User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2020/November

Greetings and...

Greetings Mikeblas, I just thanked you for covering my back at the Azores article, but on reviewing my edits, I see that I didn't actually commit that particular crime. What is possibly worse is that I hadn't detected the existing problem myself... Just thought I'd mention it. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! No worries -- there's no crime here. Fortunately, editing Wikipedia isn't (yet) illegal. At least, not where I live!

Looking at this version of the article before your edits, I don't see any errors in the "References" section. After your last edit, there is an error in the reference section in red letters that says "Cite error: The named reference Machado, et al., 2008, p. 14 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."

If we look at the differences, we see that you made some changes to the name of a reference. Before your edits, the article had <ref name="Machado, et al., 2008, p. 14">, and you changed it to <ref name="Machado, ''et al.'', 2008, p. 14">. I can see why you might want to format et al. in italics in the rendered page, but using the tick marks in the name of a reference anchor won't make a visible change in the formatting of the article.

Instead, it changed the name of the reference definition. Other parts of the article still used <ref name="Machado, et al., 2008, p. 14"> (without the italic ticks in the name) to invoke the reference; but a reference with that name was no longer defined. That's the cause of the red error message, and I'm pretty certain it's due to your edits in those diffs.

Sorry if I got the attribution wrong ... but at any rate it's fixed and the article references render correctly now without error. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Crime meme

Huh? No... Ahah!

This does illustrate why I (nearly) always do "Show Changes" and why _that_ fellow _should_ have done "Show preview" with their large changes. Though I don't know if anybody would think to check the reference notes section. But they should if they update refs.

Perhaps you could ask them to figure out what that ref was supposed to be? Shenme (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. I get the attribution wrong every once in a while :( But thanks for having a look! Indeed, lots of edits happen that add referencing errors and make trouble. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 18 November 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding Air Mail scandal accidents and incidents, arlingtoncemetery.net is not RS. The website is SPS and has WP:LINKVIO. Please joint the discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#arlingtoncemetery_dot_net. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Thing was, whoever removed the definition of the reference didn't remove all uses of the reference, which leaves an error. Also, it seems like that site is being reviewed at the notice board, but consensus hasn't been reached just yet. Isn't that true? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mistake fixed

Thanks for tagging me here. Had you not tagged me, I wouldn't have noticed my mistake. I have fixed it now.VR _talk 23:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks!! -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

GSTF Journal of Engineering Technology

That journal is not a reliable source, see [1] for example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. I guess you're asking me to fix or undo some edit I made. Maybe you can narrow it down a bit? Where was it used? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to restore this. To be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong the first time (I did fail to remove all instances of that reference). Just letting you know why it was removed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I think I misunderstood your intention. In this edit, you removed the reference; but replaced a repeat of that reference with a new, named reference invocation. If the intention was to remove 'em both, then let's do that. There's no need to need a named-reference invocation behind. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)