User talk:Anomalocaris/Archive 2021

editing talk page

Hi, just wondering how did you even find my talk page? I assumed this would be a bot account. Not that I mind your edit, although the dumb formatting was intentional. sorry to crowd your talk page, I'll delete this section once you respond, since it's insignificant. Violarulez (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Violarulez: it was listed at Lint errors: Unclosed quote in heading. Headings go into the table of contents, and pages with this error have bad markup in the table of contents, which leaks into the entire article, causing the entire article to display in italics or bold. You've left your mark on my talk page, and that is OK. Just leave it. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Blame

Hi there. You recently spotted and corrected a typo I made, which is excellent, and thank you on behalf of Wikipedia for the correction. But you mentioned explicitly when and by whom it was introduced, and that feels unnecessary and hurtful, and frankly I feel annoyed about it. What was the point of 1) even finding that out, and 2) mentioning that openly? We are creating Wikipedia as a team, and it really doesn't matter who makes mistakes or typos. We just correct them when we see them, and that's it. It feels odd and hurtful to have someone point at you and blame you for typos that everybody can make and which are clearly not in any way deliberate or meant to cause disturbance.

In this case it was even one simple typo; the way I write is to copy essential words instead of writing them, so that's likely why it was present four times, as I would never write Denominator wrong four times; I do know how to both pronounce and spell it. It could also be that I was copying the whole thing (or the one word) from the documentation and didn't notice the typo(s); I don't remember now three years later.

In any case: Please just correct any errors you find here on Wikipedia, but don't point out who made them, as if to blame them or put them on display. Be respectful. Thank you.

PS: Feel free to delete this comment after reading it (and potentially replying and letting our conversation finish), as it is not my intention to put you on display either; there is just no way (that I know of) to write a private message on Wikipedia. --Jhertel (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Jhertel: Sorry. When I find eyebrow-raising errors, I often attempt to find out how long they've been there. To me, the "demon" just jumps out, and I was perplexed at how the demon has stayed for almost three years with nobody fixing it. In edit summaries, I occasionally mention the user who introduced an error, but usually only for vandalism. I agree, I shouldn't have mentioned you. But as long as we're having this conversation, how did you find out? Do you get a notification if your name is mentioned in an edit summary? By the way, I usually preserve my talk page and eventually archive everything, but we can agree to erase this thread if you want. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

About the article

Hello, how can I remove my article about Kaan Evkaya from the draft and get it approved? Sanalkoala (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanalkoala: I'm not part of the approval team, so I can't make that happen. Draft:Kaan Evkaya has only one reference, IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source, since it, like Wikipedia, is crowd-sourced. Please find some sources such as newspapers and magazines (and their websites) to support and expand the article. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for helping fix my talk page! Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 22:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The dude literally saved all of us. 😁 Soutache (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Regex

I see you are doing tedious tasks like this by hand. Given that the category has some 35 thousand entries, you might want to consider using AWB (or JWB) and a Regex for such replacements. A very basic version of this could be:

(\{\{(?:US[$D]|CAD|GBP|EURO?|INR) *\| *[0-9,.]*)(?:\s| |\{\{nbsp\}\})([^\}\|]*)([^\}]*\}\}) with replacement $1$3{{nbsp}}$2

This will by no means cover all cases (e.g. I only added a few currencies, there might be additional arguments before the actual number, etc.), but likely the largest chunk. This will take a lot of work off manual edits and fixes NBSP usage per MOS:NUMERAL. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 23:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

IceWelder: Thanks. This journey began with my comment at Template talk:BDTConvert, which has been ignored for two weeks, and that led me to curiosity about what else is in Category:Pages with non-numeric formatnum arguments, so I'm just poking around a bit to see what sorts of markup is putting pages in this category. I don't intend to fix the whole category one page at at a time. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI: I worked on this category for a while when it was first created back in September 2020, knocking the population down from 150K to about 30K by fixing some underlying templates, but then I lost momentum when it was unclear whether the tracking category was eventually going to lead to an actual change in the way articles were displayed. So far, it hasn't. Sometimes the WMF begins projects like this, but then, as in the case of Category:Pages using ISBN magic links, they fail to follow through with a software change that allows the project to end. I find that disheartening, because the gnome work to clean out the category never ends, and has no real benefit. YMMV. Also see this thread at WP:Bot requests, where the creation of a more robust "formatnum"-equivalent template is discussed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95: This is all wrongheaded. If we have a template that displays a currency symbol, it could be written take no argument at all and just display the currency symbol. Once it is going to take an argument, it ought to be capable of accepting 1 or 1 million equally well. What is the point of having display templates? One of the reasons we have {{cite journal}} is to have an inventory of journals that are cited with it. One of the reasons to have {{US$}} is to have an inventory of amounts of money that are converted, and it would be of interest if some article happens to have, say, {{US$|1.32 trillion}}. Forcing part of the argument out of the template because the template was written wrong and can't separate the number from the words is just nuts. (I say this as someone who has never written a formatting template and has no idea how difficult this is.) As to your point about unending gnome work, I've made gentle proposals that there should be warnings when a user tries to save an edit with new lint errors, at least the most severe ones. Why is it possible to delete the closing |} from a valid table and not get even a warning? But nothing happens. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User page table fixes

Hello, Anomalocaris. My first thought when I saw your edit here was, "are you insane"? But that's hardly a polite first question to ask a stranger, so let me rephrase: wouldn't you agree that that huge User:Ilikeriri#My watched TV series table should just be deleted, rather than have its wikicode corrected? The only activity this user has on Wikipedia anymore (since May 2018!) is to update their log here of shows they've watched.

