User talk:Srich32977/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

April songs

April songs

my story today

Thank you for improving articles in April! - Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

California High-Speed Rail deletions

I am in the process of getting a new computer, so I didn't bother trying to sign in. However, your deletion on the introductory paragraph denying influence of Ukraine war on inflation was irresponsible. It was a citation from the Peer Review Group. So, you not only indicated that they were wrong to say that, you also removed the reference to the source! This is not acceptable. Add contradictory info (with its citation) if you want, but don't do what you did! -- Robert92107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:5600:42:8CC3:D73D:61CC:1B16 (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Robert92107: You are mistaken. The edit you complain about was done by another IP, not me. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Food

Hi I'm ruokay23 and i enjoy eating food. I love all meats except for salami. Ruokay23. (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pierre Moulin

Hello Srich32977. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pierre Moulin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7: specialist in WWII history is a credible claim of significance. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 15:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

removal of N dash templates

I am not sure why you removed spaced en dash templates from Clipper and replaced them with em dashes. Firstly the templates are there for a reason (so that line breaks work properly) and secondly an M dash is not a reasonable substitution for a spaced N dash when that is the style adopted in the article. (I note, incidentally, that the examples of use of en dashes and em dashes as punctuation in MOS:DASH uses just en dashes. In my opinion, a spaced en dash is much more readable than an em dash when used in this way.) Do you have a reason for your edits that I have missed?

In the meantime, I have reinstated the spaced en dash templates that were removed in your edits. I have also reinstated spaced en dashes that someone has previously removed from the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing correctly tagged Invalid as printed ISBNs

This edit, and possibly other because it is a work cited in many places, is not helpful: Special:Diff/1164611993 . The ISBN is printed as listed and this can be confirmed here , and by anyone with that exact edition of the referenced work. The invalid printed ISBN helps confirm and identify the exact work used to make the reference. The Invalid ISBN template gives it the correct context and is perfectly valid in this case. Adding an OCLC number is a useful edit, but removing the invalid ISBN tag is generally not (unless the content is not even ISBN-like). It looks like you are on a run of Invalid ISBN removals, please stop.

Please re-consider removing information from bibliographic citations based solely on online catalog entries. The ISBN hyphenation removal which you have been asked to stop is an example of this. I have seen some dates you converted to year only. While there are often some spurious date precision in references, there's no guarantee the whoever added the full date doesn't know more about it than you do (perhaps the month is printed in the book Special:Diff/1164581717, or maybe the dates came from a publisher catalog, and there is even a small chance the specific date is relevant. In the absence of such knowledge, don't delete the data. Worldcat itself will have fuller bibliographic details (in MARC format) which lists invalid ISBNs, but their web interface hides a lot of this. One online interface to a library catalog is not a substitute for the actual item, and it is conceivable that the catalog is not complete. Similarly, blindly converting ISBN10s to 13s on pre-2007 books shows a reliance on catalogs over the actual material. Forcing real citations to match a catalog for its own sake is not a useful goal. And while I'm at it, adding single hyphens to existing ISBNs is not a helpful edit either. 978-nnnnnnnnn-n is a safe scheme (2 hyphens) when adding a new reference and is probably better than nothing, but it suggests that editor perhaps never really sighted the actual book. Adding a single hyphen to an un-hyphenated ISBN is a definite indicator the actual book has not been sighted. Consider using {{Format ISBN}} to have a bot do the full hyphenation where you consider it needed, or leave ISBNs to other editors. Salpynx (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

