User talk:Footlessmouse/Archive 2

Reverting BLP violations

Hi Footlessmouse, just following up from your report to AIV (regarding User:69.131.149.70). There is always an exemption from edit warring and the 3 revert rule for reverting obvious vandalism and negative and unsourced or poorly sourced statements about living people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated references

Hi Footlessmouse, it's been a while. I've recently discovered (yes, I'm coronavirus-new here too) this Rp template[1] that adds a little note about the page or chapter or section number next to the citation, I find it more convenient than to repeat the same reference over and over again. What u think? Mind using it? I absolutely hate when people cite a note that cites a page in a reference they cite, that's just too many jumps when reading an article that are too distracting. Love when you don't need to go back and forth and can check and open a reference from an overlay. But that's just me... The Feynman lectures (which I love) is online, I'll be changing the references to the book so more people can discover it. Do you think a chapter reference is enough? Section? I'd like to avoid page references, given many editions and forms. Take care, Ponor (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ponor: I hope all is well. Yes, I have seen that template around, I don't mind using it. To be honest, I prefer the Template:harvnb, but I believe that is the one you are saying you dislike, because it leaves a note with a page number and links to the further reading for full cite. I have no problem using template:Rp from now on for these pages. As far as how selective, I believe that if you are citing a direct quote, it should contain an exact page number, otherwise section or chapter is appropriate depending on how much material is devoted to the topic at hand in the original source. I apologize for bogging down the article with all the references a few minutes ago, I copied the content from my sandbox which used harvnb but I didn't copy the cite, and as a quick fix I decided to just replace all the harvnb templates with the full citation using regex. I can help fix these up and use the rp template. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse:What you seem to use Template:harvnb for in [[Magnetic field] is fine with me. You hover the little ^[note], and you get what's in the (foot(less))note in an overlay. What I said I hated (shouldn't have used such a strong word) is the way citations are added in, e.g. Violin acoustics. First, they add a huge chapter of nothing but page numbers at the bottom. Then, say you're at 37% of the article, and need to check a reference. I don't see how I can get to it without scrolling down to find it, at least in my browser. But how do you then get back to where you left off? That citation style is OK for (paper) books, where you can use a few (paper) bookmarks, but not for the web. IMHO, of course. OK, back to work. Cheers! :) Ponor (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carbonaceous sulfur hydride

Hello! Your submission of Carbonaceous sulfur hydride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

GAs

Hey there, I'll admit that astronomy and space is not really my field, but I took a look at your reviews and the articles. Both of your reviews were excellent; can't really go wrong sticking to the criteria, and it looked like you did a thorough job with both articles. I have no objections to passing either one. I did give NASA Astronaut Group 8 a bit of a copyedit in the latter half; I would suggest just going ahead and fixing trivial grammar/spelling issues as you find them, leaving the more confusing or unclear cases for the nominator to fix.

I'll also note that some of the spelling errors that you pointed out are because the nominator is from Australia, which is why the article had things like realized/realised, counseled/counselled, or totaling/totalling, not to mention the general lack of a serial comma throughout the article. It's best to just ensure the article is consistent throughout, per MOS:ENGVAR. bibliomaniac15 19:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: Thank you! I really appreciate you checking that for me. I will keep in mind region differences in the future, I was aware of British English on many pages, but never even thought about Australian. I hope you don't mind I disclosed our discussion on the GA page as well as the edits you made. I will keep these tips in mind in doing my other reviews (I have started two more, there is a drive going on). Thanks again! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy reviewing! You're off to a splendid start. bibliomaniac15 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

The article A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E. T. Whittaker

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article E. T. Whittaker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles in section headings

Hi Footlessmouse, just a little heads-up about indefinite or definite articles in section headings: [2]. Cheers & keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E. T. Whittaker

The article E. T. Whittaker you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:E. T. Whittaker for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wasted Time R -- Wasted Time R (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