I don't know how or where to recommend such deletions, or if they're even really disallowed, per e.g., WP:NOTWEBHOST. Do you have any recommendations?

BTW, I see that you do a lot of fixing here; thanks! I hope you've got some sort of automation to assist you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Table inside a description list

In this edit, you refactored my talk page comment. It had the effect of prematurely closing a multilevel description list partway through my comment by inserting a new line inside my post. This is discouraged from an accessibility point-of-view and is the reason why I don't insert a new line before {{talkquote}}. The second part of my post is now at a different level from the first part, an undesirable state of affairs. Your edit summary unbulleted to avoid Multiline table in list lint error and indent leak to end of page misses the point that a description list is not bulleted, but the issue is the same. You are implying that placing the table element inside a dd element is invalid html5, but I can't find any such prohibition at https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-author-20110809/the-table-element.html#the-table-element. Can you explain a little better what your objection is, please, and perhaps suggest how a talkquote can be embedded inside an indented comment without breaching accessibility? --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RexxS: I found the page at Lint errors: Multiline table in list. I identified the issue that {{talkquote}} causes this lint error when it appears on a line that starts with colon (indent), pound (numbered), or asterisk (bulleted). If you edit the previous version (before my edit) and add something at the bottom, you will see the indent leak, which would continue forever. This explains my edit summary. I hope you agree that this needed a remedy. I have edited the article and restored the indentation another way that doesn't have lint errors or an indent leak. Thank you for bringing this to my attention so I could fix it better.

Sometimes in the course of lint cleanup on talk pages, I find this lint error caused by an indented comment something like, "What do you think of this navigation template?" followed by the indented navigation template and the indent leak to end of page. Since navigation templates are usually full-width, unindenting the navigation template seems harmless. Nobody has ever complained about it. In this case, I agree that the templates really should be indented. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I see the effect but that's a bug in the wikiparser, not in the underlying html. It needs a phabricator ticket. If you paste

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
	<title>Test</title>
</head>
<body>
	<dl>
		<dt>description term</dt>
		<dd>description definition</dd>
		<dd>
			<table>
				<tr>
					<td>cell 1</td>
					<td>cell 2</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td>cell 3</td>
					<td>cell 4</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
		</dd>
	</dl>
</body>
</html>

into the W3C html validator at https://validator.w3.org/nu/#textarea you get "Document checking completed. No errors or warnings to show." The problem with your solution is that a screen reader user is likely to hear something along the lines of "... on that article and editors will see, end list item, end list, end list item, end list ... [seven times]] ... WARNING ...", which really isn't a good experience for them. The table solution is even worse – if you take a moment to examine the html using your browser inspect function, you can see what a mess it is. It think the only solution, pending a fix to the wikiparser (which will never come), is to outdent before starting my comment using {{od}} for neatness and then have my comment stand without any indent. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RexxS: By all means, if you think it best to outdent first, make it so! By all means, if you think there's a need for a phabricator ticket, make it so! Why do you think my revised solution would have the screen reader say "end list item, end list," seven times? All I have is a table with two cells, one of which is just spaces and the other of which holds all of you markup. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You should not be refactoring other editors' posts at talk pages. There was no error in the html my original post produced. If you mistakenly breach WP:TPG because of the incorrect behaviour of the wiki-parser, the onus falls on you to correct your behaviour, and to file a phabricator ticket if you want to avoid making the same mistake again. If you can't use your browser to inspect the html that your change created, I'll post the html source here for you:

<dl><dd>Then I'll spell it out for you. If I decide that editors on an article under COVID-19 sanctions would benefit from an editnotice, I can place &#123;&#123;<a href="/wiki/Template:COVID19_GS_editnotice" title="Template:COVID19 GS editnotice">COVID19 GS editnotice</a>&#125;&#125; on that article and editors will see</dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl></dd></dl>

Now can you see the the seven closing </dd></dl> tags in the middle of my post. Please let me know what screen reader you're using that doesn't announce the end of lists. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RexxS: Thank you for continuing to engage on this. Let's break down some issues here:

• Refactoring: Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages has a "legitimate" list that includes "Fixing technical matters of wikitext formatting, tables, templates, broken links, and the like". An indent leak to the end of page is a technical matter of formatting. Fixing indent leaks also encouraged by Wikipedia:Linter: "If a user's comment in the middle of the page causes subsequent comments or sections to be indented wrong, or be bolded or italicized or in a different font, you should insert the missing end tag, even if the page has 'always' been wrong." (It assumes that the problem was a missing end tag lint error rather than a multiline table in list lint error, but the point is the same.) I have edited thousands talk pages to fix indent leaks and other problems, and there's been hardly a peep, and I'm not the only one.
• Talk page guidelines: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments says: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are: ... Fixing layout errors: This could include ... correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, ..." I hope you agree that, at least in terms of display appearance, my edit was within talk page guidelines.
• Error in the HTML and phabricator ticket: Thank you for being interested in this problem. I was focusing on lint errors, not HTML issues. I lack expertise in the issue you have identified, and even if I fully understood it, I don't know how to file a phabricator ticket. You, on the other hand, have expertise and you have an understanding that Wikipedia is doing something wrong, so if you want a phabricator ticket to get filed, make it so!
• Seeing HTML: With your explanation, I now understand that what I needed to do was to use the "View source" feature in my browser, and I do see the markup you have indicated. I do not use screen readers. If my computer accidentally turned on a screen reader I would find it very annoying and frustrating I would need to turn it off with great urgency. I can't interact with my computer in this way.
• Fixing the page under discussion: You wrote before, "It think the only solution, pending a fix to the wikiparser (which will never come), is to outdent before starting my comment using {{od}} for neatness and then have my comment stand without any indent." Again, I encourage you to do exactly that.
• Solving multiline table in list lint errors going forward: Indent leaks are not acceptable. I have on rare occasions preserved a user's indentation with a two-cell table. I am not sure if I will use this method in the future. I assume that the great majority of Wikipedia interact with Wikipedia by seeing the screen, and for them, all that matters is the display. Thanks to you, I understand that for users who interact with Wikipedia with a screen reader, it's weird to close the indenting list before the lint-causing content. But what's the alternative? Which leads me to my next point:
• Indenting and screen readers: From the point of view of a Wikipedia editor, a line beginning with colon means "indent". The details of the implementation are not important, all that matters is the display. But users who use a screen reader don't hear "paragraph indent." They hear gobbledygook about lists and list items, which is semantically, to me anyway, completely different from "paragraph indent". So I think that screen reader users have to learn to deal with some very perverse "markup" that really means "paragraph indent", and if they can deal with that, I'm not sure how much of an additional burden it is to "prematurely" close the indentation and re-indent in another way.