ISBN hyphens

Hi, I'm a little confused by this edit. I believe it's recommended to include the hyphens in ISBNs to make them more human-readable. I'm not aware that there is any benefit to removing them? I'd be grateful if you could explain this for me. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hyphens and spaces in the ISBNs "do not matter". The resulting links all go to the Wikimedia Book Sources link. From there readers can find more info via World Cat, Amazon, etc. My goal is to achieve a consistent citation style, per the Guild of Copy Editors guideline "Consistency". Thank you for noticing and asking . – S. Rich (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing properly placed hyphens from ISBNs. You have been asked nicely before, and your answers have always been unsatisfactory. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jonesey95; please stop this. This edit, in addition to removing hyphens, constructed made-up page names for some of the philsp.com citations. I've reverted it. I redid the dashes fixes, as those were beneficial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Jonesey95 is stating a personal preference. My edits don’t care about hyphenation in ISBNs because the hyphens do not matter in the Book Sources link. My goal is consistency. For example, in todays’ list of “on this day” historical events articles we see John Neal (writer), posted because he delivered a public lecture on July 4, 1832 on the rights of women. Well, well … this is a featured article. And look at the hyphenation of the ISBNs in the references. Someone should fix! – S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have multiple people asking you to stop, I think you should consider finding a forum in which you can gain consensus for the change before continuing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a personal preference. As has been explained to you here ad nauseum, ISBN hyphenation has meaning and contains information. See Wikipedia:ISBN#Types: Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts. The placement of hyphens varies depending on the value of the ISBN. This how-to guide says nothing about consistency, which appears to be a personal preference in this case. If there are two books with ISBNs cited in an article, and the ISBN in the first printed book did not include hyphenation in its information page, but the second book did include hyphenation, this how-to guide appears to indicate that you should include the hyphenation in the second book's ISBN. You are removing that meaning and information from pages. Please stop. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE), for which I was a coordinator for eight years, we do not issue and have never issued guidelines. Copy editing, as managed by the GOCE, is about article prose. The GOCE has historically been neutral on modification of citation content: if copy editors want to modify citations, they are welcome to do so, but we do not consider it part of copy editing. Citing any GOCE guidance in support of your removal of information from ISBNs is spurious at best. Please stop doing both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I concede. CE is not Wikipedia:Cleanup. But WP:Cleanup says Basic Copyediting is a Cleanup issue. There is an overlap. So when I tweak the ISBNs to either remove or add hyphens, I’ll add “Tweak/remove/add/whatever ISBN” to my edit summary. I’ll try to avoid “ce” or “Copy edit” as a bare summary unless the edit involves multiple items like page dashes, etc. That way you can scan my contributions listing for the items that interest you or need further correction. Deal? – S. Rich (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No. No deal, obviously. Stop removing hyphens from ISBNs. If you can agree to that, we may have a deal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Re this -- mea culpa; I know there's a way to find the hyphenation of ISBNs that are unhyphenated but I can never remember where it is or how to do it. But thanks for doing that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Culpa accepted and appreciated. And it proves my point. The hyphens and spaces do not matter, and to say hyphens are "needed" or "proper" is misleading. GAs and FAs should have one, Consistent style of ISBN-hyphening. My pre-retirement career in the US Army involved logistics and Federal Stock Numbers. The 11 digit numbers had hyphens between the 2 digit FSGs-FSCs and 7 digit FIINs. Hyphens helped in the reading and writing of the numbers, but not now. We have computers and mooses. – S. Rich (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hyphens helped in the reading and writing of the numbers, but not now. Having looked over some of the previous discussions on your talk page and at ANI, I can see you have strong opinions on this subject and aren't likely to change your mind, but I still feel obliged to refute your repeated assertion that nobody reads or writes any more. Even in the 21st century, many editors do their work with physical books in front of them. I almost always type out ISBNs rather than copypasting them from somewhere, and naturally I include the hyphens because then it's easier to check that I've typed it correctly. And when I'm looking for an offline source that's cited in an article, I check that the source's ISBN matches the article citation, which is much easier to do if the hyphens are included. You seem to assume that the only purpose of an ISBN is to serve as a quick link to Special:BookSources, but when multiple people are telling you that they use ISBNs differently, the reasonable thing to do is to believe them. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sojourner in the earth, you may want to comment here as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

