I saw you making a couple of these substitutions on my watchlist. For future reference, per MOS:SEASONS, it is desirable to avoid referring to seasons instead preferring "late 1944", etc. (t · c) buidhe 19:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks :) I'd forgotten about that; I thought it might be the case but I wasn't sure if that was correct of if the actual month should be specified if possible. Thank you for reminding me, and sorry about that :) DesertPipeline (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing up SOLRAD 3! Is spaceflight of particular interest to you? I'm always happy to have fellow Spacepedians. :)

Neopeius (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! :) I pretty much wander around Wikipedia trying to clean up articles where I can, but I've always found spaceflight and related topics interesting :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DesertPipeline

Thanks for encouraging words! I was acitve in Wikipedia in the past when German site was below 1 Mio entries. The German article de:PlanetarySystemStacker was gratefully accepted. I was not aware about the restrictions on new articles in EN Wikipedia. Otherwise I would have added more references as I did now. Is it save to store the draft article under *User:Tubas*, see heading? It is an article about a scientific software which produces excellent results. But it will never be in the mainstream for mobile phone users. Perhaps some day someone will remember about this article and move it to the main pages. Tubas (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine; generally, pages in userspace aren't deleted unless the author requests it. By the way, is the draft a translation of the Deutsch Wikipedia entry, or is it written from scratch? If it's a translation and was accepted there just fine, maybe their notability policy is more lax – I'm not sure. Thanks for your message :) DesertPipeline (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Key excerpts, as you requested:

• NY Times: "In some ways, uppercase “Internet” was always a bit of an anomaly, since it is not really a proper noun comparable to a company name or an official place name. The term internet (short for internetwork) described any linked network of computers, so the capital “I” served to distinguish the global network from other internets — a pointless distinction now, since “internet” is rarely used anymore in the generic sense .. Once a term becomes familiar and quotidian, there is a tendency to drop the capital letter ... While the switch might be briefly disconcerting, in the long run we think the uppercase “Internet” would seem out of step."

• Wired: "The capital 'I' reflects the perceived status of the global network as a unique entity ... The lower-case version will eventually win the day, though, driven by age-old principles of language change."

• New Republic: "The word’s origins date back to the 1970s, when an “inter-network” was just a collection of smaller networks that communicated using the same protocols. Functionally, the internet of today is just the largest example of an internet—which, incidentally, means that the word entered our vocabulary in lowercase ... In the same way we don’t capitalize “telephone” or 'cable,' we shouldn’t be capitalizing 'internet'."

• The Verge: "As some argue, the distinction is that the internet we know and use today is just one internet out of many possible internets. It just so happens that the internet we use is also called the internet. It's like the Sun that we orbit and the sun of another planetary system. In either case, with the AP now defecting in this fever-pitched grammatical battle, there will likely only be a few holdouts left carrying the banner of "the Internet."

As you can see, the professional editors advocating for lowercase internet are not ignorant about the technical history of the distinction, they just know it's going the way of the dodo. Popcornfud (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Popcornfud :) I can't say I agree with their rationales but I'm not smart enough to offer counterpoints :( I wonder if SMcCandlish would mind doing that? They seem quite good at... well, typing smart things :) Would you mind if I copied these excerpts from here to the Discussion subsection of the MoS post and ask SMc if they can respond to these? Thanks again for sending me these :) Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure SMc is already aware of their sources, and they have made their opinion on this clear - SMc just thinks they’re wrong. Popcornfud (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was that you? Good one. But you should sign your work, though as you can see, bees actually don't have hooves. EEng 05:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should sign them with "Not EEng" – how do I sign images like you do, though? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 06:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[File:foo.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|Blah blah blah ((right|-~~~))]] Note three ~ instead of four to omit timestamp, which is too cluttering. EEng 06:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My appreciation, amigo :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wonder if you saw the addition I made to a section further up the MoS talk page? ;) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about [1]. Do you manually copy each heading into /* heading */ in the edit summary or do you have a tool helping make the edit summary? Help:Edit summary#Section editing mentions the manual method but I don't recall ever seeing it used before. By the way, MOS:BOLD includes: "This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article". copyright trap redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use the manual method. Also, I didn't realise that copyright trap redirects; I thought I checked and didn't see anything. Hold on, I'll sort it out :) DesertPipeline (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primehunter: Sorry, ping failed; should've previewed :) DesertPipeline (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter: ...D'oh! :) DesertPipeline (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's a charm :) That sounds like a lot of time to spend on a minor edit summary. If the diff clearly shows the change and other users have no need see the rendered version like in many template or table edits then I think it's a little overkill. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter: If I can explain the change in a more concise way, I usually do so – like "Copyedit: (Type(s) of copyedit performed)", but if I've done something that I feel needs pointing out specifically, I'll write a more detailed edit summary. I do this so that it doesn't appear that I'm not pointing out things I should be pointing out I've changed in the edit summary :) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. Please take a look at WP:COMMONNAME when you get a chance. It concerns me that you moved two articles from common names to uncommon names. For example, Video game piracy has 101,000 hits in Google, and Unauthorized distribution of video games only has 8. I am also concerned by your change of the word "free" to "gratis" (this is less clear/less succinct). I am also concerned by all your edits in general, as you seem to have a pro-piracy POV. (I also like piracy, but I do not let it show in my editing.) I would encourage you to dial back the boldness of your edits a bit and get consensus for big changes. Thanks for listening. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Novem Linguae: While "piracy" is a more common term, it is also not neutral. There is a large difference between attacking ships and copying files without permission. It also communicates no useful information as a title, because it's not literal phrasing. "Unauthorised distribution" or "unauthorised copying" are both accurate and neutral titles to refer to the practice.

