User talk:Anomalocaris/Archive 2016

Don't squeeze out spaces between sentences

as you did here. This change has no effect on the rendered page, and just makes the source more difficult to read. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dicklyon I also remove that extra space. As a copy-editor, I read articles mostly in edit mode, and having sentences spaced out with those extra spaces, combined with all the references that interrupt the sentences, makes it harder to follow the flow of the sentences and determine the cohesion of the paragraph. The tighter the sentences are, the easier my job of copy-editing is. If you have WikEd enabled (Preferences, Gadgets, Editing), in most articles references are shaded in gray while text is black on a white background, so the references ought to stand out. Corinne (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dicklyon, glad to hear from you. At random I edited (without making changes) five articles linked on your user page:

• Huygens–Fresnel principle: no double spaces between sentences. (After your last edit, of 18 periods between sentences, 8 had double spaces.)
• Rule of thirds: of 13 periods between sentences, 3 have double spaces.
• Amnon Yariv: no double spaces between sentences; however the longest paragraph has newlines at the end of each sentence. (Same after your last edit.)
• Circle of confusion: no double spaces between sentences, even after your last edit.
• Critical band: about 41 of about 86 periods between sentences have double spaces.

So for a random selection of five pages you care about, none of them have even a majority of periods between sentences followed by double space, and three of them don't have any. I don't see why you're bothering me about this when you don't seem to care about it when you edit articles yourself.

Hi, Corinne, nice to hear from you as well. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as I don't go around doubling spaces, you shouldn't go around squeezing them out. Leave well enough alone, instead of making edits that are worse than pointless, please. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Dicklyon, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am obviously not the only editor who sometimes converts multiple blanks to single blanks in Wikipedia markup text. Some editors insert extra spaces out of carelessness or old typewriter habits applicable to neither formatted text nor HTML and related markup text. Other editors, such as Corinne and I, sometimes take them out. I never change multiple spaces to single spaces in formatted layouts, such as the {{Cite}} templates with each parameter appearing on a new line. Unless you can explain how changing markup like

 Please.  Thank you.

to

 Please. Thank you.

is worse than pointless, other than I just don't like it, I don't see a problem here.—Anomalocaris (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

First, it's pointless, as it makes not difference to the rendered result. Second, it's worse, because it needless creates changes to review, and these are not totally free; furthermore, scrunching the source makes the source less readable. The "typewriter habit" had, and still has, a good purpose in making it easier to see the separation between sentences. So leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon, when I edit articles and find multiple spaces, much of the time, the multiple spaces are not all at the ends of sentences. For example, in my edit of Basilica of St. Giles, amid all of my other changes, I changed 12 multiple spaces to a single space, only one of which was at the end of a sentence. I believe these 12 changes, along with everything else I changed in this edit, were appropriate. I plan to continue changing multiple spaces to single spaces in the random places I find them. I will continue to avoid changing multiple spaces to single spaces in formatted layouts, but I am not planning to also avoid changing multiple spaces to single spaces at the end of a sentence. I am sorry you don't like it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? What is the point of such edits? Even within a sentence, it's quite pointless, but if you want to do that, can you be less undiscriminating about the context please? Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you contend that my edit of Basilica of St. Giles would have been better if I had left the 12 multiple spaces as single spaces? Why should anyone looking at the markup for this article have to stumble across

  During 1482–1486, three chapels were  built in the southern
  prominently  grouped around the main entrance
  The whole church is lit through  high, mostly three-part, glazed  Gothic windows,

and other examples of multiple spaces? Those multiple spaces have no meaning in the markup and they slow down the editor's reading process. Therefore they should be removed, along with the other changes I made, viz. nbsp (substituting &nbsp; for nbsp;); straight apostrophes; ins space after "St."; logical quotes; book titles (boldly guessed) in quotes (sic, I meant italics!); combine similar <ref>s; move Ground plan descriptors into image caption.

I believe that articles should be consistent, not only in things like using MDY or DMY dates, but also in spacing. If most of the inter-sentence spaces in an article are single-spaced in the markup, I think that all of the inter-sentence spaces in an article should be single-spaced in the markup. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I would argue that your edit at Basilica of St. Giles did as much harm as good, since it didn't distinguish between accidental double spaces and possibly purposeful double spaces between sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

re: Template talk:Short pages monitor

Thanks for the pointer. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Shortcut (magazine)

After a slightly closer investigation, I've concluded it isn't worth it to send Shortcut (magazine) to AfD. However, I don't ^(normally) use {{notability}} tags since non-notable subjects aren't really supposed to have articles to begin with. It's better to try to fix a problem than to tag it, though I've done both. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando De Luca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the S/2003 J 18 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Perry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Rockwell Automation

re: user talk page 66.102.157.201 If you're an administrator, you can tell the original poster from me that I go by the Cold War Marine Mantra: Never pick a fight but absolutely finish off those which are started with you by others and do it in such a fashion that they don't ever pick a fight with you ever again.