True, a certain number of editors like the hyphens. (And I’ve received “thank you”s for edits removing hyphens.) But the hyphen lovers invent reasons to like them and admonish me. E.g., “hyphens are needed” and “hyphens are proper”. They could also say “spaces are proper” and “spaces are needed”. After all, spaces and hyphens do not matter with Special:BookSources. But these swarms of hyphen users do not address the fact that Google Books, WorldCat, Amazon, OpenLibrary, LibraryThing, GoodReads, CCC Marketplace and Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog are all producing un-hyphenated ISBN results. AND I’ll repeat— GOGE says that Consistency is a goal. So here is what I actually do with ISBNs. 1. If there is an established citation style with the hyphens, I’ll leave the established hyphen patterns alone. 2. If there is a mix of hyphens and non-hyphenated ISBNs, I’ll leave alone OR go with the majority of non-hyphenated ISBNs. 3. I won’t go and seek out the “proper” hyphen-patterns, because as Mike Christie admits it is a bothersome task. Thus I edited Propaganda in Nazi Germany today. One ISBN-13 did not have hyphens — I added one. The other 53 ISBNs are a mix — as they are majority hyphenated, I’ll leave the rest alone. – S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you've just repeated a lot of arguments that I've seen you make in other places, so I'm going to make one final effort to get through to you on this.

spaces and hyphens do not matter with Special:BookSources That is correct; spaces and hyphens do not affect the search results of Special:BookSources. But as I just said, not everybody is using ISBNs exclusively for running searches on Special:BookSources. People also read and check them manually, and removing the hyphens makes this more difficult.

hyphen lovers invent reasons to like them and admonish me I find this claim incredibly frustrating. What do you believe our motive is for pretending to find hyphens useful? I count 15 editors over here telling you that hyphens make their life easier; are all these people in a conspiracy against you? People edit the encyclopedia in different ways. For instance, I've never had a use for ISSNs, so I don't include them in citations; but I also don't remove them when present, because other people say they find them useful – and per WP:AGF, I do not assume that these people are all lying.

Google Books, WorldCat, Amazon, OpenLibrary, LibraryThing, GoodReads, CCC Marketplace and Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog are all producing un-hyphenated ISBN results I'm only guessing, but possibly that's because these websites are generating ISBNs automatically, and do not have the advantage of an army of human editors to check and type them out correctly. In any case, what other websites do is irrelevant; their goals are not the same as ours.

GOGE says that Consistency is a goal. In the first place, that's a how-to guide, which does not override WP:ISBN; secondly, you might wish to review the #Etiquette section of that page. But let us grant that consistency is a goal; this does not mean that those parts of an article which align with best practice should be dragged down to the level of those that don't. If a word were consistently misspelt throughout an article, and only spelt correctly in one place, nobody would fix that problem by amending the correctly-spelt word to match the misspellings. The same principle applies here: if there is a mix of hyphenated and unhyphenated ISBNs, and you wish to make them consistent, the way to do that is to add ISBNs where they are missing.

I won’t go and seek out the “proper” hyphen-patterns, because as Mike Christie admits it is a bothersome task Yes, adding hyphens is more difficult than removing them. If you don't wish to take on that task, you don't have to. But that is no justification for removing hyphens where they are present. Besides which, you have been shown a very easy method of adding hyphens, via {{Format ISBN}}, so it is strange that you are still making this argument.

Another common argument of yours is that some featured articles use unhyphenated ISBNs. But a featured article is not a perfect article; if it were, we would lock it into place and never allow it to be edited again. A featured article is specifically an article that meets the criteria at WP:FACR, which does not go into minutiae about ISBN hyphens. I doubt anyone would object if you were to add hyphens to the references of these articles, because this would represent a clear improvement, and even an FA can be improved.

I sincerely hope this helps you to understand why numerous people are taking issue with your edits. I'm happy to continue this conversation if you have any specific questions about anything I've said, but please do not respond to this by repeating the same points over again. Editing against consensus, and refusing to engage with those who are telling you to stop, is disruptive editing, and may result in sanctions. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Srich32977, your statements above are either disingenuous, deliberately misleading, or worse. I'll keep my response simple, since Sojourner in the earth has addressed the individual points: Stop removing hyphens from ISBNs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The information inserted on this page on Section 14 is factually incorrect

It parrots press releases by attorneys seeking reparations from the City of Palm Springs and is factually incorrect. PalmSpringsFacts (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@PalmSpringsFacts: - WikiPedia (WP) is not the forum or battleground for these debates. If you wish to support the Bogert cause, write to the Desert Sun, attend council meetings and speak, donate to the Friends, join the Palm Springs Historical Society. Are you a US veteran? If so join the local American Legion Post. (Their post commander performed the sit-in demonstration to thwart the initial effort to remove the statue.) But learn about WP:NPOV. “Them’s the rules.” – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am interested in the facts regarding Section 14. This information inserted here is not factual. The city of Palm Springs had no jurisdiction over Section 14. It was individual allottees and the Tribe who evicted people, not the city. If Wikipedia shouldn't be the forum for this debate as you suggest, why is this information inserted here? Are you a Palm Springs resident? Are you associated with the attorneys seeking reparations from city in violation of the bias and conflict of interest rules? It would be in the interest of the general public to understand the complexity of the situation with actual facts. PalmSpringsFacts (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Turkish Armed Forces

