User talk:Srich32977

This is Srich32977's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29: 2 months

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Citation cleanup

Hey, just making sure you're aware that per WP:RANGE we do not abbreviate numerical ranges for pages or dates. Please make sure you're familiar with the MOS when making style changes across a large number of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: WP:RANGE does not address page ranges or dates. Rather, [1] says we should follow a consistent style. (E.g., cites should be consistent in the page ranges presented. That is what I did. Accordingly, please roll back (or revise) your reverts to the various articles. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, but I should've checked I was linking MOS:RANGE, cf. MOS:DATERANGE. Remsense ‥ 论 01:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O.Kay. So who's more correct in these edits? I think mine comply with DATERANGE. – S. Rich (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any abbreviation of a range of dates or pages is incorrect. Always write it out instead. Remsense ‥ 论 01:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Chicago Manual of Style says "123–24" is acceptable. And WP accepts CMS as a citation style. See https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says it's not, except in quotations. Why would we have these guidelines apply everywhere except in citations due to what a different style guide permits? You are misunderstanding what WP:CITESTYLE means in practice; it is not license to ignore what other guidelines like the MOS explicitly require. Maybe WP:CITESTYLE could use a sentence of clarification on this point, but clearly the idea is "different citation styles are acceptable", not "we must allow anything another style guide allows if it's hidden in a citation".Remsense ‥ 论 02:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe me—I find it pretty unambiguous and have little idea of how to make it clearer for you—please consider asking on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or somewhere else for verification or clarification before re-adding MOS violations. Remsense ‥ 论 02:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977, you have been told many times in the past that abbreviating numbers in ranges here on the English Wikipedia is incorrect. You and I have had multiple discussions on your talk page about this issue. Maybe your memory has failed you; I know mine sometimes does. Please stop abbreviating page ranges. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I shall comply with MOS:PAGERANGE. – S. Rich (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977 was this edit a mistake in this way? If so, I apologize: just double-checking since I thought we had come to an understanding. Remsense ‥ 论 23:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and this. My finger is on the WP:DE-block button, Srich32977. Tell me why I should not press it. DMacks (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977 I really do not want to continue on your case about this, but could you please explain whether it's a mistake or a misunderstanding? You do a lot and mistakes happen, but I keep seeing them. Remsense ‥ 论 18:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, whenever you are ready: invalid page range changes; invalid changes to location and page/pages/volume parameter values; invalid page range change. I found these in the editor's most recent 25 edits in article space. There are plenty of valid improvements, but the rate of invalid changes is too high, and the editor does not appear to be responding to requests to be more careful and adhere to MOS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: of those three examples, the first one is definitely a violation that User:Remsense kindly fixed. The second one looks like a self-revert as part of a series of closely-spaced edits; is there a problem in the net effect a problem? I'm confused by the third one...I see changes to lots of number-ranges (in refs and in body) but I cannot figure out what actually changed. Is it the type of dash character? I does not appear to be the removal of leading high-place digits. DMacks (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I didn't see the end result of the second edit; the overall diff for the seven edits to that article appears to be fine (although the citations needed a lot more cleanup). The third edit resulted in errors such as "|access-date= 3 April 2020] a social or political movement..." (removing "quote=") and changing the valid "pp 77-78" to the nonsensical "pp. 77-I–78" (and missing "1901 – 1939" in the same citation, but making improvements and missing a few would be no sin). So two out of 25 then. And the ones in the section below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October thanks

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full width replacement

Please make sure you don't accidentally replace full width punctuation when used in quotations with other full width characters, where its use is correct. Remsense ‥ 论 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I am also seeing that you are automatically replacing the character 一—a very common character, meaning 'one'—with the sequence –. I strongly suggest you go back through your edit history and fix instances where you did this. Remsense ‥ 论 16:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977 why haven't you acknowledged this yet? I have to revert most of the edits you make to China-related articles. It is absurd. Remsense ‥ 论 02:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977, have you seen this thread? I know I have come to you with several different issues, but you are still doing this and I am not sure whether you even know it is an issue or not. Remsense ‥ 论 22:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Remsense ‥ 论 05:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOI & JSTOR

Hey—would you consider removing redundant DOIs while copyediting also? When DOIs begin with 10.2307, they are totally redundant with JSTOR and just indicate the same destination. Remsense ‥ 论 03:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so very much for the DOI hint. At present I'm going to continue my JSTOR hunt. (Only 6,000 more to go!) Adding DOIs to my prey is too much right now. But I greatly appreciate that you've noticed I'm on the prowl! – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just figure it's something that's easy to do if you notice it while otherwise doing JSTOR cleanup. And thank you, ofc Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: @Jacobolus: it is untrue that all dois that begin with 10.2307 resolve to JSTOR. For example, [2] currently resolves for me to a landing page on Cambridge University Press, [3], and [4] resolves to another CUP page, [5]. [6] resolves to Oxford University Press, [7]. So those dois are not redundant and should not be removed: some readers may have CUP or OUP access and not have JSTOR access, and would be able to read the doi but not the JSTOR link.