I'm not sure why you consider that using the word gratis is less clear. I link to Wiktionary when I add it to an article so that if someone doesn't know, they can click it and get a definition. They could also search the Internet to get a definition. It is a word used in English, and I think it's a very good word, because otherwise we have no way to disambiguate between "free as in freedom" and "free as in zero cost".

I'm not sure why you consider me to have a pro-unauthorised copying/distribution stance. I honestly find it concerning that nowadays, trying to be neutral can be seen as being "pro-whatever-it-is". Although maybe it's always been that way.

Also, do you have any reason other than it being the common name for opposing the renames? DesertPipeline (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for the response. I suggest you open a WP:RM at one or both articles, so that we can get feedback from other editors. You can do it with Twinkle -> XFD -> RM. Depending on the outcomes, we can go from there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Novem Linguae: Please can you answer my questions first? Also, I don't have Twinkle, so I'll have to do it manually. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist, although I suspect this is one of those issues where we're on opposite sides of the fence and unlikely to change our minds, and a couple of rounds of back and forth will just be frustrating.

Let's see... The word "piracy" does have negative connotations. But I would argue it's not because the choice of words elicits mental imagery of pirates pirating. It's because society has attached a stigma to it. Piracy (or online distribution... the entire concept is stigmatized) certainly isn't the kind of thing I'd feel comfortable talking about at work. But, it's also the word that everybody knows this concept by. I guess the essence of the debate is, should Wikipedia prefer WP:COMMONNAMEs or WP:EUPHEMISMs for stigmatized words? I think the answer is common names, you think it's euphemisms.

In general, I like using the clearest word possible for something. It is less mental effort for the reader. It avoids WP:JARGON. Therefore, I prefer "online piracy" to "unauthorized distribution", and "free" to "gratis". The only reason I know the word "gratis" is because I speak some Spanish. Otherwise it would be a wholly unfamiliar foreign language word.

The fact that you link an essay you wrote to justify your changes suggests to me that you may have some POV that is slightly out of alignment with project-wide consensus. If these changes were non-controversial and neutral, an essay probably wouldn't be needed in order to advocate for them.

No additional reasons come to mind for my rename objection. I think WP:COMMONNAME is reason enough. It is a Wikipedia policy.

I could be wrong on some or all of this. The quickest way to come to a consensus is to go through the RM process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Novem Linguae: I can't say I agree with you about "unauthorised copying" and "unauthorised distribution" being euphemisms. It's just an accurate description of what it is. It's copying without authorisation. What else could we call it that doesn't agree with the point of view of those who would like us to imagine that is is equivalent to real piracy? My essay points out words which are embedded in our culture, and that are embedded because they prevent clear thinking (or ensure wholly incorrect thinking) about their subjects. Because we are living in a system that promotes this language, it is difficult for the average person to recognise that they are in fact pushing a point of view. I can't say that my essay is sufficiently convincing to help people recognise that the language is indeed pushing a point of view, but I'm trying. I'd rather try and fail than do nothing.

