 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:MarnetteD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
But it only takes one. Carptrash (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Especially if I forget to duck Carptrash :-) Thanks for stopping by! MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
[Bishzilla is so pleased with this userbox that she posts the whole thing.] bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 21:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC).
- I love it Bishzilla!!! Thanks for creating it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
... by deleting legitimate tags.
Thank you in advance, 205.189.94.13 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Three different editors have asked you to place the tags at the top of the article. The instructions here Wikipedia:Bare URLs#Helping to prevent future link rot say the same thing. Try it - you will find it to be quite easy to do. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Michael,
Trust all is well with you. You may like to take a view on this afternoon's Love Actually revision history.
Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Gareth Griffith-Jones. I'm pretty sure we went through this a couple years ago on that article. I'm afraid that, between WP:ENGVAR and the Oxford comma rules etc, I get discombobulated over which use of those little squiggles is correct for that article. You might try asking at WP:VPP or another MOS notice board. Sorry I wasn't of more help :-( MarnetteD|Talk 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks M for replying so promptly. The IP seems unpleasant and I am going to leave it ... coz life's too short Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah rats G that video is blocked over here :-( I'm going to go search and see if I can find it in another streaming venue. The sentiments are absolutely correct though!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Messed up my ping so here it is again G. MarnetteD|Talk 17:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It is very funny. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion alluded to at 17:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC) included a comment of mine that contained the link who gives a fuck? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Redrose64. I am always grateful for your help and your memory. Mine isn't what it was and it seems susceptible to some sort of time distortion. I thought that conversation was a year or two ago and it turns out it was four. Oof where does the time go. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- That video was not the only block to be served last night. Best wishes to you both! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, The edits from different IP's from 16th January to 17th January were unsourced and vandalism and i'm sorry that i reverted them with your edit. I'll manually change it. Sun eye 1 (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message Suneye1. That kind of things happen to all of us. Thanks also for your vigilance in fighting vandalism. MarnetteD|Talk 08:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Rather, Derek Fowlds has passed :( ——SN54129 11:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Very sad news Serial Number 54129. Did you see Die Kinder? More villainous than anything else that I saw him in. RIP Derek. MarnetteD|Talk 13:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's a blast from the past! I saw that when it was on—crappy black and white box in student digs!—and it was class. Haven't seen it since, something to be remedied very shortly! Thanks for the reminder—and I'd forgotten DF was in it being a bad guy. Gotta be worth it just for that :) ——SN54129 14:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Marnette, thanks for letting me know re:ZhaoFeng Li. I clicked through to the link you provided and posed the question there to see if anyone knows when reFill will be back up and running. Do you know of an identical tool? I'd like to avoid the ire of other editors but have no choice, in the meantime, to create articles that have bare references. I was relying on reFill to help me, but now that it's broken, I simply have no other recourse than to leave bare references places. --Caterpillar84 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Caterpillar84. The other tool I use is Reflinks. It is quite a bit different from Refill but if you go slow you'll get used to it. Its biggest drawback is it will only adapt 21 refs at a time so if an article has more than that you have to keep running it. A plus is that it does mark some dead links. OTOH there are a some to many refs (especially PDFs) that it can't fix and you have to do those manually. I do hope you get a response to your question and that Refill gets back to fixing those pesky bare urls. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
For ReFill efforts, as always. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:6DF7:13ED:43C6:B67D (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome IP :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It is nice to have such reliable and consistently expert colleagues here. Would that I could attract such high quality to the real work. Cheers, "Ip". 2601:246:C700:19D:50C8:642F:588A:5016 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Must disagree about the billing order. I assume you’re referencing the wiki instruction ‘All names should be referred to as credited…’, though I would guess that this refers to the official designation (e.g. James Stewart, not Jimmy Stewart).