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 00:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it. Archiving this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Breaking references

Your edit here broke several sfn references, adding the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I have therefore reverted it. DuncanHill (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and double thanks for the fix. – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Chanakya

Please! correct an information about chanakya he belongs to "Bhumihar Brahmin" not "Brahmin" caste. 2409:408A:2B85:BFB4:0:0:3B88:3009 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

June thanks

June songs

my story today

Thank you for improving articles in June! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

May thanks

May songs

my story today

Thank you for improving articles in May. - I had a good story on coronation day: the Te Deum we sang that day. And the following day we sang it for the composer ;)

I nominated Soňa Červená for GA just to give her a bit more exposure, and I took some pics of bright scenery - click on songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Pentecost was full of music, and my story today is that 300 years ago today, Bach became Thomaskantor, with BWV 75, writing music history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Blanks in bullet markup

Thanks for your fix to Sex in this edit. Please be aware that blanks following leading asterisk are discretionary, and adding them (or removing them if already there) is not an improvement, and causes no change to the rendered page. This kind of change from one acceptable variant to another is best avoided. Thanks for all you do for the encyclopedia. Cheers, Mathglot (talk)|

@Mathglot: You're most welcome. The asterisk spacing was done by AutoEd, an approved Wikipedia bot/function. Years ago I read that the spaces allow for automatic readers to better scan such lists. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"Typo"

How is this a minor edit fixing a typo? Veverve (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Mobile app finger (and cataracts) mistake. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

July thanks

July songs

my story today

On today's Main page, you can find a cantata that Bach first performed 300 years ago (thanks to you!), and an iconic saxophonist from East Germany. Also: a bit about the history of QAI on my talk. Thank you for being part of it! A new member designed a user box that I adopted. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion

You are a wikipedia master. I am merely asking to surface the facts about Section 14. Somehow you deleted all our conversation. That seems unkind and unnecessary. The facts will out and the false information on this page will be discredited, eventually. I don't understand why you aren't interested in the actual facts. Alas. PalmSpringsFacts (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

When you say I'm not interested in the actual facts you are WP:Trolling. Please do not make any more comments on this, my user-talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

August thanks

August songs

my story today

Thank you for improving articles in August! - Today, my focus is on Renata Scotto, after days of updating. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Rich Vos

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

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 16:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixing typos without looking for typos?

When you "fix typo" without noticing you are approving vandalism it makes me wonder if you are using the tools to best effect. Microscopes produce tunnel vision. Shenme (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shenme: Please note my edit was via the mobile app. That means that going back into article history is difficult. More importantly, it does not matter. I saw a spaced hyphen, when a spaced ndash was better. (See MOS:DASH.) I did a gnomish edit and I'm glad you did your gnomish edits. But I hardly "approved" the poorly done prior edit – which may or may not have been a good faith attempt to improve the article. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

September thanks

September songs

my story today

Thank you for improving articles in September! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Madras Courier

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

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 20:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Kidnapping

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 07:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on In Our Time (radio series)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page In Our Time (radio series), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 07:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Herald Sun

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 00:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

October thanks

October songs

my story today

Thank you for improving articles in October! - Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Help with Philosophical pessimism and Antinatalism#Asymmetry between good and bad things

Hello there! I see you've been quite active in some things related to the above mentioned pages. I'm pinging you @Srich32977: directly to ask for some help. I've started 3 initiatives for these pages. If you could spare some time in the near future, could you please take a look at the proposal and voice your opinion? Of course, if you have interest, time, and energy to participate that would be amazing!

Here are the projects:

1. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal for an overhaul of the article — this initiative is already in progress. The idea is to raise the quality of the page by switching it from a mere historical account to a more encyclopedic format.