Since you can't do any of that online, I've done the next best thing: reported his actions to his administrator and will continue to do so until something is done.

Everybody else should follow the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm and mind your own business. Meaning you should take your Big Blue Marble/Free to Be You and Me attitudes back to the Castro or the East Village where they belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Alan Turing

Hi, I'm not sure the quotes are correct now in the note. I added a quotation mark but you say I removed one. Gap9551 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gap9551: Sorry, my mistake; I have reverted my change. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bore

Thanks for making this vast improvment. She bore him a son? What is she, an ox? People still talk like that? Anyhow, thank you for the unintentional laugh, and have a good weekend. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Marriage dates

Thanks for this. The marriage template used here, for example, is supposed to give the end date of the marriage and the reason for the end of the marriage. For people such as Spencer Tracy and Abraham Lincoln, the end date of the marriage is the date of death of the person. For others, it may be divorce, annulment, the death of the spouse, etc. for that reason, using the date of death in the template and the reason=death really isn't duplicative. I'm quite surprised at all these edits, and dismayed at the work involved in fixing them. 32.218.47.115 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis Capone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 27 December 2011|newspaper=The New York Times|date=November 30, 1941}}{subscription required}}</ref> Over the next two and a half years, Capone and his co-defendants filed a series of legal
• by Weiss and Buchalter, who also were executed.<ref name="hill jacobs">{{cite book|last=Hill]|first=David H. Jacobs; [introduction by Henry|title=The Mafia's greatest hits|year=2006|publisher=Citadel Press|location=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending Changes

I actually knew the subject... normally I would work slower but since I knew the article subject it simply was a lot easier. As for the other edits, they were smaller than usual and were simple (at least from a reviewing standpoint). Thank you for asking! Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And, if you were wondering, running man has an English version. I know absolutely nothing about the Korean language or anything of the sort. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

hello

can u please add the same picture from bipasha basu's personal life section to Karan Singh Grover's? regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks can you please also?

change Karan Singh Grover display image to this picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSG_at_HS3_Trailer_Launch.jpg 120.17.62.29 (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take note...

...that the Manual of Style is a guideline and not a policy. Policies are mandatory and must be followed by all Wikipedia editors under every circusmstance. Guidelines, on the other hand, are merely advisory in nature. Ignore all rules is, on the other hand, a core policy of Wikipedia. On several occassions over the years the Arbitration Committee has spoken out strongly against edit warring in support of MOS, since not following MOS does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Please do not take that path. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Beyond My Ken —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Help

Could you please approve of my pending edit on Demagogue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:25F1:4ADB:C245:1288 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware...

...of the following section of WP:HARASSMENT:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.

Considering that we just had a dispute over Flatiron, and that I have recently brought John Randel Jr. from 2,397 bytes to 7,386 bytes, it is extremely difficult for me to see your recent edit to the latter, making the same kinds of changes you made to the former, which I objected to, as anything but a deliberate attempt at Wikihounding. If you continue this behavior, I will being it to the attention of an administrator for adjudication. I suggest to avoid a block, you reconsider your choice. BMK (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not reply on my talk page as, of this time, you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. BMK (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It is generally considered a very serious violation of WP:CIVILITY for someone to post to another editor's user talk page after being told directly to not do so. It would still be allowed for discussion to continue elsewhere, like at the talk page of the relevant article, or some relevant wikipedia space location, so the ban would not in any way necessarily preclude reasonable, useful discussion of the matters in question, but not at that user's personal user talk page. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

John Carter: Even if "BMK is more or less perfectly within his rights to request that others not post to his user talk page, or ping him," there is an actual problem I brought forth. While there is no dispute that BMK makes many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, BMK also repeatedly detracts from Wikipedia by using profanity, making threats, and intimidating other editors. As I noted at AN/I, Wikipedia:Keep off my talk page! says "It may be the case that the demand to keep off could be used as evidence of unreasonableness or incivility. This might especially be true if such demands are made often, made rapidly after a first encounter with an editor, or made in response to actions that cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive." The elements, connected by "or", are

1. such demands are made often
2. made rapidly after a first encounter with an editor
3. made in response to actions that cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive.