OR

Hey there, I know the AFD may have felt like WP:DEADHORSE to you, but honestly there was a lot of misinformation and misstatements that kept getting introduced and repeated, and it's important to get these principles correct. You said: "And you might want to look up the rules about OR and such again, it doesn't matter if the sources are in other articles, if this article makes a claim not supported in this article, that is original research." That's actually completely incorrect. What makes something OR is if sources don't exist anywhere, not merely whether those sources are included at present in a particular page. That's clearly stated in the first sentence of the policy at WP:OR: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." And the next paragraph: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed." So to claim something is OR is to say it can't be verified. You were also getting confused by the idea of using Wikipedia itself as a source, which no one was advocating, with pointing out that material not cited in one page may already be cited in another, which is just another way of establishing that it's actually verifiable. Hope this helps, postdlf (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Postdlf: this is ridiculous. My bad on the OR, but it changes nothing—the page is not verifiable and contains contentious claims about living persons that are not cited inline. Again: incubate and draftify DOES NOT MEAN DELETE!!! It means that there is so much work that needs to be done it should be done in the draft space because the article itself is garbage and doesn't belong in the mainspace. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note This conversation was the result of my vote in an article for deletion debate found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people. Also, for the record, I did not confuse OR with NOTRELIABLE, I was just under the impression OR was a little more general, I've gone back to read more about it due to this small dispute. The points about BLP and verifiability stand and the article was in fact incubated as a result of the discussion. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mass–energy equivalence

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mass–energy equivalence you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Cryin', please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doniago: please do not spam editors talk pages with notices after you revert obviously good faith edits. I made a mistake when I was adding many pages to the category, I had every intention on going back through and double checking everything once again to clean up any possible mistakes. I apologize for the inconvenience it caused you, but I obviously know the policy and your notice was inappropriate. You should have started a discussion on the talk page of that article and pinged me. I violated no policy and made an obvious and simple mistake that was very easily remedied. You cannot pretend it was vandalism or anything else. Please do not post on my wall again unless you have a pressing reason to, this was unacceptable. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that one reasonably-friendly notice constituted "spamming", nor do I see how it's inappropriate. For future reference, the editing guideline that you violated is WP:CATVER. Given that you did violate the guideline, and then claimed you didn't violate policy, I don't know why you would expect anyone to assume you were familiar with it. Also, I didn't accuse you of vandalism, implicitly or explicitly, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I fail to see why there would be any need to initiate a conversation at the article's Talk page when you clearly added a category for which there's no support in the article content. If you have an issue with the notice I provided, then given as it's a standard template notice, I would recommend you bring your concerns regarding the wording of the warning to the appropriate Talk page.

All of that said, given your hostile reaction to my notice, I have concerns that you'll disregard or delete this message in any case, so I won't waste either of our times any further. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

:::@Doniago: How is me explaining to you that I made a mistake a sign that I am going to disregard policy? That makes absolutely no sense and I question your competence. How is a vandalism notice friendly when you revert a good faith edit? That is not friendly, it is scurrilous. Also, why would you post more on my talk page after being explicitly asked not to? I am not knowledgeable on the topic, I was just trying to help, taking items from a list and adding them to a category, some of which ended up as redirects and I didn't notice before I made the edit. I brought up vandalism because you posted a notice on my talk page, insinuating I have vandalized the wiki, as that is what they are used for... I had no hostile reaction to your notice other than to tell you it was inappropriate given it was a simple mistake and not a matter of vandalism. Your reaction and dismissal and choice to ignore my request to stop posting on my talk page can be see as very hostile, though. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Note for the record, I was trying to help out with a list that was being deleted and when adding 80 pages to a new category, I made 3 total mistakes, two I quickly fixed on my own, for the third I got this vandalism notice on my talk page... Also for the record, I have not yet read all the WP policies, I am familiar with many but had not previously seen WP:CATVER, but it was just a mistake, I did not intend to add the category to artist or album articles and I quickly cleaned up the only other two mistakes I made. I will not be editing the list anymore and will wait a while before trying to do anything similar again and will be more careful then, but I still believe the vandalism notice to be inappropriate. A simple friendly sentence or two letting me know I made a mistake would more than have sufficed and would have been met with gratitude rather than resentment. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, while I may have made a mistake and that mistake may have been a violation of a guideline, the above editor violated policy by not assuming good faith and it bugs me more than it should. Making a mistake is not the same as openly violating guidelines as it was not my intention and I was quick to fix my mistakes. Claiming they did not imply vandalism is a straight-up lie: They pressed the vandalism button on twinkle and, when redirected here, they left a defamatory vandalism notice on my talk page. I am quite confident they are now watching my page hoping I get several more warnings so they can be the first to report me for vandalism on the admin noticeboard (the off-hand remark about being worried I would delete the notice, after I explained it was a simple mistake, is very telling of the editor's intentions here). Footlessmouse (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Footlessmouse (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: The other editor struck out their own response, I should not have written any of this and so am officially striking it as well. I should take more time before responding to these things, but I generally "don't take kindly" to being treated as incompetent or being accused of vandalism. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Introduction to Solid State Physics

Hello! Your submission of Introduction to Solid State Physics at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)