 | A fact from Master MZ appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 February 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
References edit
Reusing references which are identical is commonplace across all of Wikipedia. To make a wholesale revert of all the changes I have made is really the pointy thing here, which is a real shame. The highlight: at least rollback wasn't abused on this occasion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Commonplace or not, it is still a breach of WP:CITEVAR, and hinders the addition of further references. Unfortunately, all too many editors just refuse to accept what CITEVAR says, and follow it. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all, I'll be clearing up the other references as soon as your interpretation of CITEVAR is clarified per community norms. Reintroducing all the other errors is particularly pointy and will be discussed in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Commonplace or not, it is still a breach of WP:CITEVAR, and hinders the addition of further references. Unfortunately, all too many editors just refuse to accept what CITEVAR says, and follow it. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Now another editor joins in with a complete undo of MOS edits. Without discussion, or edit summary. What is all this about? Reusing references isn't anything to do with CITEVAR, this is about reusing identical references multiple times across an article. Blanket undoing this with dozens of other improvements is really rather pointed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Use of hash edit
Is there a reason behind the inconsistent usage of the hash in this article? Sometimes it has a space after it, sometimes not. Is there a difference? And what means this isn't in violation of MOS:HASH? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is very trivial stuff, and rather undermines the purity of your intent here. Are we now edit warring over gnomic preferences. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not edit warring here Ceoil, not me. You've turned up out of nowhere and started claiming DENY, which is completely irrelevant and pointed. Your revert is inappropriate, the reuse of refs has nothing to do with CITEVAR at all. And if you think gnoming is trivial and undermining, think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Short answer, no. The funny appearance of the list was accidental too. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)