On this poster, the star’s name is listed at the end. But it is not meant to place him lower in importance than all the others; that would be quite illogical. It’s clearly meant to be a climactic effect (and rather an odd one; I can’t remember seeing any other examples of it without a bigger type-size.) Valetude (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- You need to take this up at THE Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film if you want to change the consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Actually this Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film is probably the better venue. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- What do you both think about my edit here? Regards to both, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- That’s fine as far as it goes, Gareth. But it was the infoxbox I was concerned about. And Marnette - I have no quarrel with the consensus; it was the interpretation of it that I was questioning. Valetude (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good Gareth. I am not interpreting anything V. I am following the policy and guidelines as set out in the documentation at Template:Infobox film. That is the consensus that would need changing. That consensus was set more than a decade ago and has been discussed again a time or two in the years since. MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello MarenetteD, I am trying to update the "In Pop Culture" section of Nosferatu. Can you show me what you would prefer me to say instead of deleting it now? Thank you. "* In 2018, SLOT Art Festival, Lubiąż Abbey Poland, commissioned composer Philip Shorey to write an experimental film score with industrial music, and a full orchestra for along side live screenings of the film. It has since performed a number of times under the moniker Curse of the Vampire Orchestra around the world.[1][2]"
- a) You need to place this on the talk page for the article b) Please read WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:COI before doing that. MarnetteD|Talk 23:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
...to block these IP/mobile editors from doing more vandalism? See this and this. Cheers, thanks. 2601:246:C700:19D:35A4:AF69:49D6:B1EB (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- If the vandalism is ongoing then the answer is yes. If it has stopped then it might be if the ip is static but isn't if they are hopping around. These are just my thoughts - others might have different feelings. MarnetteD|Talk 03:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you use reFill. This is a useful tool but sometimes introduces errors, most frequently inserting the unsupported parameter "|deadurl=y" instead of "|url-status=dead", such as here. I would ask you to preview your edits and resolve any issues before submitting. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've had the same problem and I'm not sure when it started happening. I know one is supposed to always check before submitting. But the whole advantage of such tools is that one gets used to them being reliable and doesn't see any indication, at the tool page, when they start to fail. Maybe it's easier just to switch to a different tool altogether, at least until reFill can be fixed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- The problem started in October last year when deadurl= was depreciated in favour of url-status=. Subsequently dead-url= has become unsupported. An issue report for reFill has been filled on Github, but the tool doesn't seem to have much support at the moment. I'm not aware of any similar tool that could be used. Webreflinks hasn't been updated since 2017 so would presumably introduce the same errors. --John B123 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know John B123 and for your post as well Martinevans123. I do preview my edits J but I was not aware of the specifics you mention so I will be keeping an eye out for this in the future. Refill was recently taken over by cyberpower678 so you might post on their talk page to see if there is anything they can do. While Reflinks hasn't been update as you say J it does seem to go through some kind of maintenance at times but I have no idea how to track down how or why that is happening. Best regards to you both and I hope you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey MarnetteD, another question regarding your use of reFill. Regarding your edit here that did {{cite web|author=Bayerische Staatsoper |url=https://www.staatsoper.de/biographien/detail-seite/studer-cheryl.html |title=Studer Cheryl | Bayerische Staatsoper |language={{de icon}} |publisher=Staatsoper.de |date=1970-01-01 |accessdate=2020-02-04}}</ref>, I've never used this tool so wanted to know if you manually added |language={{de icon}} or if the tool did that? --Gonnym (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Gonnym. The language field was added by the refill program. As I think back (though my memory could be faulty) the old refill program did not add those language templates. They must have been part of last years upgrade to Refill 2. There have been a few questions about that new program at the WP:VPT but I don't remember ever seeing an answer about what editor, or group of editors, worked on it. As I mentioned above cyberpower678 has taken over the running of Refill 2 so if you have any specific questions or concerns you could ask them but, since the change did occur before C started running things, they might have to do some research before an answer can be given. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 08:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- The edit summary for that edit says that it used Reflinks, not reFill. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that Jonesey95. All I can say is D'oh Gonnym and apologies for not noticing that when I replied Gonnym. I have no idea who is running reflinks so the only place I can think of to try and get things fixed is WP:VPT but the last few threads about that program haven't been satisfactorily answered. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've just seen your posts on C's talk page so I am glad you are both on top of things. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
...with extensive enough need that an experienced hand like yours might be a help. Robert A. Harris. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:B1B4:8009:201F:381E (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done. It is helpful if you don't put the bareurl tag inside a multiple issue template. The link that allows access to refill disappears if it is in the multiple issues tag and leads to extra work for those of us who fix the bare urls. Any help you can give will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just saw this and will comply. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:49BF:AECD:6AA6:2E34 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Are Scottish Widows Investment Partnership inline references correctly updated after you cleaned up the URLs? I thought that dead URLs were supposed to be left in the article, but www.swip.com was obliterated there.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Dthomsen8. You will want to check with Verbcatcher on what is going on. AFAIK replacing dead urls with working ones is okay as long as they support the items in the article. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, you answered my question quite clearly. No need for me to go further.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome Dthomsen8. Have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I don't think 129.174.182.62 is Nsmutte, just some user whose beliefs are at the outer fringe of right-wing (American) Christianity. If it is a LTA, I'd say it's more likely Jacobkennedy, but it's probable just some random disgruntled person. --bonadea contributions talk 07:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update Bonadea. When they edited your name into an article it set the bells ringing in my memory. I appreciate your insight and all you do here at the 'pedia. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 07:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Good day. I have a question about citing sources & bare URLs. Is there an automatic way to do the citation or I have to fill each parameter of the template manually? Bionic (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Bionic. There are a few programs that you can run to format bare urls. The ones I use the most are User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill and reflinks. Occasionally I also use Citer. They all have their pluses and minuses and sometimes the reference they create needs tweaking. You will get used to the differences the more you work with them. However, there are some bare urls that can't be formatted by any of them. Those you will have to do manually. As questions come up you can ask for input at the WP:VPT. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Bionic (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe I confronted you about this before, but please stop stalking all of the edits I make. Why can't you attack other users who create "Notable Works" and "Known For" lists? Why are they a thing if they "violate the rules"?. It makes no sense. The moment I edit one of these lists, you remove the whole thing. This happened with Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, Joel Schumacher, Stephen Frears, Stephen Goldblatt, John G. Avildsen, and several others. You only do this with me when I edit those lists. I don't appreciate it at all. Please stop.
