User talk:Suelru

AfC Invite

Hello,

I am inviting you to Articles for Creation. Every day, Articles for Creation receives hundreds of articles; currently, there are only a few active reviewers. Our current backlog contains a total of 2561 articles. We would greatly appreciate your help in reviewing articles.

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

2,551 pending submissions to update

Wikipedia ads	file info – #69

Review Now!

Cite fixes

I see you have been fixing book citations that use the deprecated "coauthors" parameter, replacing it by "last4", "first4", "last5" etc. That is good, but be aware that it messes up citations that use the form {{sfn|last1|last2|last3|2001|p=123}}. They provide a link to the source description. If you check Peter M. Arthur, for example, you will see that the citations provide links to the sources. But some of those links no longer work. The fix is, when you add "last4" to a source description, change any "sfn" citations to {{sfn|last1|last2|last3|last4|2001|p=123}}. See this change to Arthur Dallidet for an example. Obscure, eh? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• That fixed it - and I found and fixed another one that was there all along! I don't think many editors use this style of citation, but some do, and to me it gives a fairly professional appearance. What you are doing is very useful. Thanks a lot, Aymatth2 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this; I appreciate it, and I'm really glad you saw it before I did too many more pages without checking. There are only a few others affected, and I'm fixing them now. Thanks again. Suelru (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is a tool at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors that makes any problems jump out. I think it is useful. You might want to install it... Aymatth2 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, thanks, that's very useful. Suelru (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Brian Banks (NFL) is divorced. Please edit and delete “Spouse” information from Brian Banks/Wiki google search. Thank you. MrBB1085 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Editions of Burghauser

Hello Suelru, this is Marlindale. I see that in the Dvoṝák article you have been changing the editions from older to newer ones.Of course it would have been preferable to use newer editions, but I got the information from the editions I cited. The page numbers will not be correct now. I don't have the technical knowledge to revert all those changes. Could you please do so? Thank you very much in advance. Best wishes. Marlindale (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marlindale. Thanks for pointing that out. I was try to get the links in the short citations to work properly, but obviously I just made things worse. I think I've fixed them all now—let me know if you catch any more. I've also changed the main date in the bibliography entry for the Burghauser catalogues to 1960 (the older edition), with 1996 listed as an alternative, partly to help with the short citations, and partly to make it a bit clearer which edition is meant. Let me know if that's made the citation incorrect in any way. Thanks again. Suelru (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Suelru, thanks for your work. As I said on the Talk page of the article, I mainly used and cited the 1966 edition. For the time being I don't have more suggestions. Marlindale (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It seems another editor has been using the 1960 edition, so there are some of each, but the dates should match what was in your last edit from August now. Suelru (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AWB use

Hi, some of your AWB usage are breaking infobox image. I have got 2 notifications from B-bot today mentioning a couple of non-free images I uploaded becaome orphan. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have figured out, it is because of a dash at the end. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry about that, and thanks for catching it. I'll keep an eye out for that in future. Suelru (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Suelru. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Suelru. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

IMage size edit issues

Hello Suelru. Many of the infoboxes that you're editing do not have the parameter size or size1, so your automated changes are simply making a mess. Please could you make these changes manually and check what it's doing to articles rather than a mass AWB run? Thanks, Number 57 23:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I'll go fix that. Suelru (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

On a similar note, it is not necessary to set |Ship image size=300px in {{Infobox ship image}} because that is the default image size.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

-Good to know. I just set up a regex to catch and reformat whatever size is in File:..., but I can leave out the 300px going forward.Suelru (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Suelru. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Religion in infoboxes

Please don’t remove religion from an infobox without making sure it is also in the article, otherwise information is being lost. Thanks, Kerry

Oh, sorry about that, I'll keep it in mind going forward. Suelru (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 20 minutes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Blowing up a mosquito

Looks like you used high explosives against a mosquito. Please don't ever do this again, when all that was needed, was this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. I tend to avoid a lot of LDRs for precisely the reason that was problematic here: it's difficult to tell which ref is making things break when they're all defined in the same place. I mostly changed it so that if this happened again, another editor wouldn't have to search through all 150+ refs to find the one that broke, but I realize a page with this many references can also be cumbersome to edit with the refs inline (so I'll leave it as is). Cheers.Suelru (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

People have different opinions about LDRs. I happen to like them, because it make the wikicode so much easier to deal with, but my opinion wasn't relevant wrt this change; WP:CITEVAR was the only thing that applied, and I would have reverted in the other direction (away from my preference) if someone altered it conversely to how you did. However, I'm really mystified by your second sentence: one thing that LDRs are indubitably better at, whether one likes them in principle, or not, is that it is so much easier to find the reference that broke; it was trivially easy to find and correct that one, after the revert. Your parenthetical expression at the end is problematic: the implication is, that it would have been okay for you to change it from LDR to something else, and that you were being magnanimous by "leaving it as is". But it's not okay, it's against the guideline, so please don't do it, even when there aren't a lot of references inline, and even when it's not cumbersome. If an article has all sorts of different citations styles in use at the same time, and it's a big free-for-all, then it might be appropriate to change to one style or another for consistency; but in that case, I'd consider starting a discussion at Talk first before I did so; it could be it was consistent at one point, and later edits got in the way and added a bunch of different styles. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry about trying to change the convention on the page like that, and I definitely didn't mean to rock the boat. Is this a good place to suggest ?

Relatedly, I'm afraid I don't understand how LDRs make it easier to find the reference that broke in this case. All I saw in terms of an error message was the classic "cite error: $1" at the end of the references. How do LDRs help you tell which of the 150+ refs immediately previous caused that, apart from just reading/searching through them all (which is what I was heavy-handedly doing)? I said I find it easier with in-text citations because then the error happens in the middle of the text, where there is probably only a handful of refs that could be the culprit. Am I missing something basic (you say it's trivial, and I'd really like to be able to do this sort of edit quickly and non-disruptively)? I've been combing through Help:List-defined references to no avail. Sorry if this is something incredibly obvious; it's been a little while since I've dealt with many cite errors.

(Just as a further apology, I think my tone/wording were poor previously---I don't mean to leave the page like that to be magnanimous, but to avoid further complicating things, and of course to respect the status quo on the page.)

Thanks again, Suelru (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Suelru! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)