For this reason, every removal of a 10.2307 doi needs to be checked to test that it resolves to JSTOR. But because this is something that could easily change at a future date, causing existing 10.2307 dois to resolve elsewhere even if they currently resolve to JSTOR, I would prefer that they not be removed at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to clutter up every citation that has a JSTOR link with a redundant DOI which resolves to the same link. This causes a lot of clutter and distraction for minimal benefit, if any, to readers. If people prefer doi:xyz to jstor:xyz in the template I don't have any particular preference, but in cases where they resolve to the same place we should just pick one of them to include. If there is a DOI for some paper which resolves to the publisher's website, we should use that one alongside a JSTOR link, so that readers clicking the two links will be directed to two different places. –jacobolus (t) 09:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 21:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened here

In this edit, you somehow replaced the template parameter "pages" with an emoji, which broke the citation. Not sure what happened there, but please be careful if you're using some sort of automated tool that's accidentally doing that. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure myself! With the mobile WP app there is no preview function. And reading the revised text, with tiny emoji changes, can be difficult. Thus I must often rely on the kindness of strangers. Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN formatting

Per this VPP RFC from last year, do not make any changes to ISBN formatting. Do not enforce any personal preference. Do not even enforce uniformity within a specific article. Please adjust your tool options accordingly. DMacks (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not even enforce uniformity within a specific article." This is a vague command! And not in keeping with good copy editing. It says "do not seek consistency" -- one of the principal goals of good copy editing. And you've proven that you'll tag an editor with one command (ISBN's), and then block the editor based on the complaints of one or two other editors because they think non-uniformity is acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating what the consensus-close of an RFC appeared to be. It's an expectation that editors follow consensus, even if they don't like it for valid reasons. You're welcome to question whether the the comments were evaluated correctly in the previous discussion and/or to start a new discussion to see if the consensus still holds. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This block was triggered by this edit, in which you switched at least one page-range from full-numbers to the abbreviated form you well know is not allowed. And doing so via re-doing your edit that someone else had undone pushes towards edit-warring, which makes your behavior even more inappropriate. DMacks (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a disaster. Inconsistent page ranges, sfn errors, citation parameter errors, and more. I have cleaned up what I could find. I am disgusted that we as a community continue to put up with this nonsense after so many years of documented disruption. I was hoping for an escalation from previous blocks for the same behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srich32977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The warning you had posted referred to ISBNs – S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC). The edit which has you refer to did not involve ISBNs. Rather, it was to revert an incorrect Rollback. That rollback involved some 80 corrections I had made. Among other edits I had supplied a consistent page citation format that uses Chicago Manual of Style page cites. WP:CITESTYLE allows such CMS citations. (The caveat in MOS:PAGERANGE looks like a "should recommendation, and does not address the CMS guidance. Also, the caveat is there so that editors won't put in vague page range cites. The CMS-syled edits I provided were not vague. Accordingly, I ask that you drop the block. In return I will make recommendations to WP:CITESTYLE to try and reconcile the guidance differences. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you want to work to change guidelines, that's up to you, but until then you need to heed instructions you're given. Good block. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I stand by my block, reminding that is not about ISBN but about page-ranges and that at least two other editors explicitly disputed that exact edit of yours (see #Citation cleanup and its antecedents) and then you reinstated it anyway. As standard, I will leave it to others to formally review your unblock request. They will want to take note of how many times the page-range issue has been raised here by how many editors, how often you have said you would obey the MOS for it, and your insistance that certain chosen external guidelines you like must supercede on-wiki consensus style. DMacks (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you are abusing your discretion. You send a TLDR message about ISBNs. I had made some ISBN changes in the last few days, and I was looking for the particular diffs so that I could get clarification. Along comes your block.

And why was I blocked? One editor had rolled-back my corrections, and when I reverted the roll-back I pointed out how rolling back my corrections was incorrect. (In fact, the incorrect roll-back re-added the page-range problems.) There are 80 corrections at issue in my sinful edit. How many dealt with the "incorrect", but CMS-compliant page-ranges? And how many dealt with other citation corrections? Here are the diffs: [8]. Please count. 10 or 11 of these 80 changes involved putting the page ranges into a pp. 123–24 format. In fact, many other changes involved correcting the format to the pp. 23–24 format that tha complainers supposedly prefer. – S. Rich (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"pp. 123–24 format" is not valid on Wikipedia, as has been explained endlessly on this talk page. Quoting Srich32977 above: Alright, I shall comply with MOS:PAGERANGE. You made a promise and then you broke it, repeatedly. I am amazed that the block was only 24 hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really do wish this wasn't happening, and I hope it's clear I tried to make Srich32977 aware of the specific issue multiple times in a straightforward manner. I am not sure what else I was meant to do. Their fixation on "should" as somehow meaning "optional" such that they may continue unencumbered according to their pre-existing preferences is rather disheartening, I must admit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Fag" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Fag has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 15 § Wikipedia:Fag, WP:FAG, and WP:FAGFP until a consensus is reached. — Hex • talk 13:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Market concentration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December thanks

Thank you today for improving article quality in December! - Today is a woman poet's centenary. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]