2. Talk:Philosophical_pessimism#A proposal to split the History into a dedicated page — related to the one above. The historical account is overly detailed. It would be much better to have a dedicated page for the history of philosophical pessimism and leave only a brief history in the main page.

3. Talk:Antinatalism#A proposal to create a dedicated page for Benatar's axiological asymmetry — here, the idea is to extract the axiological asymmetry argument into a dedicated page. This way, a more detailed presentation could be given. In addition, we could expand on the various responses others philosophers made and counters from Benatar. Other pages could have a brief description and link to the details page.

I hope at least some of this will spark your interest!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantastiera (talk • contribs) 14:11, September 6, 2023

Carrington Event short description

Hello. Regarding your recent change to the short description of Carrington Event, I think that the clarification is redundant. Geomagnetic storms are all caused by solar phenomena, so adding "solar" before "geomagnetic storm" in the short description seems unnatural to me. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

A great enjoyment of Wikipedia is the constant, educational, and sometimes irksome feedback we get from fellow WP editors. CoronaMassAffliction, your comment is greatly appreciated! – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

first and last name

In Special:Diff/1177903434/1181849792 you changed |last=Baumler|first=Alan into |author= Alan Baumler. Not only is this unnecessary, it's a backwards step. Best practice is convert all |author fields into |last |first because it increases the quality of the semantic information for data re-users, for example AI which needs to differentiate between first and last name with absolute accuracy. It also displays differently when using the first and last name arguments. -- GreenC 19:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the other citations were in a First Last format. Thus my edit achieved consistency. But please feel free to follow your own advice and convert the other citations to a Last, First format. – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fine. It looked odd in the diff. -- GreenC 20:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is a discussion involving you at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Srich32977_and_HighBeam .. this notification is required per the rules of ANI. -- GreenC 22:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've replied. Will stop removing "via" from the citations. – S. Rich (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's clear that good editors are unhappy about changes to certain citations and that is extremely disruptive. Accordingly, I have had to issue a strong warning at ANI. Please review diff. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly they have not (except for a few times) reverted my edits. Don't they know about WP:BRD? When they have reverted, I've left the revert stand. Also, many of my edits have been on FAs and GAs. Editors interested in those articles seem satisfied with the changes. Well, to help clear-up one part of the controversy I've posted a clarification proposal Help talk:Citation Style 1. Most of the language in Citation Style 1 seems to say "subscription" notations are helpful when the providers actually require some sort of subscription (or registration). The HighBeam archive-URLs do not. (And none of the original HighBeam urls work in any sense.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

BRD says it is "not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections". Well, the objections were long ago identified on your talk page, no BRD was required. Furthermore, mass reversions at the scale you are editing can be considered disruptive. The correct action is to discuss and get consensus for your edits. You have already made your bold edits, even after objections were made, yet you kept editing. Discussions are ongoing, you need to stop. What happens in the end remains to be worked out, there still might be restoration of the deleted material. -- GreenC 19:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the feedback! Just came across a rescue of yours.[1] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

HighBeam edits

A lot of these edits seem malformed. Please don't remove information/parameters from citations that are still in the pages. It's not useful. If there is an archive.org copy nothing at all need be done to the citation templates. If you want to remove dead links because there is no archive.org copy, just remove the whole citation and replace it with an appropriate template (e.g. {{cn}}). Maybe I don't understand what you are trying to do or why you are doing it. Removing the "via" does nothing useful at all. The whole ref is still there just without that piece of information. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your comment. I'm sorry that I don't get your point. If the on-line source (e.g. Highbeam) is not available to the reader, how does one WP:Verify it by mentioning Highbeam? Take for example my recent edit to Red Schoendienst. The original source (St. Louis Post Dispatch) ran a story. We have the publisher and title. But the dead High Beam link does not post any real info about the story. So how does a mention of the dead/defunct Highbeam link assist the reader? Adding or including an old "via" mention does not help. It's like saying "drive to Lost Vegas, Nevada via Route 99", when the main bridge on Route 99 was washed out and never replaced. In any event, @DIYeditor: please feel free to revert my problematic edits. And please revert or let me know about my errors! Happy editing, – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.