Again, thank you for engaging with me on this. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me to gain a better understanding of the issues involved. I do agree that it is within the spirit of TPG to refactor comments to fix formatting problems, but it needs to be done sensitively, and a fix certainly should not cause other problems to occur.

Before your refactoring there was no visual problem with the page, and none for screen readers.

After your first fix, there was a visual mismatch between indenting of the first part of my comment (at level 7) and the second part of my comment (at level 0). There was also the issue for screen readers of closing seven levels of description lists in the middle of my post. I hope you can understand why I didn't see that as improvement.

After your second fix, the visual mismatch was removed, but the issue for screen readers was actually compounded by the addition of a layout table which was not marked up as presentational.

Whether indent leaks are acceptable or not is a matter for debate, but it is certainly not acceptable to create extra problems in trying to fix it. The simplest line of reasoning is that wiki-markup that represents valid html needs to be accurately translated by the parser. You should have confidence in your ability to report problems via phabricator: you just use your SUL to log in and write your problem. The MediaWiki software development depends on editors willing to report the problems they find.

Although the great majority of visitors interact with Wikipedia by seeing the screen, there is still a significant minority who are visually impaired to the extent that they use screen readers. It is a moral imperative that we don't worsen their experience if we can avoid doing so.

I've refactored my comment back to its original form, but outdented it so that it is all at indent level 0. You can use 'view source' or (depending on your browser) right click on a piece of text and choose a function labelled something like "Inspect" or "Inspect element" to get a far more detailed examination of that particular part of the page. If you do, you'll see that the screen reader will still have seven levels of lists closing, but that it occurs between different posts, which is far less disruptive for them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

RexxS:

• Thank you for solving the problem with Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice#Template restored in a way that works for both visual and audio users of Wikipedia.
• Before my first edit there was a latent visual problem with the page, in that the next comment posted would be indented seven levels. Please don't continue to argue that there wasn't a problem before I came along.
• If I use a two-cell table again to solve an indent leak, I will add role="presentation" to the table declaration. Thank you for drawing this to my attention.
• I don't think you will find much support for the claim that "whether indent leaks are acceptable or not is a matter for debate", especially given the links in my previous comment.
• In fact, it's not up for debate. It's a high priority lint error.
• Lint errors: Multiline table in list links to mw:Help:Lint errors/multiline-html-table-in-list, which acknowledges that something that is expected to work causes an error. It in turn links to mw:Help:Lint errors/pwrap-bug-workaround, which links to a phabricator page, which I believe is about an issue different from the one at work here.
• I have tried to be clear. I'm not going to take this to phabricator. As you say, "The MediaWiki software development depends on editors willing to report the problems they find." Since you are the one who sees and understands the problem of the wiki parser treating valid markup as an indent leak, if a phabricator ticket is going to be created, it is going to be created by you.

—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't presume to tell me what arguments I may make. Nobody looking at that page, either in a browser or with a screen reader would see or hear a problem until you came along. There was a potential problem with the wikiparser being unable to sort out a table inside a description list, but at the point you arrived it was not actually causing any problem.

I'm aware that the linter finds the potential problems and that it is finding something that we expect to work but doesn't. The pwrap-bug-workaround is the only workaround available until the parser-bug is fixed (sometime never).

If you don't want to make a phabricator ticket outlining the problem you found, that's okay. This is a wiki and other editors may do it for you.

The only acceptable solution is to ensure that where any discussion post contains a table, the entire post is fully outdented. --RexxS (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

my lint-unhappy signature deleted per your request

(just notifying you) -- Stillnotelf (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Teaming up to clear out Bogus Image Options in article space?