An important question to ask yourself is "Why is this word being used?" in the case of "piracy". They are trying to suggest that copying something you own, and then sharing copies of your copy, is wrong by using that word. There is discourse to be had on this subject, but it is impossible to have a reasoned debate when the initial parameters have been skewed by such an action. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Novem Linguae I really need to check that a ping is going to work before I submit. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DesertPipeline,

I've seen you do this in a few articles, but for what it's worth, double spaces are explicitly allowed on Wikipedia. There's absolutely no difference in how they display to the user, so it's a matter of editor preference. If you prefer to use single spaces in your own substantive edits, that's great, but don't do "drive-by" edits that do nothing but change the spacing style of an article; double spacing is not a problem to be "fixed", unlike say spelling errors. SnowFire (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SnowFire: There's no difference in how it displays to the user, yes. This means that the byte count of the article is being increased without any change in the rendered page. Especially when there are a lot of double spaces in an article, removing them can reduce it by quite a bit. Also, I usually don't remove double spacing and nothing else in an edit. Only if I start editing a page, then see there was nothing else to change and check for double spaces with search and replace. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do this. Seriously. Refashioning wikisource in a trivial way which you happen to prefer, but which doesn't change or improve anything the reader sees, is a real no-no. And idea that the size of the source matters is completely laughable. EEng 04:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Sorry, that came off a bit harsh. But I'm trying to steer you away from trouble. That kind of stuff really pisses people off.[reply]

User:EEng: I don't understand your reasoning. It's not a case of "preferring" it, it's a case of "this doesn't serve any purpose and only increases the page's size so might as well not be there". If it doesn't display on the rendered page I don't see what the point of keeping double spaces in the wikitext is. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What EEng said. Please read Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. You are "optimizing" something that literally does not matter as far as performance. You should respect what previous editors have used and not bother with changing spacing style in any sort of "just passing through" fix edits. (If you are substantively editing the content, not merely doing fixes, feel free to use whatever style you like, of course, which can include what was there before, but that doesn't seem to be the case for quite a lot of your edits.) Editors are allowed to use the spacing style that is comfortable for them.
• NINJA EDIT, in response to the above later comment about "what's the point of keeping this": Of course it serves a purpose! The purpose is for humans, not machines, who might use double spaces. The most important part of Wikipedia is its editors. Why do you think I even bothered to bring this up? You're free to prefer your own style, but don't overwrite other editor's styles. It's exactly the same as how Wikipedia allows multiple different citation styles - different editors prefer different styles, they all work, the important thing is to let editors use the style that's comfortable to them from their own discipline, somebody "standardizing" citation style to an alternate style in a drive-by edit is not helping and is just pissing off the real editor that maintains that page. SnowFire (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:SnowFire: I don't think that saying "the real editor [who] maintains that page" is the Wikipedia spirit. We are a group of people trying to collaborate and make improvements. This is the spirit of the free software movement. Anyone who edits a page and does not make a negative change should be given the same consideration as anyone else. Also, I'd like to ask you to consider thinking about your own position here. Would you say that you're arguing from an emotional position, or a logical one? From my perspective, the position you are voicing seems to be "it should be kept that way because the person who wrote it wanted it that way". We should not be afraid to make changes on Wikipedia. If they're not negative – and I wouldn't characterise the removal of double spaces as negative – then I don't think it should be worried about. Also, Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors. The editors are there to provide a good encylopedia for the readers. People who edit Wikipedia are wise to remember that as soon as they publish something here, it may well be edited mercilessly so that it no longer resembles what they wrote at all. Removing double spaces, by comparison, is a very minor change. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it's very minor, which is why I only brought it up after seeing you make the change in several places rather than one time. I'm just making clear that yes, it is a "negative" change. You can go around littering paper straws and nobody will care much, it's not a big deal, but why are you even bothering? We've given you two reasons already: one, that it doesn't help performance, two, that it's not a collaborative thing to do to build a positive editor environment. If it sounds like I'm angry, it's because you didn't seem to grasp that people really do care about this, and I wanted to make clear that belief is false. People do care, so if you think you're just harmlessly "fixing" things, I'm trying to make clear that you're actually stepping on deep toes here. And for nothing, due to problem 1!