To me, it's that the core URL in the citation may still point to the now missing HighBeam copy, so I'm not sure it makes sense to remove any information pertaining to that as long as that URL exists. If we have an archive.org copy of a highbeam.com copy of a work, the "archive" portion is covered by that being a separate field in the template, but the "highbeam" URL still stands as the original URL, unless we can find a better copy somewhere.

It'd arguably seem better to have the citations entirely repaired, with HighBeam removed as the URL and all mention of HighBeam removed, the publisher field set to the actual publisher, and the archive.org copy of HighBeam set as the URL. I don't see the point of removing some of the HighBeam information. Additionally, HighBeam should never have been the "publisher" of any of its material from what I understand.

I think at least one of the examples I looked at left a field (parameter) entirely empty and that may generate errors. I'll take a closer look at all this when I have a moment. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I just reverted your edit to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show), as the partial reference you left generated errors. GoingBatty (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Same issue: In this edit, you removed the url and archive-url, but the citation template is cite web which requires an url. These cite errors were created as a result of your edit. Please slow down and check your work and clean up these errors. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• IMO I think you should leave these HighBeam citations alone. I did a lot of bot work to get them consistent, and it's like you are undoing all that work I did years ago removing information. At least get consensus for it. I might see an argument for removing the subscription, but I could also see a counter-argument. I don't see a good argument for removing |via=, that remains true if it's a dead, archived or live link. We have 10s of thousands of dead domains and I've never seen anyone do what you are doing. -- GreenC 01:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  To answer your question above: If the on-line source (e.g. Highbeam) is not available to the reader, how does one WP:Verify it by mentioning Highbeam?. By looking for archive copies of the highbeam URL. Those links are not devoid of information, they contain the first few paragraphs, and sometimes additional metadata. They were kept for that reason. What if the archive URL already exists? That's good. But that is not guaranteed forever, archive providers go offline, or delete archives, requiring to find new archive providers. If you can verify the cited fact is not contained in the highbeam archive URL, and the citation has enough metadata to find the source elsewhere, then it might make sense to remove everything pertaining to HighBeam including the highbeam URL. This assumes other archive providers did not archive the entire article, which could be the case, like archive.today is often able to archive full articles at subscription sites because it maintains a login account to access that subscription site. -- GreenC 01:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: I think the best answer is at WP:Citing sources. We fulfill WP:V when we give the reader a citation that supports the content. In the case of HighBeam, we had a source that was an archive of sources. They pulled the plug on HighBeam, so -- in terms of urls -- we have the archives of the former archive. But WP:V comes from the original source. So I just edited Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. The WP:V comes from the Oakland Tribune story. The particular WP text includes the quote "direct geese away from the swim area" because of bacteria levels in the lake. But the dead HighBeam url and the archived Highbeam url do not include this quote. SO you are right -- we ought to remove the HighBeam urls. But that's a project that does not interest me. The basic information about the lake is in the Tribute story and the HighBeam links with its metadata verify the title, journal, author, and date. I've simply removed the "via HighBeam" to remove the implication that HighBeam is a reliable avenue to the actual source. Also, I'm removing the "subscription required" phrasing because there are no subscriptions. And when there is no archive url for the HighBeam url I remove mention of HighBeam altogether. Those non-archived urls have no metadata. This is all part of the joy of being a WikiGnome! – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