Are you interested in a short-term project, a few weeks of gnoming, to empty out the 2,000 article space entries in bogus image options? Because of recent software updates, there are new articles trickling in daily, but if we can do about 100 articles per day together, we should be able to get the list (temporarily) to zero in less than a month. I am currently doing 20 to 40 per day, but it would be motivational to know that someone else was working on the list as well. https://fireflytools.toolforge.org/linter/enwiki currently shows the error count at 2,036. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95: I did a few of those. In the past few days I have worked to bring various cells in the Linter errors by namespace table to zero or as close to it as possible. Right now I think the top priority is Table tag to be deleted in the Article space. When those get to zero, I may join you again. —Anomalocaris (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those pesky table tag errors. That cell is frequently at zero; I think there are one or more gnomes who work on the list. I remember clearing it down to zero over two years ago, and since editors are not prevented from saving broken edits, a dozen or more articles per day are added to the list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95: Congratulations on the great work! There are only 5 left, two of which you've marked not to fix, and 3 emanating from Template:Excerpt. I edited COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey ("use correct map syntax in {{Infobox pandemic}}") in the hopes of fixing COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, but it didn't help. I tried using {{image key}}, but that doesn't seem to work inside infoboxes, displaying in one column instead of 2. For the moment I have run out of ideas. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Those last three or four, along with the "-80px" ones that I solved a few hours ago, were too hard for me to figure out when I was doing all of the easy ones. I decided to leave them for a while and work on other stuff, and then maybe come back to them. It's possible that they are not as hard as they look, or that they are false positives, but I just haven't had the energy to dig into any of them yet. No big deal. I see the difference between 3 and 0 articles in a category like this as like the difference between being a pure vegetarian and eating two or three pieces of bacon every few months; no real difference in the grand scheme of things. Three or four is a vast improvement from 17,000 in September of 2018 when I started working on them. Many thanks are also due to NicoV, who created a bot to fix many thousands of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

On further inspection, I believe that the Excerpt-related bogus image option errors are false positives, also described at T279682. It appears that a bug fix has been created and tested for both of these false positive errors. When/If it is deployed, we should be able to zero out that list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like one of the bugs has been fixed, and the Excerpt-related bug has had a patch uploaded, so it may be possible to (temporarily) completely empty the bogus image options category soon! – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Obsolete tags in template space

@Anomalocaris and Jonesey95: over the last two weeks I have been focusing on cleaning up obsolete html tag Lint errors from the template namespace. There are tons of DYK nomination templates containing Linty signatures using <font>...</font> that are drowning the "real" templates. I have tracked and scripted replacements for recurring signatures. You can see them in User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ/common.js. This catches about 90% of signatures in DYK templates. I have been cleaning up 200 DYK templates per day, which would eliminate 500-600 errors. The firefly linter count was at 18.7k when I started, now it is down to 10k. This has reduced the noise and real templates are coming on top of the list. If the three of us can focus on this, it is possible to eliminate obsolete tags from template namespace within the next two weeks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, thank you for doing this! Are you also fixing misnested/missing/stripped tags while you are working on those DYK pages? I worked on errors in DYK pages for a while, but got tired of the endless variety of font tag configurations. Thanks for sticking with it. I also cleared out <tt>...</tt> tags from most of template space. I am skeptical that <font>...</font> and <center>...</center> will ever be deprecated in Wikipedia; if they are, we'll need a big bot to fix the millions of old tags, so I have focused most of my effort elsewhere. Nevertheless, getting those DYK pages fixed will definitely help us see any lingering errors in template space that actually affect transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95: I have been focusing only on obsolete tags since it is faster that way. The other errors are relatively less in number and can be cleaned in another run. Most of what I found in DYK are font and occasionally tt and strike tags.

Yes, font and center tags aren't going to be deprecated anytime soon. There are way too many of them in talk pages. Judging by the recent objections to Monkbot replacing CS1 parameters, the community will not agree to bot replacement of obsolete tags. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like two weeks was a bit optimistic, but we are down from 10K pages to 4K pages since the post above, and there is still plenty of low-hanging fruit. If the category is similar to other Linter categories in template space, there may be a few dozen that we won't be able to fix or should not fix. There is a phab request somewhere that would let us tag template pages with an "Ignore Linter error" template, but I don't think it has gotten any attention. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Till about 10 days ago the count used to drop faster because of a different DYK page format. If we cleared a page with 5 font tags, the count would drop by 5. The pages coming on top of the list now have a different format with signatures within {{if}}. The Linter counts this as one error regardless of number of font tags inside it. So the drop of error count slowed down despite same effort as before. Nevertheless this has been very productive considering that there was 18K errors at this time last month. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk page of Prem Rawat

Hello, why exactly you mean by that (I'm not a expert nether in English and in Wiki process): "unindented to avoid Multiline table in list lint error and indent leak to end of page"

Someone made another comment about a consensus to be made before asking the change, but how? Do you know? Thanks --Faunus (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Faunus: Thank you for asking. As you note, I edited Talk:Prem Rawat with edit summary "{{edit semi-protected}} unindented to avoid Multiline table in list lint error and indent leak to end of page". In the version before my edit, scroll to the bottom of the page. Your comment signed 09:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC) is OK. Then there is the display generated by {{edit semi-protected}}, and after that, everything is indented. That is the "indent leak to end of page". I unindented (removed the colon preceding) {{edit semi-protected}} to fix a Multiline table in list that caused an indent leak to the end of the page. Feel free to ask any further questions you may have. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Anomalocaris Ok, I understand. I thought it was you who close the request but I see it is “ScottishFinnishRadish” who doesn't answer to my question. What do you think? I'm in my right to reopen the request? Thanks for helping me. I'm trying to resolve a really sad situation. --Faunus (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Faunus: I don't want to get involved further with this. I fixed a display error that needed to be fixed. I don't have any views on what the article should actually say. I would recommend continuing to explain on the talk page how you think the article can be made better. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Anomalocaris It was just in case you can help me to understand what means "get the consensus". Not to help me on this page, which is a mess. You seems knowing well how works Wikipedia, better then me, I guess. --Faunus (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects, thank you for respecting my gender identity. It's not much for some people, but for a transgender person like myself, it makes me smile. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

Could you post a feedback on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads page for a wider conversation? No one posted a reply on the "Redirects" talk page. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The Crime in South Africa.