Jgwilliams873 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have told you before the filmproject rejected those sections over a decade ago. They are inherently WP:POV and do not belong where you place them. You have constantly igonered previous posts on your talk -page and the edit summaries which is WP:DISRUPTIVE. You are free to start a thread at the talkpage for the project to try and change the WP:CONSENSUS. MarnetteD|Talk 04:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- That still doesn't explain why you only wait until I have edited those lists. Why don't you just go looking through every film-related biography, and remove them yourself? You deliberately stalk the edits I make. Also, if they are "disruptive" and "POV", how come they can still be added? Jgwilliams873 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher): Judging by the comments and admin blocks on your Talk page you have nothing to complain about. Your history at Wikipedia is absolutely dreadful; with unsourced content, edit warring etc. MarnetteD is a highly experienced editor, quite how they can "only wait until I have edited those lists" is beyond me. The reason they can "still be added" is because editors cannot know what you add until it is published. With all respect, I suggest you stop now, or face a longer ban. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- You have summed things up quite well David J Johnson. I remove them from director and actor articles when I find them per the current WP:CONSENSUS. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said, you are stalking my edits. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- That would be because you continue to edit against WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that you need to follow while you edit here. The fact that you continue to ignore them indicates a WP:CIR situation. MarnetteD|Talk 01:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you removed the info in the |home_town= attribute from the infobox on Dotun Adebayo. I added this becasue I saw the article was included in Category:People from Tottenham and that he attended primary school in Tottenham, but you're right I forgot to check it was properly sourced. You may want to consider removing the article from that category, and/or reviewing the categorisation of this article more generally. I have added {{BLP sources}} to the article for now. DrFrench (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
WRT to this: I encourage you to check out the history of the target article. (Hopefully it will be deleted soon, as no good will come of it continuing to exist.) --JBL (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I had already checked out the situation JBL. The entry meets WP:MOSDAB at this moment - if it gets deleted (and I too hope that happens) then removal is proper. One thing to note DAB pages with only two entries are often deleted and replaced with hatnotes in the two articles. There is flexibility regarding this so I would defer to what you think is best when the time comes. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ah nuts. I messed up the ping JBL. MarnetteD|Talk 20:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. It's fine, I was hoping to quietly disappear this via IAR but the world will survive if it's up for a week. (The intentionally misleading description of the target is a problem if it survives.)
