Open main menu


January 2019Edit

  Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You're still removing spaces from between initials, even though you've been asked not to do this. Please do not continue with a sequence of edits when you have been asked to stop. DrKay (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@DrKay: - – — -- I certainly am following the MOS in every respect. (Please do not rely just on the complaints you see above. While some of the complaints were WP:OWNBEHAVIOR-driven, I've carefully considered each of them.) AGF, I've tried to answer the complaints. Regarding your concerns: 1. I've been putting endashes in the citation page ranges per MOS:ENTO. 2. When the ISBNs presented have a mix of spaces and/or hyphens (such as ISBN 978-0-226-28705-8, 978-0226287058, 9780226287058), I try to present one scheme that is uniform/consistent throughout the article. (This is IAW WP:CITEVAR.) 3. When the references use initials I seek to unify their presentations within the references. Examples: todays' FA Thomasomys ucucha omits spaces in the referenced authors; and an upcoming TFA Imperator torosus has refs which omit the full stops (periods) in the first name initials in the references. (It would seem that these FAs violate MOS:INITIALS, expect that initials used in references are names not "commonly written that way".) My goal is to edit the WP:VA3 listed IAW [see WP:G] the MOS and then endeavor to modify the MOS guidance – via discussion. E.g., I hope to clarify that INITIALS and DASHES apply to article text and less so to referencing. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You made this argument above but I don't see anyone agreeing. You shouldn't continue with edits when they are the subject of a dispute and consensus is not shown to be on your side. DrKay (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The bit about ISBNs is inaccurate: you've continued to de-hyphenate ISBNs in articles that consistently used hypenated ISBNs with a few exceptions[1][2][3][4], or even with no exceptions[5][6]. You know other editors disagree with your ideas on this – please stop. Kanguole 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. In History of the Middle East and Continent the Citation bot changed hyphenated ISBN-10s to the partially hyphenated ISBN-13s. Should I then leave a mix of hyphenated & non-hyphenated cites? (Continent also had improper ISBNs in an "id=" parameter.) In History of Africa the previous version had a mix of hypenated/non-hyphenated ISBNs, plus a non-templated ISBN. Same situation here and here and here where Citebot made the initial ISBN changes. (I followed through to make sure all the ISBNs comply with CITEVAR.) Kanguole, I've done ~2,000 edits in the 1,000 VA-3 list over the last 60+ days, so it's inevitable that some editors think I'm stepping on toes. At the same time I've had other editors give me thanks for the changes. So, what's the problem with producing an article that has a consistent ISBN format? – S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I assume you mean that Citation bot changed unhyphenated ISBN-10s to partially hyphenated ISBN-13s (with a hyphen after the 978), as it preserves the hyphenation in hyphenated ISBN-10s. If you are unable to bring the few exceptions into line with the dominant hyphenated style, please leave it to someone else. Kanguole 22:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Kanguole, my routine generally runs like this:

  1. find page I'm interested in and quickly scan history (has Cite bot and/or auto-ed been run recently?)
  2. open for editing and run Cite bot -- wait and wait and wait, and/or do other work
  3. if Cite bot responds with changes, review them
  4. run Auto-ed and review changes (if any)
  5. proceed with an eye-ball review for needed/helpful edits
  6. if there are ISBN variants, select the variant which can be edited the quickest to achieve a consistent ISBN presentation
  7. look for other cheap edit fixes such as hyphens in page ranges and dates, MOSDASH, mixed page range lengths etc (such as p. 1 vs pp. 1–2), spaced and unspaced initials in refs
  8. look for more cheap edit fixes such as ALLCAPS, NOTUSA, overly precise COORDS, OVERLIKINKING (especially in the refs and See also list)
  9. more complicated edits involve citation "location= ", "date/year= ", citation title hyperlinks, etc.
  10. "Show preview" and look for the red warnings, fix as needed or capable
  11. "Publish changes"
    S. Rich (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding ISBNs, while it is certainly easy to obtain uniformity by removing hyphens, several editors have objected, so you should stop doing that. If it is too difficult to achieve conformance with the dominant hyphenated style, you can leave that to someone else. Kanguole 23:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
WHY are hyphens in ISBNs important? Are Amazon, WorldCat, Google missing something? They don't use hyphens. And what should I say to the several editors who have approved of my ISBN edits? – S. Rich (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You could say that you're going to follow CITEVAR. Kanguole 23:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I could say that, I have said that, and I do say I do that. And the key word in CITEVAR is "established". "To make stable or firm; to confirm." If an article has references with a mix of hyphenated & un-hyphenated ISBNs, is the style "established"? Since you are willing to add hyphens -- where you deem necessary -- you must agree that your effort promotes a "firm or stable" style. But please answer my question -- WHY are the hyphens important? – S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
If most of the ISBNs are hyphenated, with the exception of a few, usually added more recently and in poorly formatted references, then yes, that style is established.
Conversely, if most are not hyphenated or partially hyphenated, then that style is "established"?01:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Since we've recently discovered that Wikipedia prefers hyphenation in ISBNs (cf WP:ISBN, {{cite book}}), I don't believe the situation is symmetrical. Kanguole 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Delimited ISBNs are preferred for presentation to humans by the International ISBN Agency, style guides such as CMOS, and Wikipedia (see WP:ISBN). They are easier for humans to read and copy correctly, and the delimited parts quickly provide useful information, e.g. country and publisher, to people familiar with them. Kanguole 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
CMOS indicates both are acceptable. WP does not prefer one-way or the other, but consistency is a strong theme in WP guidance.
Who copies ISBNs these days and with what? Pencil & paper?? If I want to copy something from my laptop or mobile, I highlight the term and press "Copy". (BTW, when I served in Iraq the kids on the street all wanted pencils from the GIs. But those kids are grownup now and their kids use iPhones & Androids.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Got a "thank you" for my edits to Thomas Edison. – S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Just got another "thank you". This one for for Nicholaus Copernicus. – S. Rich (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You've been asked before not to remove spaces between initials, but you've just done it again[7]. DrKay (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I tidied up after your (nearly all valid) edits at Roman Republic. Please stop removing spaces from initials, and be careful to preserve page ranges . – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@DrKay: – please take a look at Chicxulub crater and Water fluoridation. The references in these articles (which you've edited) have a mix of spaced and unspaced initials, plus initials which lack full stops and spaces. If someone were to add or remove such spaces/full stops so that a uniform citation system was presented, would they be guilty of disruptive editing? I assume you posted your template because of your particular interest in Edward, but your threat of blocking is not well taken. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If you, specifically, went to either of those articles and removed spaces between initials in contravention of MOS and contrary to the multiple requests that have been placed on this page, then yes, you would be editing disruptively. Please refrain. I appreciate your edits when they move articles toward having a more consistent, MOS-compliant style, and I encourage you to preview carefully using the "Show Changes" feature in order to catch more of your typos and errors. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

  The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of 1960s countercultureEdit

Hi, thanks for your recent contributions to this article. I was interested (and grateful) for your comment/edit here. You might like to weigh in at the talk page, where I raised some objections about the editorial tone, and especially about the criteria for inclusion in the timeline – ie, whether a reliable source identifies each event as significant to the counterculture (rather than just an individual editor determine that it is, using self-sourced examples). Or perhaps you might not, of course(!); I quite understand. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference formattingEdit

Hi - I noticed that you removed wikilinks from several references on Ralph Northam's page, but it's unclear why. My understanding is that each publication in the "work" field of a reference should be linked the first time that it appears in the article. It appears that you maintained links to a few smaller publications, such as WAVY-TV, The Virginian Pilot, and The Roanoke Times, but removed all of the links for several prominent publications, such as The Washington Post, The Richmond Times-Dispatch, and The Hill. As far as I know, links should be given once in the references for each publication, even if that publication is well-known. Are you able to clarify? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jpcase: I commend you to MOS:OL. The larger pubs (to my mind) qualify as "Everyday words understood by most readers in context." The actual reference article titles show up in the reflist as blue links, and I don't think adding a second blue-link to the WP:SEAOFBLUE is good editering. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

self disciplineEdit

  Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes.S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverting My Edits?Edit