What is your take upon the rapid growth of the Crime rate in South Africa, seeing that some of our Telenovelas/Soapies are actually inspiring criminals to take the mindset of the Soapies and actually carry out the plans orchestrated by the Criminal masterminds in the Soapies... And what do you think the government should do about that ? Soutache (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Soutache: On Wikipedia, the only opinions I have are about Wikipedia and its contents. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You only have opinions about Wikipedia and Wikipedia only ? Soutache (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Soutache: When you reply on a talk page, it is customary to indent your reply with a colon (:), or one more colon than whatever you are replying to. I indented your reply with two colons because it was a reply to my reply indented with one colon.

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. What the government "should" do about something is an example of what Wikipedia is not. However, it is OK for Wikipedia articles to mention what various individuals, political parties, newspapers, etc. have to say about crime and how society and government should respond to it, referenced with reliable sources. That is all I have to say about this. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Anomalocaris: Will you teach me ? I'm kinda new here. Soutache (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jila Hoseini

Hi, I edited Draft:Jila Hoseini and added a section and some sources to it. Please see it and if possible send it to review. ThanksHoseinAshigh (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ha Li Fa

Hi, I edited Draft:Ha Li Fa Please see it and if possible send it to review. ThanksRandallRiver (talk)

Image size

Not sure why you changed the image size on the Sclaveni, Early Slavs, etc. pages? In the process not only you shrank the picture to an absurd size, you also moved the focus of the thumb from a depiction of a Slav to that of a Roman - are you even checking your edits? --E-960 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

E-960: I changed the image size markup to fix a Bogus file options lint error. I assumed my fix would work and didn't check, or didn't notice the problem, which, I agree, is obvious. As you can see, Jonesey95 fixed the lint error in a way that preserved the image size. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of miscarriage of justice cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks  !

Pincheira22 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... on April 1, 2021, I edited User:Pincheira22/sandbox, changing 3 <b/> to <br />. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleting comments on other people's talk pages

transferred from User talk:Serial Number 54129#Deleting comments on other people's talk pages, old content follows:

I am part of the team of Wikipedians working hard to fix and reduce the proliferation of lint errors. I posted my message on User talk:Drmies to encourage that user to take care and avoid making more lint errors. I wrote that message with care, thanking the user for contributing to Wikipedia, describing the problem, and stating that it was fixed, so that the user would know that there is no need to fix it. You deleted my message. Wikipedia allows the owner of a user talk page to delete other people's comments. This right is not extended to third parties, except by a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause. Even if my comment were "Patronising", and even if you were a sysop or bureaucrat, there is still no legitimate cause.

If I have an underdeveloped ability to detect patronizing communications, you can help by detailing the issue for me. But I hope that neither I nor any other user will have to remind you again not to delete other users' messages, except on your own talk page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

SN probably thought your message was intentionally insulting. Starting a post with 'thank you for your contributions' is generally what experienced editors do when warning apparently well-intentioned but clueless newbies about unconstructive editing when we don't want to discourage them. As Drmies isn't inexperienced, your message appeared to be snark. A lot of editors will remove snark from the user talk pages of editors they're friendly with. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

valereee: I hope you are not advising or encouraging the practice of editing other people's talk pages in violation of WP:REFACTOR. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Valereee makes no such statement that I can see? The only observation made is that removal of unconstructive comments is warranted. From your tone above it seems clear that you didn't intend it be so, but at least three other editors (as I'm joining that opinion) considered the post to be unconstructive. I would probably have used the edit summary and link of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars because that's certainly what it looks like. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if editors X & Y have a friendly relationship, it is not uncommon for editor X to remove something they think is insulting from editor Y's talk page. If editor Y objects, they would say so. In fact Drmies does not seem to have objected and removed your message themselves after you had reverted SN's removal. Please if you'd like to continue this let's go to your talk or mine instead of cluttering up SN's with our discussion. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

transferred from User talk:Serial Number 54129#Deleting comments on other people's talk pages, new content follows:

Valereee said that "friendly" third parties sometimes remove content from user talk pages, but did not say that this is a good idea or that Valeree was encouraging it. This raised a strong concern. The individual who posts something has no way of knowing about the user talk page owner's network of friendships. If the individual who posts something sees their message deleted by a third party, all they know is that their message was vandalized by a third party. That is why this practice is prohibited, and why I wrote, "I hope you are not advising or encouraging the practice of editing other people's talk pages in violation of WP:REFACTOR."

Then Chaheel Riens said that Valereee said that removal of unconstructive comments is warranted. Two problems here. First, from the point of view of the individual posting a message, it is presumptively constructive, and the only individual authorized to delete it is the talk page owner. Second, Valeree didn't say that this practice is warranted, Valeree said that some editors do it, leaving open the question of whether Valereee thinks this is a good idea. That's why I responded hoping that Valereee doesn't advise or encourage the practice. Chaheel Riens continued with a mention of "Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars because that's certainly what it looks like", which is strange, because the message I left on User talk:Drmies was written for the occasion, not template-based, and not related to policy violations. Moreover, it wasn't written as a warning, it was written as a constructive suggestion on how to avoid a lint error. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars says, "A personal message tends to work better in these situations [involving more experienced editors]." And that's exactly what I did, I wrote a personal message. Chaheel Riens continued by stating that at least three other editors considered my post to be unconstructive, which has zero relevance here. We don't allow editors to randomly comb through the user talk space looking for unconstructive comments to delete, and we don't allow "best friends" to do it either.