  Very early in Wikipedia's history, there were editors who'd go around "helping" by standardizing AD to CE, or British English to American English, or other such things. They genuinely believed they were helping, and isn't American English so much easier to understand and more popular anyway? They wanted to have a discussion every time. Luckily, the WP:RETAIN policy exists and helped tamp down that time wasting. It says, for the purposes of the humans who edit Wikipedia's collaboration, to lay off. Readers don't care, both styles work, just leave it be. It's the same thing here but on a more minor scale. Please take the human aspect seriously here, it's not a footnote. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:SnowFire: From my perspective, the arguments for and against are as follows.

  For:

  • People want to have the work that they did remain

  Against:

  • Byte count is increased for no page render change
  • Inconsistency between rendered page and wikitext, as the double spaces appear in the wikitext

  I just don't understand your position here. I also don't understand why you're angry about it – I am certainly getting annoyed while trying to deal with deeply embedded points of view on Wikipedia, but that's a much larger issue than this. Not to be dismissive, but the way I see it I would go so far as to say that this isn't an issue at all. If people genuinely get annoyed if someone does this, why? I really don't understand. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  DP, I like you, so please understand this is coming from love. You'll eventually get blocked if you keep this up. I mean it. Every time you edit a page it pops up on 1 to 500 editors' watchlists, some fraction of whom then expend their precious time checking to see what was done. When they see it's just fooling with source text to no benefit at all, it really annoys people, and in time that annoyance will evolve into a determination to force you to stop. Remember that I'm always right (click here for testimonials on this point) and take my advice. A year from now you'll understand. EEng 06:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:EEng: Within this short timespan I have started to understand the people who left Wikipedia in disgust. It's not Wikipedia's fault though – the awful truth is that it's just humanity. If I try to achieve in the real world what I believe is necessary to save our species, I think I'm going to fail. This experience has at least taught me that. I understand selfishness now. Why people would want to think of only themselves. The sad thing is that it all perpetuates the cycle. People think only of themselves, others try to make things better for everyone, the people who think of only themselves manipulate everyone into working against their interests. Those trying to improve things then get into the same selfish mindset; repeat. I don't think I have the capability to end that cycle. If not, bring on the apocalypse. Life was a mistake if we fail to look at the bigger picture and see that what is in the interests of everyone is necessarily also in the interest of those who are being short-sightedly selfish. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I really think you're attaching too much weight to this double-spacing thing. EEng 07:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:EEng: It's more what these things that have been happening recently represent on a wider scale that is getting to me. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  D.P., I want you to pick someone you trust -- someone IRL, not in cyberspace -- and tell them about what we've been talking about and the other things that've been bothering you, and I'm sure you'll feel better after having talked it over. Really, truly, I promise you, this is not as important as it seems right now, and that includes "what they represent on a wider scale". I promise you. Get some shut-eye. EEng 07:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:EEng: It's more the loaded words discussion that has bothered me; however, not really being able to keep cool in a trivial discussion like this suggests to me that I'm hardly the right person to be trying to change the world. Good communication is crucial to that, and a willingness to listen to the input of others. Sometimes I'm too stubborn. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As are we all at times. Don't beat yourself up. Look, it sometimes happens that a new editor dives into policy stuff only to realize, after some tears, that there are subtleties to Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes stuff that take time to appreciate. Stick to article editing for a year before moving on to changing the world. Don't take on too much. Heed Steve Martin's advice:

  The thing you have to learn, in having a goal, is not to set an impossible goal, something too high you can never reach. You gotta have a series of smaller goals, that you can accomplish, and slowly work your way up. And this is what I have done. That's why I'm so happy. My goal: right now, I want to be the all-being master of time, space and dimension.

