User talk:Andy02124

Hello, Andy02124, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank T. Merrill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy turn-around! This was my first article so I'm happy with a C. Still a lot to learn. Andy02124 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy02124, I think the stuff you're writing up is fascinating, but it needs more encyclopedic polish. That means, in general, more economical writing, fewer illustrations, fewer text boxes and long citations, and more secondary sourcing. Please leave out the ancestry webs or whatever, and if material is sourced to contemporary newspapers, it needs to be attributed: we cannot take such old material at face value, and not just because Dewey Defeats Truman. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Your points are well-taken, although I may take issue with fewer illustrations in an article about an artist. The problem I run into is that there aren't many (or any) secondary sources for these figures in the margins of art history, so I have been relying on contemporary newspapers. What do you mean about attribution for these sources?

(So I guess I can't add the story about the guy who went to a New Year's bash in 1902 dressed as a leprechaun and speaking with an Irish brogue.) Andy02124 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the chop of the quotations from Alcott and Twain on Merrill's page. I'm very disappointed as I thought those placed Merrill in context with some of the authors he interacted with. And secondary sources, right? Andy02124 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2022 (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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of resources? AFAIK it only generates an anchor HTML tag, so adds a little bit of bytes to the page? It would be great if you could link an explanatory page when making such changes because it's not clear how this cost outweighs the cost of e.g. an editor reading those references, generating a {{sfn}} tag, and then being surprised by it not working?

Please feel free to do the separate change again if it's uncontroversial, but preferably do it in a separate revision. That way you don't run the now-obvious risk that one thing gets reverted with another, and is generally cleaner because you can provide a coherent help:edit summary for each.

Thanks. --Joy (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I guess my long career as a software developer trained me to avoid generating any excess, unused data, and to be aware of any side effects that new code may introduce.

I will try to find out why ref=none is included in the cite templates as I am curious about the impact on COinS. And I'll be more careful about fully summarizing any changes that I inflict! Andy02124 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I wasn't specifically reverting your edits, but also some of my own. When I first came across the {{sfn}}, I thought it was just a quick way of adding references in the text. Later, I realised that unless I used {{cite book}} as well, it flagged up errors that meant other editors had to convert all the sources as well. I don't like {{cite book}} as it takes longer to implement and is difficult to read in wiki code if I want to check or amend it; I also don't like giving fellow editors unnecessary extra work. So I prefer to go back to <nowiki><ref> and enter the sources as I would in a research paper. So you acted in good faith and I'm sorry to have caused you work. Bermicourt (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. When you mentioned "bot" I was worried that I was screwing up a lot of pages with my bout of fixing sfns (too much time on my hands at the moment). You may have noticed I did the same thing to "Sixty-Six (card game)".

I prefer using the cite templates because of the COinS integration and because they enforce a standard presentation format.

I don't mind the work; I've been doing this for less than a year and learn something new with every article I examine - like "how can someone add all those sfns without a single reference!" Andy02124 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, When doing "sfn fixes" on Hadatha, you removed the page-links from the Hadawi-reference, and you split the one "Hadawi 1970, p. 72"-reference into two references; I assume inadvertently, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry. The sfns were rather unusual and I apparently did not understand the intent of the author. I've backed out all my changes. Andy02124 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terraced Gardens, Rivington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, during my recent revert your addition were removed inadvertently. You may re-add the books now. Thanks -Admantine123 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His autobiography was published in the UK in 1951, the USA in 1952, the UK again in 1969 (with a Foreword by Laurie Lee), and a UK paperback in 1971, so some contradiction is not unlikely! I think both the US 1952 and the UK 1969 editions are on Archive.org, so might be worth someone going through them to cite them all to one edition. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. That someone isn't me, though; I'm just trying to clear the technical footnote errors. Andy02124 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with harv errors, I wasn't expecting H to be clear for a few days yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were mostly low-hanging fruit, which was a nice change from the Rs, where I'm down to the really gnarly ones. Andy02124 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues can drive you half mad trying to figure out. If I can help in any way just let me know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help fixing the citation, loc=passim definitely adds a note of class to the article! I hope to add a lot more photos to the article and nominate it for DYK. Blythwood (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. A bit of Latin seemed appropriate. I'm currently fixing technical footnote errors on pages beginning with R but occasionally I stop to read and I enjoyed your article. Andy02124 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my lazy errors on the secretaries of the presidency articles :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The only page I couldn't clear off the footnote errors list is "Secretary of the Presidency of the League of Communists of Vojvodina". Andy02124 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Could you please fix the error you introduced to List of destroyed heritage reference #131 in your recent edit? The citation template can have |page= or |pages=, but not both. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Fixed. Andy02124 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andy, at this discussion about whitelist questions, you asked a related question about inclusion of bibliographies:

Also, there is set of pages that include a lengthy bibliography via a template, which, of course, raises false positive errors. Is the best solution to edit the template, adding a long list of CITEREFs?

I'm not 100% sure I understood the question, but regarding transclusion of bibliographic citations, yes, there are several such pages, and in those cases, yes, you do need to use a long whitelist. As an example, have a look at Ships of ancient Rome#Works cited, which has a lengthy bibliography, some of which is transcluded using Template:Reflib; in particular for that page, they are transcluded from {{Reflib/Ancient seafaring}}, which is a repository of references used in multiple articles all related to that topic. In this case, the use of {{sfn whitelist}} is advisable to suppress false positive error messages and categorization of the page as a page with sfn warnings on it (but is not required to render the page correctly). Failing to whitelist them, however, will mean they would show up on the list that ActivelyDisinterested is working through. I'm looking to expand the availability of Reflib, and it could be that the "List of Empire ships" could be an ideal topic area for it, if, as I suspect, there is a lot of cross-usage of some of the same references across different articles. This could save you a lot of cut-and-pasting of the same references all over the place, and make sure that every article gets the most accurate and up-to-date copy of those references. If you're interested, lmk and I can show you what I mean.