Then Valereee said again that "friendly" third-party editors sometimes do this, allowing for the possibility that the talk page owner might object, but not considering that the individual who posted the message that got deleted doesn't know about the friendship between the third party and the user talk page owner, and almost certainly would consider their message to have been vandalized.

Chaheel Riens and Valereee: Please acknowledge that, except for a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause, only the owner of a user talk page should remove existing comments, and editing must be consistent with WP:REFACTOR. Please promise that you will not advise or encourage third parties to remove comments from user talk pages, or edit comments except within the provisions of WP:REFACTOR, and that you will not do this yourself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Anomalocaris, you've been editing here long enough to realize that there are very few black and white concepts with regard to the day to day operations here. While there are policies and conventions that are virtually carved in stone, talk page curation is not one of them. Also, the removal of your post did not constitute vandalism; please see WP:NOTVAND. Now, it may be that your perception of the situation surrounding talk page curation does not dovetail exactly with consensus. That's really no big deal; I'm sure we all have individual opinions on various policies and conventions. It's important, though, that one does not lose perspective and give a minor difference of opinion more attention than it deserves. Don't let yourself get distracted from the important work that you do here. Tiderolls 14:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tide rolls: You have raised an interesting question: Is deleting a third-party item on a user talk page technically vandalism as defined on Wikipedia? WP:NOTVAND does not list this as an example of "what is not vandalism", which suggests that it is or might be vandalism. WP:TPO says, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed ..." and has a list of examples of appropriately editing others' comments. Not on the list is anything about deleting comments altogether, or anything like "if you think a post is patronizing, insulting, unconstructive, or snarky" or anything like "if you are friendly with the owner of the page". I believe that deleting third party comments on user talk pages is a bad idea, and even if it isn't technically vandalism as defined in Wikipedia, the author of the deleted post is likely to feel that it was vandalism. This point is undisputable, as evidenced by me, myself. Knowing that the author of a user talk page post, deleted by a third party, is likely to regard the deletion as vandalism (whether or not it is technically vandalism) is reason enough not do do it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

First, for an act to be considered vandalism on Wikipedia, it has to be specifically intended to disrupt. Accidents aren't vandalism and neither are mistakes if made in good faith. My personal policy is to avoid tinkering with other editors talk pages. However, it's incumbent on all editors to take action on BLP violations, copyright violations and hate speech. Even BLP vios can consist of shades of gray that can require discussion to hash out. Since we are all communicating via written text, people's intentions are difficult to determine under the best of circumstances. It's always best to ask; assuming is less than optimum. Tiderolls 18:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tide rolls: You have convinced me that third-party deletions on user talk pages are not necessarily vandalism, and I will take care to avoid that term when it isn't warranted by clear indications of intent to disrupt. I stand by the position I have maintained from the beginning of this discussion.

• Wikipedia allows the owner of a user talk page to delete other people's comments. This right is not extended to third parties, except by a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause.

Whether or not it is vandalism; whether or not it is patronizing, insulting, unconstructive; whether or not the editor who deleted it is friendly with the owner of the page — don't do it, because:

• Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages says not to.
• WP:TPO doesn't list it as allowable.
• The individual whose post is deleted has no way of knowing if the recipient has seen it and is likely to feel it was a violation of something.

I agree with you, it's incumbent on all editors to take action on BLP violations, copyright violations and hate speech, and it might be appropriate for a third party to edit or delete such comments, with a mention of WP:BLP or some other policy or guideline page in the edit summary. But in the general case, where there is no violation of WP:BLP or some other policy or guideline, I stand by my original position, which I restated in the first bullet of this posting. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Morning all. for some reason I was not pinged about this conversation nor its change of venue, so apologies I'm late to the party - even though Anomalocaris linked me twice. An issue to look into on a different occasion perhaps.

Anyway - your comment of "except for a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause, only the owner of a user talk page should remove existing comments, and editing must be consistent with WP:REFACTOR. Please promise that you will not advise or encourage third parties to remove comments from user talk pages, or edit comments except within the provisions of WP:REFACTOR, and that you will not do this yourself" is somewhat pointless because that's exactly what happened. This seems to be a difference of interpretation, and I won't be changing my interpretation just because it doesn't match yours.

Also with regard to the "Don't template the regulars" comments - I stand by that, it looked like a template. Just because it turns out it wasn't doesn't lessen the fact that it due to the language used it had the format of a Twinkle template.

In short, I certainly don't think you're right in this conversation, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think you're wrong either. It's just differing interpretations, and it doesn't look like any of us are going to change those, just because one editor doesn't like it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens: WP:REFACTOR, talking about editing user talk pages, says, "Deletion: Editing and deleting the text completely. Except for non-contentious fixes, this should only be done by the editor who wrote the material or by a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause." Kindly explain how you interpret this and arrive at a conclusion opposite mine. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Following Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, editors are encouraged to remove any content that is not appropriate." The very first sentence. Let's not lose sight of the fact that several other editors also considered this to be a non-contentious fix of an inappropriate edit. Not necessarily bad faith or vandalism, but inappropriate in context nonetheless. Clearly there are differing opinions here - I suggest you continue with your interpretation, and other editors do so with theirs. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens: Thank you for your reply. You linked to talk page guidelines. This is page is actually about article talk pages, not user talk pages, but it provides clues about Wikipedians should and should not do on user talk pages. This guideline has a section "Editing others' comments". That section includes, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. (I would respond by pointing out that third-party editors should start from the assumption that the original editor is likely to object to their comment being removed by a third party, and therefore they should not do it.) Below that is a list of examples of appropriately editing others' comments. None of these reasons allow for deletion of comments, other than prohibited material and harmful posts. Specifically excluded from harmful posts are messages that are merely uncivil. Below this is another section headed "Editing own comments". This section says that under certain circumstances, "you may remove your comment entirely." Here, it gives delete permission only to the author of a post, not to third parties.