  EEng 17:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like you're asking in good faith, so sure, I'll respond. Both of your "against" comments don't work: the byte count is beyond irrelevant, and the "inconsistency" doesn't matter (see templates for one famous example where wikitext is totally different than rendered text, intentionally). You seemed to be parroting FSF type arguments elsewhere; have you done computer programming before? A space here or there is irrelevant. It's beyond irrelevant. Saving a single byte hasn't mattered since the 1980s. More generally, text itself is very efficient. If you really, really felt like "optimizing" the byte count on a page, you should remove an image from it. Actually don't, because even the size of an image doesn't matter nowadays, but a single image can easily be larger than the entire text of an article. The first rule of optimization is to find the bottleneck. If you're trying to optimize a 4-hour long trip, making it so you spend only 2 minutes 45 seconds using the bathroom at the rest stop rather than 3 minutes is not going to matter. Anyway, if you do know something about coding, you'll know that programming languages themselves evolved so that people could write slightly inefficient programs from a technical perspective, but very maintainable ones from a human perspective. Major companies work in "inefficient" scripting languages like NodeJS or Python that are in reality extremely efficient if they enable teams to deliver slightly faster - which is the "real" bottleneck, not whether an API call takes 10 ms or 15 ms. Checking edits to see what they did, only to realize they changed something pointless to a variant that was not used by the original editor, is wasting human time, which is a Real Resource. I keep stressing this because this is really, really true. If the Wikimedia Foundation could press a magic switch to make all article text be 1% larger but have 1% more active, engaged, thoughtful editors, they would press that switch, repeatedly. And yet, wasting editor time on such pointless edits is doing the exact thing in reverse - you're taking useful editor's time and forcing it to be spent on, well, this.
• Lastly, since I'm not sure you understand - double spaces vs. single spaces are exactly identical to American English vs. British English, a style choice where both are correct. Some people are taught to always use double spaces, some to always use single spaces. It does not matter which, both work. Just like a British English speaker doesn't need to explain or defend why they use British English, and if you "fix" their writing to American style, they might get justly annoyed at you, even though the American style would have been fine if you'd written it yourself. SnowFire (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  User:SnowFire: I give up. You win. My idealism is gone. It's not even about this – I thought I could make things better in the world in other ways but if it's going to be like this, and I'm sure it will be but worse, then I don't have the ability to do it. I understand why nobody else cares now. Of course, if they did care, then it would be easier, because doing things alone is completely impossible at the scope I intend. But it's not going to happen. Everyone would have to completely change their attitudes and we don't have time for that. I'm just going to do what I can and if it doesn't work, whatever. I'm not invested any more. I don't even know what I was going to do or what I can do. I'm tired already and I didn't even start trying to deal with what actually matters yet. I don't want to be like everybody else and not try but it just doesn't seem feasible to have any positive impact with the world situation as it is. The culture is all wrong. We don't have time to fix it. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey you. You've been kicked around a bit recently, and I've done some of the kicking. Don't get discouraged. You'll find your stride. Hope to see you around. EEng 06:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Listen, I need to talk with you again about your approach to stylistic choices in articles. I see two things you've been doing lately:

• Tagging "colloquialism" in articles that others apparently don't see.
• Converting articles from American English to British English because [2] "article is not about an American subject". You seem to think British English is some kind of default, and that's not true.

The bottom line is that you have somewhat rigid ideas about writing style and formatting which are not shared by the community as a whole, and more and more you're annoying other editors with them. First it was your ideas about neutral language; then it was the double spacing; after that colloquialisms. Your arbitrary conversion of articles to British English is especially serious; you are walking into a minefield and you will get blocked if you keep that up.

Please, please stop "cleaning up" stuff according to your personal ideas; editors who do wide-ranging cleanup work successfully are those who have paid their dues first by writing content themselves (not just "fixing" other people's content). I urge you to find a topic area you find sufficiently interesting to allow you to do that, and stop it with all this tinkering. EEng 18:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEng: If you object to me changing the spelling variants in an article, you can change them back. However, I'm not sure why articles about things that have nothing to do with America should be written in American English.

I don't have the capacity to write my own material on Wikipedia; not to any significant extent anyway. It also requires me to cite sources, which is something I cannot do due to personal reasons. Do people in the Wikipedia community look down upon those who only edit what was written before without writing anything of their own? If so, I don't think that's in the spirit of Wikipedia. We're all here to collaborate and (hopefully) make Wikipedia a little better with each of our contributions, but we can't all be expected to write masterpieces of prose. I do what I can do on Wikipedia. Even that can be a struggle sometimes. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can tell (from the amount of time and patience I've invested in you) that there's something about you I like, and I really want to see you succeed here. BUT... You've got to really, really listen. It's not that the community looks down on those who edit content originated by others; personally, I think good copyediting and fixing is a rarer skill, and more needful here, than just plain writing of content – but it's got to be good copyediting and fixing. And I'm sorry, yours just isn't, because you get these wrong ideas and run with them, and it's getting you in hot water over and over.