The Rambling Man helpfully stated that condition 1 was met. I showed the record establishing condition 2. I claimed that condition 3 was also met, but that is necessarily an opinion. You did read User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note..., didn't you? I hope you agree that it "cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive". So I believe that all three conditions for unreasonableness or incivility are met, and only one condition is required. BMK is a great editor, but also one with problematic behavior. It takes courage to stand up, do the research, and show when lines are crossed. So when someone has the courage to do that, it's an opportunity to say, "BMK, we encourage you to avoid bans on your user talk page rapidly after a first encounter or in response to non-offensive postings; we urge you to WP:Assume good faith in deciding if a posting is offensive; and we suggest that you avoid profanity and gangland-style threats." I hope that I am wrong, but I predict that BMK will continue to occasionally fail to WP:Assume good faith, will continue to occasionally intimidate other editors, and will continue to occasionally use highly inappropriate language on user talk pages, including the user talk pages of newbie editors. Other editors will be stressed, because nobody had the courage to put a metaphorical hand on BMK's shoulder and say, "can't you please try to get along a little better?" Have a nice day. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If your intention was to raise the issue as a continuing problem, honestly, you did a miserable job of it. Your rather laughable hyperbole about "gangland threats" and other comments, most of which could and I think were taken as being much more than was called for, indicate, honestly, that your own behavior in this matter is perhaps not above reproach. And your recent after-the-fact comments to Baseball Bugs on his talk page seem to perhaps demonstrate further problems on your part. The structure of your comment at ANI was such that most of those who responded seemed to see it as TLDR. I know it struck me as being less than productive, and, honestly, a bit like, well, whining. Yes, people act badly. This might well include you. But the method you used to bring this matter up, and the truly counterproductive presentation of it you gave, at least in my eyes, raises possibly as many concerns regarding your conduct as anyone else's. And your ongoing comments here and on BB's talk page, honestly, don't do anything to reduce those concerns. At this point, I suggest you follow the advice of one of the other editors at ANI and let this matter drop. I know that I have no interest in discussing the matter any further, and probably won't respond to any further pings or other attempts to keep the closed discussion ongoing. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Cookie Monster revsersion

Why did you revert a valid edit to the cookie monster article? The cited source is completely valid and topical. 2601:185:8201:FB97:6C93:1FED:890E:9735 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Italics

This edit [1] changed a matched double prime (italics) to a quote on one side and double prime on the other at "David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor...". I only mention it in case this was a script that acted up, otherwise it's probably just a typo. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Kendall-K1: Yes, it's just a typo. Thank you for fixing it. Do you know about the {{prev}} template? You can enter your above link as [{{prev|737881850}} this edit], displaying as this edit. More versatile is {{diff}}, which allows display of differences between non-consecutive versions. You can enter your above link as {{diff||prev|737881850|this edit}}, displaying as this edit. I usually use {{diff}} because it's nifty to have the external link symbol go away. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it used and marveled at its elegance but never knew how to employ it. In particular, where do you get the diff number from? I've been around WP a number of years now and sometimes am too embarrassed to ask how to do something that it seems like I should already know. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, all I had to do was follow the link to the template documentation. It's like the ruby slippers, I've had this power all along. Thanks for the pointer! Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Spanish Americans page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Anachronox page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anomalocaris. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced age

Instead of edit warring, can you please explicitly cite the source that says Dan Pulcrano was 19 in 1978? Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate:

• One reversion is not "edit warring".
• It says right in Dan Pulcrano:

  At age 19, he went to Los Angeles to help publisher Jay Levin launch the LA Weekly.

• That article in turn quotes Pulcrano as saying, "While working in Santa Barbara on a summer break when I was 19, Jay Levin approached me and asked if I would help him start the LA Weekly...."
• LA Weekly includes among its references L.A. Weekly Founder Jay Levin on the vision that started it all. L.A. Weekly, December 4, 2008; www.laweekly.com ..., which says that Levin is "Founder, president and editor 1978-1991."
• So we have a reliable source for LA Weekly being founded in 1978 and we have a reliable source for Dan Pulcrano at age 19 meeting with LA Weekly founder Jay Levin shortly before LA Weekly was founded. Therefore, Dan Pulcrano was born c. 1959. Thank you for your attention to assure that Wikipedia's information is properly sourced. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)