Another point. My posting did not look like a template, at least within the editor, because templates have template comments, for example, <!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->, and my posting didn't.

Another point. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars recognizes that sometimes regulars will get templated, and offers suggestions on how a regular should respond to this situation. It does not suggest that third parties can "help out" by deleting the posting altogether.

Another point. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars links to Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace, which includes Template:uw-tpv1, which says, "... discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments ... is considered bad practice, even if you meant well." This template exists for the purpose of informing editors not to delete third-party postings on talk pages.

It is not a matter of interpretation. The evidence is overwhelming. With a only limited exceptions, Wikipedia does not allow third-party editors to delete comments on user talk pages. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Massive edit in wikitext

Hello, you're recently edited one my articles [1]. Can you explain to me what is the need of replacing align= with style="text-align:"? The former one is used widely in motorsports articles, so I thought it should be all right to use it here too. SandoLorris (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

SandoLorris: Thank you for asking. Please see Wikipedia:HTML 5#Table attributes. My edit of Polish football clubs in European competitions is part of an effort to make Wikipedia markup HTML5-compliant. Now that you know about it, you are encouraged to use HTML5-compliant markup yourself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I think it will be hard to revise manually all the old articles that I know because there are way too many and styling inconsistency. Many sports pages (motorsports, winter sports, football) use the old markup just because it is very simple. All I can do is to try enforcing it at the pages I create and it maybe will get spread among all the others. SandoLorris (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert of List of bridges in Florida

Hello! I'm not quite sure what exactly those errors were, to be perfectly honest, that warranted a revert of my edits to add ranks to this list. As it has been about a decade since I was an active editor, I decided to use List of tallest buildings in the United States as a great frame of reference for crafting and developing the rankings, as that page is heavily trafficked and edited frequently, thus should be following proper protocols. Could you please elaborate on what was incorrect so I can make the proper changes to re-add those ranks? Thanks in advance! EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

EaglesFanInTampa: Thank you for adding the rankings, and thank you for asking why I deleted them. I went to Template:Row numbers and saw the mistake, which calls for the top markup to be

{{row numbers|<nowiki>
{| class="wikitable"

and you had reversed those two lines. I'm glad it was this easy to fix! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! I'm glad it was something minute and not something I had to completely relearn all the wikicode to get working properly again. I'll be more careful next time. :) Thanks so much for your help, and happy editing! EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 18:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor formatting edits to archived discussions from 12 years ago...

I'm sure that your recent edits are done with intent and purpose, but whatever that purpose is, it could be better spent than doing stuff like this. Edits like this in the article space are probably of primary priority, active discussions likely come secondary to that, but taking the time to make that sort of edit to that kind of page is really time better spent doing the same thing where it is needed. --Jayron32 23:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There are reasons for performing Linter fixes outside of article space. There are few article-space pages with 17 or more Linter errors, as that page had. Anomalocaris and other diligent gnome volunteers have fixed nearly all such articles. Also, due to transclusion, clearing errors from pages in other namespaces can fix multiple pages with a single edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's cool, nothings going to come of my comment, I just think that any other activity is a better use of time than digging through such old discussions. But, whatever fills your sails (or theirs). Vaya con dios. --Jayron32

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for CEing the Permanent Income Hypothesis BasedMisesMont Pelerin 19:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Jon Corzine Good Article Reassessment

Jon Corzine, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enid Greene Mickelsen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

ReFill

Gosh Anomalocaris so sorry to notice I caused trouble. Thank you for taking the time to correct. I appreciate Your Moral: reFill is a powerful and useful tool, but results are not guaranteed and must be carefully inspected each and every time. My conclusion: by inspecting ReFill's results, anonymity and consequently privacy are no longer quaranteed. Too bad. Lotje (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: wondering if you could let me know wo to contact regarding reFill. Thanks. Lotje (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by your User Page.

I so hoped you would have an illustration of the 'strange shrimp'.  :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HTML tags and wiki markup

On the Manual of Style page, the distinction between HTML code and wikicode is not always well established, see also: The word "template" after {{TemplateName}} on Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style --Terag21 (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Terag21: I am not sure why you sent me this message. If it's because of one or more pages I worked on where you agree or disagree with my changes, please indicate those pages and, if it's not obvious, what your issue might be. If you have something to say about something I put on a talk page, it's probably best if you made your point on that talk page. Were you asking me to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#The word template after? (I installed an anchor there so users can link to the section.) —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as an editor used to deal with wikicode and HTML tags, I think you could give your opinion on the matter. By the way, a big thank you for the anchor. --Terag21 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

draft:Tharunkumar

A bit late, but since you edited the page: You might want to edit the actual article instead. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:1234qwer1234qwer4:  Done —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I need your help can you review the article I created for Joaquin Domagoso.