In particular, this changing of stuff to BrEng is a really serious matter. It's taken literally decades to find a set of rules on national varieties of English that everyone can live with, and you're just ignoring them; read (really read) MOS:ENGVAR, and especially the part about "retaining the existing style". You cannot just change the established national variety of an article and say (as you did above), "Well, you can change it back if you want"; you need a reason (as described in ENGVAR), and in most cases talk-page consensus, before you do that. It's like this because historically there's been way too much trouble over such matters; such problems have gone to the Arbitration Committee numerous times and no one is going to play with you over it. You've been warned now, and you're not too far from a block if you keep it up.

It makes me sad to read I don't have the capacity to write my own material on Wikipedia; not to any significant extent anyway. It also requires me to cite sources, which is something I cannot do due to personal reasons because it sounds ... well, sad. I can't imagine what your circumstances could be, but it must feel bad to want to contribute and yet have so much trouble finding a way to do it. Look, if you find yourself making the same kind of edit over and over, why don't you give me a ping and I'll take a look and tell you what I think? That way we can head off trouble. OK? EEng 04:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEng: I'm perfectly happy simply doing copyediting; if any edit I make is in the wrong, then I want it to be changed back and I want to be informed why. When is it okay to change the English variant in an article if not when the subject is not related to America? I've read MOS:TIES, but I don't know how strong the "ties" have to be. Also, what if some of the article is using British English and other parts are using American English, and the article has no strong ties to America – am I then okay to standardise all the spellings to British English? DesertPipeline (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged on this as well - DesertPipeline, I strongly suggest you take EEng's suggestion to write some content of your own first. Find some obscure open-source project that has a stubby article and expand it, or a bit of local history you're an expert on, or translate an article from another edition of Wikipedia whose language you're familiar with that en Wiki doesn't have yet, or anything. In general, a lot of English is just stylistic preferences rather than right or wrong, and people will give at least some deference to the original writer, even when it's not what they would have written themselves. On the flip side, when you come to another article as a passer-by, you should do the same and give some deference to the editors who wrote what was there before. Basically, writing your own content you will experience the feeling when your own Perfect Prose is messed up by meddling other editors, as well as cool helpful fixes from others too. Also, I'm not 100% why you can't cite sources (in the Internet era, it's unlikely you'll "leak" information about yourself accidentally by what books you have access to... even the rarest books can be found online), but if you truly can't, you can still write content as long as it's citable eventually. I hesitate to recommend this too heavily - please don't take this as a license for original research - but the fact is that most random edits from unregistered users don't necessarily back their additions with sources either, so you can do something similar, as long as the article as a whole has some sources. SnowFire (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've created Template:Quote punctuation. But do you really think a violation of MOS:LQ is something that deserves a banner at the top of an article? Compliance with MOS:LQ is inside baseball among editors that affects virtually nothing in terms of readers' understanding of topics or ease of reading. A much more effective way of asking for a verification of compliance in an article is to notify a forum like WT:GOCE. I thought of filing it for TfD but I figured I'd ask you first. Nardog (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I've filed it for TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Template:Quote punctuation. Nardog (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might contemplate that it is more noble to correct easily remediable problems rather than just identifying them. ;)

An editor thinks that word "blur" is used inappropriately in the Wikipedia article Raft. They can't be bothered to fix the problem, but are satisfied that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag.