- While I often enjoy holding strong opinions on inconsequential matters, the question of disambiguation versus hatnotes is not one that gets me excited -- I would not personally try to delete the disambig page, and I also would not object if someone else did. All the best, JBL (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the followup JBL. That all makes sense. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please notice that you were wrong in both cases when adding article titles to the Rabbeinu Tam article. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I just go with what the program generates. Thanks for fixing them. MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Well, then don't use the tool. Please keep in mind that editors are responsible for the way they use tools. Debresser (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Interestingly I prefer Kinky Boots to bossy boots. MarnetteD|Talk 10:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
...as always, for your attention to quality and detail. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:49BF:AECD:6AA6:2E34 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words as well as the message in the thread above. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Attempt with Refile 2 failed, Error.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Dthomsen8. Looks like things are okay now. If you get stuck on the "pending" screen with refill2 just hit ctrl+f5 and that usually gets things going. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, the secret key to go on!−−Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- You got it Dthomsen8. Not today though as refill has been down for maintenance so nothing could get it going. Hopefully things will be back to normal soon :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This hoax about non-existent film has been deleted under title The Penguin Insuperable before. It is just made up fantasy by some brazilian kid. If you think it exists, then the burden of proof is on you, not on anon IP who was (correctly) challenging unsourced material. jni(talk)(delete) 10:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update jni. I got all twisted around on this while dealing with several thingas yesterday. My apologies to you and the IP. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I tried the link I have, for an article today, and the tool (a) initiated something called reFillα, showing a new screen that I have not seen, and (b) then hung up at "waiting for..." screen without taking any action. Perhaps it is my browser-OS combination, but it appears to me that something on the back end has changed. Will look here for RSVP. (Was trying to get Ann Voskamp and Roger Deakins cleanups moving again.) Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:FC3D:14F:D66A:29FA (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I see Voscamp was done, at least in part, if not fully, by you. Thank you. By the way, still the 29th here, and so I feel as if I am speaking into a distant future. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:FC3D:14F:D66A:29FA (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. The screen you saw was for refill2 which is an upgrade of refill. Unfortunately, it has been down since Thursday and that is for all editors not just you :) You used to be able to hit ctrl+f5 while it was on the pending page and that would jog into working but even that does not get things going at the moment. I've taken care of the two you linked to. If you want you can try refill It will get some of the refs and will even mark some dead links with the proper tag which is a plus over refill. It's drawback is it can only work on 21 refs in a run. So if an article has 22 or more that need formatting you have to run it again. Citer is another tool. Sadly it only works on one ref at a time so save it for last. As a long time fan of Dr Who I know all about the timey-wimey wibbly-wobbly :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've been having problems with it since Tuesday. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- People have posted at the WP:VPT and we've been told that it is being worked on but the specifics seem to elude everyone :( MarnetteD|Talk 07:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah I just noticed the "a" you mentioned IP. Maybe a third refill is on the horizon. I just hope it isn't too distant of a horizon :) MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for good work. Koreangauteng (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
- Thank you Koreangauteng. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 03:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
What is this all about??? I won't feed the troll, no worries. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Mr.choppers. Someone has been spamming editor talk pages for months now about that article. I have one somewhere in my archives. I AGF'd and recommended where they could get help but they just kept posting the same request on numerous talk page. They've created several socks. The will disappear for a bit and then come back with full force. If they hit your page again feel free to remove it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I see. I think I have encountered similar fools earlier. I have a hard time imagining what their purpose is... Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 |
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| This barnstar is awarded to you for your dedication in fighting vandalism by Flopmn on users talk pages. Autarch (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
- Thank you Autarch. I hope you have a pleasant week! MarnetteD|Talk 05:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hallo, you used the edit summary "format" in this edit, but what you did was to replace bare URLs by the title of each source. The reader would have been better served if you had just left those bare URLs. A reference or an external link/further reading should include enough information to show the reader what they are being offered. I've upgraded those links now - I was away for a few days with no access to my computer, and fixing references on a phone is just too much like hard work, or I'd have fixed them myself when moving the draft from my sandbox to mainspace (in response to a conversation in the conference bar where Felpersham Uni was mentioned). Please leave bare URLs bare, if your alternative is only to convert them to an uninformative title. Thanks. PamD 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Those are external links in a further reading section not references and I am well aware of the difference between the two. Just so you know those were formatted by refill 2 so if you don't like them being formatted that way please don't place a bare url tag on them as you did here. Refill2 has been used by several editors to format those and other ELs so you will also need to take it up with the designers of that program if you want them formatted in a different manner. Now that may change as refilla takes over from refill2 but there won't be any way to know that until we use that program. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
 |
The 2019 Cure Award |
| In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med 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 thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with the vandalism on my talk page. Bidgee (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome Bidgee. I was glad to help. MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
MarnettD, hi. I see that you did a wholesale revert of my rewrite of the Dr. Zhivago (film) plot summary, with the notation that the previous version is more succinct, which is true. With respect, might I ask: Did you compare the two versions other than for length? (I’m forced to suspect that the answer is “no”, since, if I’m not mistaken, your revert followed my edit by exactly two minutes.) The earlier version is indeed shorter. It is also utterly unacceptable in terms of the level of English. Its style is in many places unencyclopedic, ungrammatical, shows poor usage, etc. I feel sure that any experienced editor would agree with this assessment, which I would be happy to submit to an appropriate neutral third party for evaluation. The most charitable explanation I can think of is that it was written by a non-native English speaker. It also contains numerous errors of fact, unclear explanations, and unsupported inferences, and it leaves out important plot elements, while elaborating on minor ones.