removed the "via HighBeam" to remove the implication that HighBeam is a reliable avenue to the actual source - Nowhere does the documentation say the purpose of via is to indicate the current ("reliable") avenue to a source, we don't track that information precisely. Rather it indicates the content deliverer (HighBeam) is/was different from the original publisher (Oakland Tribune). That's all it means. Check the template documentation which confirms. And this remains true even when the source is dead and archived. Otherwise we would be removing via from every dead link, and we don't do that. Please stop removing via until you have consensus because your removal is based on a special understanding of what via is useful for. -- GreenC 23:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Nowhere does the documentation say... ." Okay, what documentation are you referring to? The "cite magazine" and other citation templates allow us to post url-status params, but such params are invisible to the reader. (Accordingly, I simply leave the params in the templates.) Some of the citation templates had HighBeam as the "publisher", but that is not true -- HighBeam was a search engine and archive. (In those cases I've removed the "publisher" parameter.) Sometimes HighBeam was listed with a "subscription" notation -- but that parameter is no longer helpful to readers. Accordingly I've been removing them. BTW, overall this clean-up of HighBeam from citations has taken about a month. Roughly guessing, there were 5,000 or so citations. I'm down to about 2,000. If you want to post an RFC on these issues, please do so. But I doubt that you can define what particular clean-up guidance needs clarification. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The documentation for cite templates, at {{Cite web}}, there is a section on via. If you want to discuss it, see the talk page for that template, there is a large and active community there (it's a general page for all cite templates). No doubt you are doing good work in other parts of HighBeam but it's unclear if subscription and via should be removed when a website is dead. If that is the case, the best methods might include adding them to tracking categories, emitting warning and/or maintenance messages, and employing bots to do the removals, is a lot easier and faster. -- GreenC 02:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting in that it refers to the "content deliverer" and to a deliverer which presents "the sources in a format different from the original,..." Okay, I submit that "via" works in 'present tense' or active url situations. But since HighBeam is dead, it is not "delivering" (present tense) any source material. Nor does "via" provide 'additional detail' because the archive-url status is visible to a reader when they click the url. These are quibbles about how to present verification information to readers. Again, I submit that WP:V is resolved when we cite the particular publication which supports the textual material. And when I remove some of the HighBeam stuff I am cleaning up clutter. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There is now a consensus discussion: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Subscription_and_via,_when_link_is_dead. I'm pretty sure you are going to keep removing, maybe in the hopes of getting it all done, but I can easily restore them in an hour or two by bot if the conversation is to keep or restore. You should focus first on establishing consensus, back off until things are clear, it won't look good if you continue to edit during a consensus discussion particularly if anyone else raises objection. Maybe they will or won't, the next day or two will see. Maybe you will get support, be patient with the process, thank you. -- GreenC 04:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you got a bot that will remove "{{Subscription required|via=HighBeam}}" from citations? If so, you should apply it across the board. Clearly it is needed, and applying it would lessen my gnomish effort. Same may be true for some of the other useless and distracting HighBeam citation entries. If you do not have such a bot, can you develop one? Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Look I'm sure your acting in good faith, based on what you believe is right. You continue to edit despite most coming out against it at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Subscription_and_via,_when_link_is_dead, and nobody supporting it. It's obviously controversial (not gnomish as you call it which implies little consequence), and that thread has weight per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. It's amazing you keep editing on such a scale, against the wishes of so many people, particularly when your work can easily be undone. You risk your account being sanctioned, and the opportunity cost of wasting your time. And for what? Because you can't or won't establish consensus for your project after multiple people started raising concerns about it. If it's controversial, you probably stop for now, don't you think? -- GreenC 01:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed

December greetings

December: story · music · places

Thank you for what you do and stand for! I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Glitches

You've been around long enough that I'm confident that this was an accident instead of deliberate spamming for a Vietnamese online casino. I've removed it; out of curiosity, do you have any idea how it got in there? DS (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Well, it wasn't deliberate! The tool "reFill 2" did it automtically for me, and I did not review the result. And now "reFill 2" won't duplicate the error because the Gutenburg link is now a https url (rather than http). [To more specifically answer "how did it get there", the old http url now gives a dead link. Later in the history a bot "corrected" the dead url to provide a working one. But the "spam" casino name was unchanged.] Thanks for the fix and thanks for letting me know. Two of the great features of WP are 1. the continuing opportunity to learn, and 2. the interaction with helpful editors like you! – S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 00:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

🐐

the goat

recentlyryan RecentlyRyan 01:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

March thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in March! - I uploaded Madeira vacation pics (from back home, at least the first day) and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

February thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving quality articles in February. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Re; WikiProject tagging

It would be nice if you could tag the projects inside the banner shell, because doing it outside of them causes issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There's been some changes to the banner shells and how they render. I'm still figuring them out. I'll look at the change results and try to make corrections to errors. Thanks for the reminder. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: PS -- please send me a link which shows the errors I've created. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For example, this one you edited, see what I changed. (ignore the start getting capitalized). There should be a pipe after class and then the projects, then have the closing for the main banner after them. Then they are contained within the banner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also sorry if I seemed rude, you did nothing wrong :P PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)