Smallchief (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smallchief: I tag colloquialisms in articles when I don't know a literal replacement. That's what maintenance tags are for – to tag an issue that you can't resolve. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inappropriate about the phrasing "blur a definition". It is standard, idiomatic English. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Eppstein: By definition, an idiom is non-literal language. It may be standard, but on Wikipedia we're supposed to go further than "standard" – encylopedic language should be literal. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to your dictionary and learn the difference between an idiom (a specific turn of phrasing) and idiomatic (writing that flows naturally, as if spoken by a native speaker). When there is an idiomatic and natural way of phrasing something, we should use it. We should not use stilted and pedantic and artificial and stiff and boring sequences of words when there is a flowy alternative just for the point of being stilted and pedantic and artificial and stiff and boring. It doesn't help our readers to do that. It only makes us look stilted and pedantic and artificial and stiff and boring, and what's the use in that? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Loaded words and terms on Wikipedia, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Loaded words and terms on Wikipedia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Loaded words and terms on Wikipedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hi, Requesting you to please restore this page.. I'm updating the content and I'll remove or modify the sources cited. Again please restore this page.. ill make the appropriate changes as per the guideline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SAMCO_Securities_(2nd_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilesh M Sharma (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nilesh M Sharma: If by "restore the page" you mean to what it was before it was deleted, I can't do that; I'm not an administrator. See Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active to find someone who can help you. Also, it would be better if it were put into draft space so that it can be verified that this time it passes the notability guidelines; otherwise, it will likely just be subject to another Articles for Deletion (AfD) nomination. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:
Following on from your edit here, how did you add the section headings (-→ Rotating tunnels, → Framework, etc) to your edit summary? I'm curious... Moonraker12 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moonraker12: /*(Text here)*/ – You can put any text in between; only text which matches a section heading's name will result in a working link though, where it takes you to the section with that name when clicked on :) DesertPipeline (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you; so it does ! Moonraker12 (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm supposed to answer on my page or yours, so sorry if I've got this wrong. It's Android I'm running it on, with Chrome. Like you say, I'd've thought they'd have this sorted by now. I did wonder after I'd written it off mp4 was under patent. Anyhow, at least I know now. Ta for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidSix (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SquidSix: I hadn't considered that you were using a mobile phone; I presumed you were using Windows (although even Windows is able to play the formats Wikipedia uses). Android is an operating system which uses the kernel Linux, so it surprises me that it wouldn't work there. Can you try it with Firefox and see if it works natively there? Just for curiosity's sake. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Hang on a sec. Righto, some interesting things here. Well, that is, if you're an anorak like me. Anyhow, Firefox, worked like a dream, no problems at all like you suspected. However, the same videos wunt work on Chrome, except one, the 200 metres article had a video in WEBM, I think it was, & that worked. But I've found summat else out by accident. If you change to desktop view in Chrome, the video also plays, so it must be to do with the mobile version. Beyond me to work that out, though. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidSix (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SquidSix: I'm glad you got it working. As an aside, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~); also, when replying, you should indent your comments. The indenting and comment placement rules can be a little confusing at first, but it just takes some getting used to. I hope that helps. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not noticed the effect on the References section of the articles? Multiref2 inserts enormous amounts of verticle whitespace that is quite disruptive. Constant314 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constant314: I don't see that myself. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be browser related or settings dependent. That is one of the problems with templates and Wikipedia in general: making it look good on all platforms. I am using MS Edge which is a Chrome derivative. Anyway, on my device, it really looks much worse than the problem it is trying to solve. Constant314 (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constant314: I would recommend using a different browser (and GNU rather than Windows at that – but that's beside the point). I think that Edge doesn't conform to proper Web standards, like how Internet Explorer didn't. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constant314: Sorry; I was wrong that it doesn't happen for me. It turns out because someone replaced the HTML paragraph break tags in the template with ((pb)), that broke it somehow. I've fixed it now. Please let me know if it's fixed for you. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fine now. Constant314 (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great; I'm glad it's resolved. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deletion is not the only way to resolve the issue - very specifically the stations were created for the event. JarrahTree 12:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1987 event was of quite mixed blessings to some, - the railway stations are perhaps a set of the shortest duration railway stopping places in western australian railway history (literally only a few years operating) apart from Koongamia, Western Australia (less than 10 years and not even identified at this stage in the article) JarrahTree 12:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JarrahTree: I think it needs more context then. I don't understand why they'd construct railway stations due to an event's outcome. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with outcome - it was to do with the event itself - as it was, they operated for a short time JarrahTree 08:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JarrahTree: Then please can you add text explaining that to the article? If necessary I can copyedit it after you've added it. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

footnote 11 has it all - a trove reference and a quote -that really should be sufficient JarrahTree 08:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting re the content and sense of the items in the list - hopefully the inadequately attended to list might have some improvements after all this time - so your alerting the issue is appreciated. JarrahTree 08:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Moorgate tube crash shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are already at 4RR - please don't make it worse. I am happy to discuss this on the talk page, but you have to stop the reversions. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Template:Multiref2, where I fixed self-closed tag lint errors, but may not have done it exactly right. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I suspect it's not right, because this markup