Good day, I would have asked for help because someone proposed a deletion in the article I created, he said no because he is the mayor's son, this is not a basis to say that he is an actor and he doesn't have any significant roles on television. I also have a list of shows and series that he voted for me not to be deleted and someone also helped, I hope you can help me thank you. --7starunited (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I replaced a defective reference that you pointed out in List of Artemis missions. I noticed that you named me specifically in your comment about the "bogus and nonworking ref" and wanted to put a note here that that reference had been there in revisions dating back well before the 2020 edit of mine that you mentioned. If you are going to put blame on users for broken or erroneous edits, please exercise some more due diligence. Thank you and have a nice day! Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 01:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yiosie2356: Thank you for fixing it, and sorry for my erroneous comment naming of you as the responsible one. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Fostered content

Hello. I have looked at the linter table and various other places, but I can find no explanation of this. What does it mean?

I think both the linter documentation and its output table should have a link to explanations of all the error messages. Even after years developing software, I am unable to guess what this one is. --Mirokado (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Mirokado: See: Wikipedia:Linter, which links to Special:LintErrors. Each lint error page has a help link in the upper-right corner that links to a page with more information about that type of error. The linter table is not really part of Wikipedia but just a very helpful tool someone put together to help lint fighters decide what to do next. It's not intended to be the entry point for people who don't already know about lint. I assume you are here because I happened to mention it on an article talk page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Mirokado: each number on the Linter table links to a list of errors. At the top of each list is a Help link that explains the error types and how to fix (some) of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both, I will add lint errors to the various things I try to fix from time to time. --Mirokado (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

A joy to hear that. You will bring much-needed common sense to the effort. EEng 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Michael Ross George/Temp

Hello, Anomalocaris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Michael Ross George/Temp, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:MacNaughton Run/Temp

Hello, Anomalocaris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:MacNaughton Run/Temp, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

stripped </div> tag

Hi! What do you mean by "having a stripped </div> tag"? I don't see any </div> in the Template.. Thank you for your help! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, it seems to be working now. Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Rulers of the Ancient Near East

My editing error

Sorry, I was trying to fix the mess the anon editor had made and instead broke the fix you made, THEN commented on the wrong page. Thank you for helping.Shajure (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Shajure: Yes, the IP editor messed up Talk:Country (it's a good idea to mention the page you're talking about in any new discussion), and yes, I dealt with it in one way, and yes, your reversion was also quite OK. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for that too... yeah that would have been helpful wouldn't it. :) In any event: my thanks and my sorries. Hope you and yours are well and happy! :)Shajure (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hello, I'm Facu-el Millo. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Iron Man 2 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —El Millo (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Margaret Lefranc/Temp

Hello, Anomalocaris. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Margaret Lefranc/Temp, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing my Sandbox

Hello ! Recently you edited my sandbox and thank you because you probably tried to help me but please there's no need to do so and since that is my sandbox, I want to edit it myself and I know what I'm doing with it so please don't ever edit my sandbox ever again even though you want to help but I know what I'm doing so please never repeat that again. I want to edit and learn by myself so please you can edit other users' sandbox but not me. Thank you. Nikita Bhamidipati (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Nikita Bhamidipati: I edited User:Nikita Bhamidipati/sandbox because it was listed at Special:LintErrors/self-closed-tags, where it is listed once again because you reverted my change. In fact, at the moment, it is the only page in all of English Wikipedia listed there. The correct way to close <s> is </s>, not <s/>, which is an improper self-closed tag that literally means <s></s>, and has no effect, but puts whatever page it is on into the lint error list. I encourage you to avoid self-closed tags and other lint errors in your work. You have asked me not to edit your sandbox. I won't edit it now, but if I see it on a lint error page, or perhaps on a Category:CS1 errors or Category:CS1 maintenance page, especially a long time from now, I might not remember and I might edit it again. Other editors may also see it and edit it. You say you want to learn. One way to learn is to see how other editors fix things. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks Sumbria.vikramaditya (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably because of my edit of Nirmal Kumar Singh. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Your draft article, Draft:Margaret Lefranc/Temp

Hello, Anomalocaris. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Temp".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

anyway how can the publication date of a book be uncertain

Thanks for the edits but yes, this is a bit annoying! You've not run into specimen books of early nineteenth century type foundries. Because they were issuing new fonts all the time, they often just didn't put a date on the title page (it says 1821 on the front boards, I understand, but the digitisation doesn't show it) or they just bound up whatever sheets of types they'd made and issued it with a title page years out of date. Often every surviving copy of a specimen book of types will be slightly different; that book survives in just two copies and one has ten extra pages. I was explaining this on administrator Victuallers' talk page the other day. The NYPL date is wrong, this was a 1785 specimen that was bound up up with sheets known to be later (the fact that one says 1796 is a bit of a giveaway). Professor James Mosley explains this in his book on British type specimens in great detail and his estimated date of 1796-9 is what I copied exactly onto the article. I agree that the red alarm of invalid text was annoying, I hadn't got round to looking up the exact parameters of what to put instead. Blythwood (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Blythwood: Thank you for the explanation and for your efforts on Caslon Type Foundry. Please go ahead and fix it again, but note that {{cite}} templates flag a date error if a date has a range of years with a hyphen (-) or en dash (–). Also, c. applies only to the date immediately following, not to a range. If the start and end dates are both uncertain, it should be marked as c. 1796 – c. 1799 (with an en dash) or some such. I would recommend just c. 1796 in this case, to keep the templates happy, what's three years of uncertainty to us, c. 225 years later anyway? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)