I do not wish to do anything improper, but the previous version cannot be left as-is, under any circumstances. Perhaps the most constructive way forward would be the following? First, restore the version that I wrote and you reverted, and take the time to read it carefully. Then, if you feel it is too long, see if you can edit it for length. Alternatively, give me your maximum word count, and I will see if reducing it to that length seems feasible at all. I trust that with good will on both sides, we can come to a mutually satisfactory solution. Davidhof (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I left a link WP:FILMPLOT. Yes I compared the two versions and yours was overly detailed with things that may be important to you but aren't to other readers. The previous version has been there for years as-is. Please do not restore your lengthy version as it violates the guidelines. You can work on a new version in a sandbox. MarnetteD|Talk 21:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Bath School disaster is my first WP:FAC nom. I've been working on it for ages and don't want the FAC to possibly die on the vine (so far one editor has weighed in - with Support). Your thoughts/a review would be welcomed on its FAC page. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I can see why you use the tagline 'Ignore All Rules', since you are not supposed to delete other editors' comments on talk pages in that way. Nor are you supposed to apply the 'unsourced' rule in a capricious manner like that. Obsessive Wikiwarriors with auto-alerts and nothing better to do who go round insta-reverting for reasons known only to themselves are... not a good thing. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Are you talking about this? CassiantoTalk 20:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Cassianto it looks like this Talk:Waterloo (1970 film)#Wikiwarrior is the axe that they are grinding. The lack of WP:AGF and the level of personal attacks incline me to ignore them but I will say this - a) the film is not a documentary and b) I have had more than one person that I recommended it to comment on how close it was to the recorded info. That does bring up the thought that it may have been a bit more accurate in 1970 than it is after 50 years of additional research. MarnetteD|Talk 21:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. You were completely right to revert them. I've been doing that a lot lately, removing unsourced information on various articles; information that has been there for some time. I've yet to be reverted. CassiantoTalk 21:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bravo, both of you. May you long continue the bold sorts of edits that I dare not. (For want of a... [login], the kingdom was lost.) Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:503C:C120:7A2:6537 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure of the actual rules governing this, but the article Kudlik opens without clear reference or bolding of the title word. Instead it proceeds to present "qulliq" in bold. This I understand is how the Inuit render the title concept in English, and is how I came to find the article in the first place (because search of "qulliq" in WP redirects to the Kudlik article). It seems to me some change is in order, depending on the rules that govern—either that Kudlik be elevated in the text, and made in bold, so that the reader understands the relationship of the article-title to the article, immediately, or that the article be renamed according to the term actually used by the people most interested in the article. I will paste this same message onto the Talk page—but, not knowing the rules, I will not know what to suggest there. I tried to think of an earnest and capable editor who might make the needed suggestion there (or if otherwise simple, take an immediate action), and you came to mind. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:19D:503C:C120:7A2:6537 (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your question. Your points are well taken. AFAIK you are correct that Kudlik needs to be prominent in the first sentence but I am not familiar enough with that sort of article to know what part of the MOS you would use to justify the change. Along with a post on the articles talk page you could try asking at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America though I don't know how active that project is at the moment. You could also ask at the WP:RD/L to see if anyone there has any ideas. Good luck. MarnetteD|Talk 03:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- You did make a good choice in asking CBW. You might also try NorthBySouthBaranof. MarnetteD|Talk 04:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello was wondering if you could provide some insight into your notes on the article The Green Rush, if you have a moment. I'm a bit new to article creation. Thanks! Jzesbaugh (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Jzesbaugh. There are several ways to format refs. The way you are doing it does meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Types of citation. You are being very thorough and are including all the information anyone would need to find the same items at a webarchive site should those links ever be discontinued. This shows how they look when done well and yours are close to that. Now there are ways to put the refs into specific templates (Wikipedia:Citation templates#Examples) and some people prefer those. Refill and Reflinks are tools that can do that. The thing is the url has to be completely bare for them to work. In other words you would have to strip away everything that you have already added to each reference and just leave the bare url. I can add that running either tool would likely put less info into the cite web templates then you have done manually. The only way to switch to a cite template would be for you to do them one at a time. I should add that your article looks good but there are many sections without a reference and you will want to add those as you go. Best regards and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 03:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I think I'll just learn the conventions and fix them manually. I appreciate the time and insight. Jzesbaugh (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome Jzesbaugh. Happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