((Multiref2|<ref name="Hayt_5"/>((rp|360)) |<ref name="Balanis_AEE_2">((Citation |last=Balanis |first= Constantine A. |year= 2012 |title= Engineering Electromagnetics |edition= 2nd |publisher= Wiley |isbn= 978-0-470-58948-9 |author-link=Constantine A. Balanis))</ref>((rp|142))| <ref name="Harrington_THEF">((Citation |last=Harrington |first= Roger F. |year= 1961 |title= Time-Harmonic Electromagnetic Fields  |publisher= McGraw-Hill |isbn= 0-07-026745-6 |author-link= Roger F. Harrington))</ref>((rp|50–52)) ))

from User:Constant314/sandbox has a missing end tag for <p>. I don't see the problem, because the first <p> and the last </p> seem to be properly nested outside all sets of ((...)). If you have not already done so, it would be helpful to read WP:Linter and install lintHint, which is described there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anomalocaris: Are you sure that <p> needs to be closed? It adds a paragraph break. I'm not sure how such a thing could be "closed". It's possible that the LintErrors page reports this as an error when it isn't actually an error. But I'm not an expert so I don't know. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} Yes, Paragraphs should be closed. The use of <p> in the same manner as <br> is very outdated HTML — it's still supported by most browsers but only as a legacy feature. Correct, verifiable HTML uses paragraphs as a container tag, to surround the tagged content. They have both an opening and closing tag.

• Wrong:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
<p>
Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam.
<p>
Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo.

• Right:

<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.</p>
<p>Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam.</p>
<p>Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo.</p>

Those will format identically in most browsers, but one is correct and one is not. With the incorrect version, most likely the browser reinterprets each unbalanced open-paragraph as automatically closing the previous one (<p> becomes </p><p> automatically) to keep the DOM sane. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed you messed around with this template a while back attempting to remove some whitespace. I had the same trouble with the same template on Grey's Anatomy (season 17) with this reference: ^[1]. It doesn't appear that you actually got around to publishing anything, possibly because the whitespace was still showing? In the sandbox I messed around with your edited version, which used a switch statement, and added what appeared to be a missing pipe (swapping (({text))} for (({text|))}) and it appears to have potentially fixed the issue. Here's an example using the sandbox with the added pipe: ^[2]. I quickly glanced over the testcases and didn't notice that anything was broken but considering that I don't mess with templates often I wanted to check with you and see if there were any other underlying issues that may have caused you not to publish previously?

Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made updates in ((Multiref2/sandbox)) that fix the paragraph issue and the check for an empty first parameter. They also remove the requirement that a second parameter be supplied, because why not? There's no harm in supporting ((Multiref2|(single citation))) as a derivative form, it shouldn't cause an error. (Perhaps the user wants to come back and add an additional citation later.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DesertPipeline: The important thing to keep in mind here is that the template's entire output is being inserted into a single <ref>...</ref> tag in the article body. Then, that tag's entire contents is inserted into a single list item in an ordered list, in the reflist.

So this: <ref>((Multiref2|((cite web|cite1))|((cite web|cite2))|...))</ref>

Becomes this: <ref>((cite web|cite1))<p>((cite web|cite2))</p>...</ref>

Becomes this: <ol><li>((cite web|cite1))<p>((cite web|cite2))</p>...</li></ol>

The nesting is why everything has to be carefully balanced, for the template to work. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the problem with the bulleting, or even with the use of a nested list in general, is that there's no way to have it start on the same line as the citation number/marking. If you do any sort of nesting:

<ol><li><ul><li>((cite web|cite1))</li><li>((cite web|cite2))</li><li>...</li></ul></li></ol>

...the unordered list will automatically become a child list of the ordered list, and its first item will start on the following line. ((Multiref)) gets around that by having the caller supply some introductory text which gets placed on the first line (the line with the ordered list number), before the unbulleted list. That text (even if it's empty) is a requirement of how HTML processes nested lists, so if any kind of list is used it can't be avoided. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-edited the sandbox version to use ((pb)), as it does seem to be expressly designed for this based on its documentation. The spacing still looks proper, both here and in the test cases. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit for the article. Thank you. Omomp (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Omomp: Hi. Thank you for the article editing suggestion. I have fixed the problems I identified and could resolve in the article; I've tagged problems which I couldn't resolve myself. As I find tables difficult to edit with the source editor, they remain unchanged. You might also consider tagging the article with ((copy edit|date=October 2021)) to get further assistance. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A few months ago you've started a discussion about bolding of names in lists. I just want to let you know it's progressed somewhat. fgnievinski (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Packed gallery border has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Professional sound production/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Multiref/sandbox2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]