693: 2553: 2518: 2479: 2156: 1816: 1812: 1794: 1539: 1340: 1320: 1295: 1271: 1245: 872: 773: 630: 172: 131: 16: 7249:

appears to be a promotion for Plantlife. Has a single primary source as reference.

6875: 6221: 5585: 5188: 5154: 5077: 4509: 4453: 4291: 4263: 3472: 3457: 3271: 3224: 3209: 3208:

Changed the Vadakan to url-status=usurped - learned something new today. Thanks,

3195: 3145: 3130: 3106: 3093: 3023: 2468: 2383: 2174: 2146: 2080: 2059: 1946: 1748: 1686: 1641: 1442: 1182: 1101: 1060: 827: 725: 638: 574: 554:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 481: 391: 315: 304: 284:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 209: 189:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 7498: 7254:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

2126:. (There are several other methods. It would not be Knowledge if there weren't.) 7742: 7728: 7713: 7709: 7705: 7699: 7678: 7529: 7460: 7423: 7405: 7347: 7187: 7173: 7013: 6942: 6848: 6752: 6681: 6651: 6621:

140px - upright=.65 (The image needs to be excessively tall for me to use this)

6584: 6543: 6445: 6305: 6275: 6153: 6082: 6007: 5936: 5865: 5794: 5723: 5654: 5603: 5589: 5554: 5498:

the article is not flagged for missing source cites. It could just be laziness.

5490: 5468: 5449: 5397: 5329: 5254: 5183:

Thanks alot for doing it. It’s a very meticulous process and that why I admire

5170: 5130: 5063: 5042: 4996: 4924: 4879:

I don't disagree that the "website should be included". My cite had a website.

4804: 4708: 4551: 4494: 4406: 4362: 4313: 4297: 4250: 4132: 4060: 3936: 3885: 3831: 3688: 3664: 3542: 3445: 3441: 3381: 3242: 3151: 3112: 3058: 3043: 2908: 2879: 2805: 2795: 2781: 2766: 2742:

I use Autowikibrowser for repetitive task, what needs to be changed about etal?

2703: 2689: 2530: 2389: 2293: 2289: 2259: 2245: 2229:{{sfn|Ibidem|p=195}}, {{sfn|Scott|1992|pp=50–53, notes 24 and 25 on pp. 62–63}} 2009: 1952: 1740: 1551: 1448: 1326: 1277: 1188: 1066: 841: 785: 661: 607: 7677: