WurmWoode

Let's talk        Thoughts

    Click-2-Talk     —     Click-2-eMail    

Nice

Loved the address link at Wendy Yoshimura. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

I've commented out something you've added because I don't understand its function - {{Rp|5}}. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Umm, try again re-reading the documentation for template {{Rp}} -- let me know if you're still having difficulty.

WurmWoode^T 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, it was confusing and extremely uncommon. This is the first time I've seen it, and I've been editing for a substantial while. Secondly, if I didn't know how to find the documentation for it, how likely is it that an average reader would be able to? Third, if there's a simpler, clearer method, why not use it? Finally, and not least, according to the documentation, it is supposed to be used when a source is "cited many, many times, at numerous different pages". Once doesn't seem to qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, you caught me, I was just using a cut'n'paste edit from my kit for common <ref> tags with multiple page citations.
• Thanks for your point about uncommon usage, Most Linked Templates shows {{Rp}} is not even in the top 1000,
  I wish template documentation indicated whether such items were current and/or popular (preferred).

WurmWoode^T 09:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Metalstorm / Metal Storm

You were incorrect, my intent was to redirect to the weapons page as it was the only notable usage of "metal storm" I was aware of. You will note at the top of that page it has the "redirects here" box. I have "re-repaired" the redirect. On the assumption there is not substantial reason to do otherwise, and given that the current redirect points it at a page which looks to have been templated as unreferenced since July of 2008. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Template broken

I think I've fixed it. The site it uses seems to have moved. If there are still bugs, let me know. --Eliyak T·C 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Storyville coords

Your Storyville coordinates, according to Google Maps, are at the west corner of Rampart and Canal, which is outside of and a block away from the nearest corner of the District. The present day corner of Marais and Bienville would be a better choice. Rees11 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, after I left the message I decided I should fix it instead of just complaining. Rees11 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children

The multiple references aren't necessary, and if you must use them, they can be combined into one. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

About multiple citations within one ref — there were two parts to my editing, the first set of ref's I added to support the details that I added for each component of the hospital, and for the reader to catch the timeline feature as well. The second set of citations was originally within one ref tag, and I split them into separate ref's for visual clarity.
I don't see a template for combining multiple citations within one <ref> info </ref> tag set, without such a template the current <ref> tag generates an undecipherable kludge ^{(not easy on the eyes)} unless one uses <br /> tags or some such for clarity.

WurmWoode^T 05:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but I have no objection to the use of the break tag. We don't need the citations split up. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to let you know that using multiple citations within one appears to be standard practice for some journals, such as the Journal of Pacific History. I'm reading an article published in 1998 ("The United States Annexation of Wake Atoll, Central Pacific Ocean") that combines multiple citations within one reference and is quite easy on the eyes. I'm afraid I don't see any problem. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your point is abundantly clear. I beg to defer, it's not just a visual delineation, there are other audiences. Not every reader has such youthful and beautiful eyes as yourself, and then those with impaired vision using screen readers also can not discern the individual citations as the verbage aurally blends together with no clue as to the breaks between citations. The way that the <ref> tag works, it does not clearly delineate between multiple encapsulated citations, there are no line–breaks, nor flags or pips or some other clue.

WurmWoode^T 17:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Swift article -- Fearless and MTV VMA controversy

Hello, WurmWoode. I get what you meant/mean about that section being overwhelming all packed together, without a subsection or two, but I feel that dividing it in the way that you did was not the best route to go. Not only did it separate the 2009 year from Fearless, which is also about Fearless, but it gave undue weight to the Kanye West matter. The 2009 Fearless information is better left combined with the 2008 Fearless information, either plain or as a subsection, though it could use a trim. And the MTV VMA controversy section is better left as a subsection of the Fearless section...without being divided into subsections; it does not need them. I have done all this with the article. Let me know if you object in any way, so that we can better work on this together. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

West is at this time a major portion, text-wise, the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and seems intrusive within the chronological or biographic timeline, as currently laid-out. It was "inaccessible" without a TOC entry, and perhaps should be either trimmed or excised -- relocated so as not to interrupt the flow of the timeline which is intended it seems to focus upon her music, albums and tours. Perhaps reduced to a short sentence in her article and then linked to a separate page where all of the gory details can be laid bare. A style I've seen in other articles, to keep them focused on the key person, place, or event, with links to the separate but related articles and thus reducing clutter or distractions from the theme of the main article.

WurmWoode^T 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates

The Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools guideline states "Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus.". Jc3s5h (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you check the archives of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources you will find that citations from plain text to templates is considered a major change per se, even if the style of the citations presented to the reader is similar to the pre-existing style. This is because it creates a major change in how editors have to edit the article. The article that I took notice of was Secular variations of the planetary orbits‎. As for whether you made a "drive-by" edit, I won't comment one way or the other, because the phrase means different things to different people. I don't doubt that you have a sincere interest in improving articles.

I did notice that several of your edits involved changing articles with no templates so that they would use templates. That might be fine if the article was a bit of a mess and had no discernible citation style, but consensus on the talk page should be formed before changing the citation style of an article that has a clear style. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You can has cheezeburger!

Cheers! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

soft gamma repeater

nice job on that. Decora (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving and cleaning up the references/links. - Embram (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Free Expression Policy Project

I've created an article on the organization Free Expression Policy Project.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be most appreciated, at Talk:Free Expression Policy Project.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Notifying you, as you'd previously helpfully created the page as an initial redirect, so thank you for that inspiration for me to begin a quality improvement project on this topic related to freedom of speech and censorship! — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-anglicisms in Japanese

You tidied up some of the citations on the Wasei-eigo page, and also put back a part that begins: "These include acronyms and initialisms particular to Japan (see list of Japanese Latin alphabetic abbreviations)." There are a number of problems here: first, who know what this "These" refers to?! But more importantly, the list of abbreviations page is quite a mess: first the number of such abbreviations is vast (a handy 1993 "Wordlist book" 現代用語の基礎知識 lists around 1100 as "in vogue"), and secondly it is absurd to claim that more than a tiny proportion are 和製英語. I can amend this description, and also move this sentence before the bit about confusion with "Engrish", but I wanted to see if you had any particular reason to put this back in this somewhat misplaced position. I also really wonder what is the point of quoting a Japanese book as "Further reading", or for that matter of citing Kenkyusha unless making a specific point about the meaning of a word.

Please, feel free to make your suggested amendments, however, your assumption is off base.

If you were using the wiki tool for viewing differences, it is not a perfect tool, if you use your browser search of the page using a sample of text you will see that I did not add any text, what looks like added text in the "after" column is merely "pushed down" text, the same as it already appears in the "before" column, just moved down by the expanded citation text, although the diff engine flags "+" that text as "new" (smh).

I only modified references and their included citations, making them specific and accurate —after reviewing their links.

I too am researching for begining Japanese and any good resources, which is why I repair references so that others who follow these links will have a better time searching by keyword, title, author, publisher, and when appropriate identifiers like ISBN. I use google against wikipedia.

https://google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org  "sample one"  "sample two"

Kenkyusha —you would have to backtrack page edits to find the editor who made that reading section, they may have found it valuable in it's word citation style for pseudo-english or may have an appendix of such words. Or, on the flip side, it may be poorly compiled and it is an example of a huge pile of pseudo-english.

As to the choice of books, either english or japanese, may have different perspectives on the same book's utility and completeness. WurmWoode^T 02:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

On a separate issue: do you know of any neat tools for automating Japanese standard references? I started trying to convert the references on the Ikiryō article, but it is such a tedious job looking every publisher up in WP:ja to find whether they have a WP:en entry, and this could clearly be automated. Any suggestions? (Please reply here: I am watching.) Imaginatorium (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know your sophistication, have you tried the different citation tools ? You can check to see if any Bots are already used by Wikipedia for your task or put in a request for a bot to be made. Also if your only concern is manual edits while modifying one article then a script may be what you need, or write one and get it approved, or request one be made. Or does something like this editor have the feature(s) you need ? WurmWoode^T 02:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Several times I have ran across your edits to a page on my watchlist, and every time I have been impressed by the improvement. It is editors like you, quietly making improvements, that keep Wikipedia running. Keep up the good work! Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Die Another Day (song)#Synopsis

Hello WurmWoode, can you explain to me how this website is even considered reliable per WP:RS? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 19:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what? Why are you shooting (reverting) first and then asking a (rhetorical) question afterwards? My adblockers apparently shielded me too well, despite it being apparently self published, I thought that I had found a simple "dictionary" style transliteration, my research of the site & owner indicate an Israeli and I presumed a hebrew/culture sensitive perspective/knowledge, aside from the material matching well with other hebrew translation sources. I reckon I will have to turn off adblocking when researching. WurmWoode^T 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

On László Bíró

On the László Bíró page, you added a line (I think) mentioning "... unlike the version invented 22 years earlier by John J. Loud in 1888". The 22 years seem off---what was done in 1910? Maybe a typo? Bill Stafford (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks—cut'n'paste is no substitute for arithmetic, nor fact checking WurmWoode^T 01:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

SPI case of interest

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233.

According to other comments you made recently, you may have evidence for this case. Feel free to add any you might have.

jps (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

PS General Slocum

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PS General Slocum. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that changing bolded text meant to represent a subheading into an actual subheading that would appear in the TOC was *controversial*. But with the reasoning that you supplied for your reverts (bold is access, superior layout, and paraphrasing you "let'em eat scroll")— well, what is one to do with such logic? WurmWoode^T 03:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mansourasaurus.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mansourasaurus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

FYI, edit summaries like this one are unacceptable. Dr. K. 23:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks— No Grammar for you! WurmWoode^T 06:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I realise that your reply falls within the spectrum of possible reactions to my initial post. But, I think that even with references to characters from Pulp Fiction, Seinfeld, Shakespeare, soup or grammar nazis etc., your edit summary is still unacceptable. I also realise, that someone who would write such an edit summary cannot possibly be expected to stop that habit upon receiving a first request. The idea here is to gradually abandon this approach. Dr. K. 17:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So much for trying to keep things light with Seinfeld and Nazis of soup or grammar

• Pulp Fiction— was a reference for the quote used in my edit comment, which for attribution led with Jules
• Shakespeare— seemed a soft approach to what seems an overreaction to a paraphrased, self-censored quote
• A habit and an approach?— oh, really? Unwarranted, much?
• Your overly generous guardian angelship— is politely declined, in light of your faux pas and extrapolation

Thank you, but no thanks WurmWoode^T

• Unfortunately, given your continuous insults hiding in wikilinks with misleading piping, you don't seem to get the point. I didn't have any high hopes that you would comply to start with. Regardless, if I see this behaviour again from you I will have to refer the matter to WP:ANI. This is my last word on this matter for now. Consider this your final warning. Dr. K. 02:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Making menace with administrative tactics— is so in proportion with this dialogue over a single and only occurrence, over an edit comment.

• Your new aspersions of: misleading piping— if needs be, I am prepared to standby and demonstrate link by link that which seems to elude your understanding
• Your new found frailty of: insults— now I am to be a victim to your perceptions
• Your original aspersions of: habit and an approach?— are still unsupported
• Your faux pas still colours your conclusion

DYK for Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google

On 31 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that where the United States has FAANG, China has BAT? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

5,387DYK views on the 31st. WurmWoode^T 01:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2022

Your edit to Specific density has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation templates in External links section

Regarding your recent edit on Kurzgesagt: Note that citation templates should generally not be used in the External links section per WP:ELCITE. However, this policy isn't strictly enforced. Please also don't let this stop you from continuing your amazing work on Wikipedia. Dexxor (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"Helena Mankowska" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Helena Mankowska has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 15 § Helena Mankowska until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)