If you're asking about changing the template to include the whitelist in it, that won't work because the false positive warning message is the result of a wikimedia issue ("feature" or "bug", take your pick) that is unable to see the CITEREF when it is transcluded in a template, so it won't see a transcluded whitelist template either. However, you can just turn off those warning messages so you never see them, if you prefer.

There may be something else which would amerliorate the situation slightly, which is to not require the term 'CITEREF' in front of every parameter passed to {{sfn whitelist}}. I had proposed this at the talk page (here) but there wasn't enough support for it at the time. But if you think it would be helpful to you, you could comment there, and maybe the discussion can be renewed. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Someone else has already jumped in and fixed the two sets of pages I mentioned. The set of lists of Empire ships has just one footnote in their included lead paragraph. The list of World War I aces credited with... pages include a lengthy bibliography via a template. I realized that adding CITEREFs to that template wouldn't solve the problem, which is, I assume, caused by the order the various objects are loaded onto the page. The problem was resolved by adding CITEREFs to each page. ActivelyDisinterested had also suggested copying in the entire bibliography, saying that wikipedia was not about to run out of storage space.

I use both the Trappist the monk script and the css hack in order to see all the error messages because I spend a lot of time working through the harv/sfn no-target error list. The casual reader would probably be appalled by the number of errors! Andy02124 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding and fixing the {{sfn}} parameter name |loc= that I left out (×2). You simultaneously removed the |ps=, which, even though empty, is needed for displayed style uniformity. It changes the output to the same style as for {{harvnb}}, for example, and makes it inconsistent with the remaining {{sfn}} uses. Your change suggests that you may have thought that an empty |ps= has no effect. —Quondum 13:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I did, indeed, consider that empty parameter useless. I shall mend my wicked ways. Andy02124 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found this in the manual.

Follow-on editors who encounter 'empty' parameters can't know if a previous editor intended to leave that parameter blank. Using the keyword none is a positive indication of the previous editor's intent. Andy02124 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of that part of the template documentation. However, I quite strongly disagree with the thinking behind that advice. Since our templating system distinguishes between the absence of a parameter (even of "unnamed" parameters) and their presence in this fashion, and this is regularly exploited by several of our active templates, it is counterproductive to lull editors into thinking that they are equivalent; it is much more sensible to make editors aware of the distinction. —Quondum 15:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions to this article. I did not know that these sources were available online! TheUzbek (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could not figure out why that Bancroft ref was stuck. I'll try not to copy and paste that error around more! Thank you v much for figuring it out. I do everything on my phone which means Im half blind on here. Appreciate it. jengod (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back to thank you *again* for fighting my myriad typos, careless mistakes and hopeless ignorance with the shortened footnote protocol. Truly much appreciated. jengod (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you fixing the SFN error on Ancient Rome and in the process making me realise I've been doing it wrong all along! Do you have a cheat sheet or can point somewhere so I can learn to do better references? Biz (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sfnm can be confusing to code. The template doc at Template:sfnm is a good place to start. Your only real error was using an ampersand rather than a pipe. Under some circumstances you can get away without the parameter names (1a1=, 1y=) for author and year but I always use them just for my own sanity. Good luck! Andy02124 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you. Biz (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing the errors I didn't spot on Ida Saxton McKinley's page! Errors were inevitable as I was copy pasting from a user page, and you speedily corrected them. Thank you for your long history of correcting citation errors. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I haven't been here very long, so I'm very pleased to get my first barnstar! Andy02124 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up after me! Sfn is this weird thing that I sort of get but sort of don't, partially because I'm a "younger" Wikipedian than you are. I'm not a technical person, only a writer and researcher. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of destroyed heritage

added a link pointing to Beč

Sulyaman I of Tlemcen

added a link pointing to Alger

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page State Archives of Milan, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you fix the Harv errors in my article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Alfonso_I_of_Aragon_in_Andalusia Vbbanaz05 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used "cite" templates on the sources, which fixes the problems. Every sfn (shortened footnote) needs a templated citation to refer to. I'm sure that if you examine the code, you'll be able to fix these yourself in future. Good luck! Andy02124 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vbbanaz05 (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your frustration with what you call the "Whac-a-mole game" of harv / sfn errors, please don't delete information concerning the location in the source, even if the source is defined with ambiguity (i.e. page numbers, chapter numbers). Regarding Reconstruction Era, having Foner 1988 in my library I can check this when I get home, but only because I happened to see your edit when you made it, and can check the page numbers against the 1988 edition. Someone just landing on the page would have no clue where to look... (other than perhaps the index). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the pagination you deleted was in fact correct. In future, please do not delete such information in case nobody is paying attention to the article when you do it. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the sfn issue in this edit [1]. But does that mean the information on how to cite these is wrong on the template page? See Template:Coflein. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, but it is non-standard. I guess I just prefer standards - RCAHMW & 301795 looks wrong to me. The ref would still need to be whitelisted but without the underscore - CITEREFRCAHMW301795. Andy02124 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. I was just checking. Yes, I don't like the ampersand there. It suggests 301795 is the second author! Thanks again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions!! :D xRozuRozu (t • c) 02:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]