You reverted my Grammatical edits on the Chelsea Manning article without stating a reason. What's up? Tadpole256 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bumped the wrong button. – S. Rich (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

we thank youEdit

The Hidden Valley, Negev
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for article improvements in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Green New DealEdit

Hello, why did you add an empty section, "Positions and principles," to this article? While it might be useful to have this information broken out, I'm not sure that an aspirational, but otherwise empty, caption accomplishes anything on its own. Regards, Lahaun (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lahaun: I'd like to think that User:HouseOfChange was aspired by my edit. – S. Rich (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, although that is still a felony in Kansas. Lahaun (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Packers sweep EditEdit

Hi Srich32977, I reverted your edit at Packers sweep here. Note that I restored a few of your changes as uncontroversial here. Per MOS:REPEATLINK, Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article. Note also that the example given after that sentence (|work=[[The Guardian]]) is a newspaper. MOS:OVERLINK tends to be more applicable to the actual article text, but even if you try to apply the first bullet (Everyday words understood by most readers in context.) to citations, it's a stretch to say that "everyday words" includes proper names of publishers. What may be an everyday publisher to me, may be completely unknown to someone from Australia (or some other English country). This also makes it easier for verification of the correct source or publisher, especially when working with older newspapers that have merged (i.e. the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel) or uncommon publishing organizations (Green Bay Packers, Inc.). Everyday words, imho, include cat, dog, tree, etc that definitely don't require linking in most cases. Lastly, WP:SEAOFBLUE is not applicable, as this shortcut to MOS:LINK applies to confusing combinations of linking (i.e. linking Packers sweep instead of Packers sweep), not overlinking. Based on the fact this is a semi-automated edit, I would recommend not editing citations in this manner as the MOS does not support your position. It also has almost zero benefit for the reader, as linking in a citation does not impact the reader's ability to understand the article (the main purpose of avoiding overlinking). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Mont Perelin Society, Koch Brothers, LibertarianismEdit

I am responding to your comments to me yesterday. Yes, MacLean made specific references to connections between the Mont Perelin Society (MPS) and Koch-funded institutes like the Buchanan Center and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. I can cite those page numbers, if that would solve this problem. Second, MacLean's book exposing Koch Brothers' programs received criticism from people within the academic community who have received funding grants from the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers Network can generate academic criticism of anyone who publishes truths about their work they would rather not have exposed. If conflict-of-interest, sponsored criticism is enough to prevent publishing truths on Wikipedia, then how is Wikipedia a reliable organ for publishing truth? Third, reading the Wikipedia page on the Mont Perelin Society, it only includes high-sounding generalizations and platitudes. It actually serves as a propaganda brochure for the MPS. It is not adequate to explain to readers what the MPS actually stands for and the work that MPS members actually accomplish in the real world. If prominent officers of the MPS, such as past president James M. Buchanan, have published books articulating their beliefs and strategies, and a book like MacLean's documents specific examples of the implementation of those beliefs and strategies, why cannot those specific beliefs, strategies and implementations be published on Wikipedia, to allow readers to be educated on the actual, real-world, influence of the MPS? BAKeenan (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@BAKeenan: Thanks. Yes, page numbers will help. They enable readers to find the specific points in the reference. Because MacLean's book involves living people, Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy must be followed. (In turn, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wishes to include material – favorable or unfavorable – about living people.) MacLean's specific criticisms actually belong in the particular articles (such as James M. Buchanan). Also, I understand your concern about the "propaganda" aspect of the MPS article, but avoiding non-encyclopedic "counter-propaganda" is important too. Finally, most importantly, please enjoy your editing. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC)Edit

Here are some References I found related to the Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC): - (1) most recent article, February: - (2) article last year: - (3) Daily Kos interview with a DFC member: (4) Also, one of the other editors cited the Kos encyclopedia full entry about the DFC: - (5) article in Groundswell newsletter: - (6) critique of DFC by some libertarians: Mab135ac (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Mab135ac

Update: among the new References added since the discussion began about whether to keep or delete, one of the articles is a source documenting that a DFC state chair was elected to city council. One of the editors had thought there weren't any elected officials from the organization. Mab135ac (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Mab135ac

Return to the user page of "Srich32977".