User talk:Peter K Burian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference errors on 10 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Stephen Harper. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You can find citation templates here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome but I have been contributing to Wikipedia for several years. Sorry, I did not notice that I had removed a template. Peter K Burian
Admittedly, I didn't check you full edit history, but, did notice signs that possibly indicate you haven't been contributing very long (such as not indenting in talk page discussions...). Regardless, it's a boilerplate notice.
It's good you use citations, but, please try and give some kind of information about them so as to prevent WP:LINKROT.
Best. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I have contributed many times but my strength does not lie in HTML coding. I try very hard not to remove templates and when I do (rarely), I definitely appreciate a fix by someone with more HTML experience. Frankly, I know three individuals (including a retired Professor of Natural History and Environmental Biology) with great expertise in several topics who would be a huge benefit to Wikipedia, but they find the HTML to be confusing, so they have given up trying to contribute. Such is life. Cheers! Peter--Peter K Burian 22:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Information icon In a recent edit to the page Flexity Outlook (Toronto streetcar), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and I now understand the concept. e.g. If the dates are done like this, 10 November 2015, then all dates in that article should be in that format and none as November 10, 2015. (In Canada both are correct, just as color is used more often than colour, but both of those are also correct.) It's tough being a Canadian in this respect. Americans and the British have it easier; they have one way of doing dates, spelling, etc.--Peter K Burian 22:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toronto Blue Jays, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Shapiro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to One-child policy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • China’s Most Radical Experiment|year=2015| publisher=[[Houghton Mifflin Harcourt]]|ASIN: B00QPHNV4E)}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 24 Sussex Drive may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • du Canada |access-date=November 15, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> and confirmed by Heritage Ottawa.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://heritageottawa.org/news/heritage-ottawas-leslie-maitland-discusses-24-sussex-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I found it and added the missing }}. Peter K Burian 18:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Next Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

Howdy. TBH, the Interim leadership section shoudl be removed entirely, if not trimmed down. The article is suppose to be about the Leadership race and Leadership candidates. Not the Interim leadership race or Interim leadership candidates. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter K Burian 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Hello. I don't disagree. ... OK, I went in and deleted the entire section as to who ran for interim leader and condensed the issue as to who was allowed to vote.

Personally, I'd delete the entire Interim leader section. But, that'll likely eventually occur as we near the (yet named) date of the Leadership Convention. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter K Burian 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Yes, makes sense; are you satisfied with the current version? Cheers! Peter K Burian 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Much better, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Signing your posts

See WP:SIGNATURES, for how to sign your posts in discussions. Also, see WP:INDENT for how to place your posts in discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, will do.
You still haven't grasped onto how to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... talk) I though I just did this (adding the tilde). Is that not correct? Peter K Burian 22:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hm... maybe it's like the one I am doing now.--Peter K Burian 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You need to press the 'tilde' key (on your keyboard) four times, at the end of each of your posts. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The one by our expert looks like this --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There are 4 tilde below and if I click on that field, it automatically inserts them. Like this.--Peter K Burian 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I use a Canadian Windows computer and I cannot even find a tilde symbol anywhere on my keyboard. (Oh and before the tilde, I have to insert the --, I believe. Man, I love this HTML nightmare.)--Peter K Burian 22:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There's two ways available:
  1. At the top, left of the editing window is a small icon with a blue pencil writing cursive;
  2. at the bottom, right of the editing window are four tildes "~~~~" immediately following the words "Sign your posts on talk pages".
While your curser is located at the end of your post, clicking either of those aforementioned options once should result in your signature appearing after your post in page space. (Though 1 includes two dashes and 2 doesn't. I'm not sure why. I always use option 1.)
Your signature seems to be appearing just fine; it shows your user name and has a date stamp. Mine is different only because I customised it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Signature linking

You also need to provide a link in your signature to back to your user, talk page or contributions. See wp:SIGLINK. 220 of Borg 18:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 fixing urls as citations

Please stop using bare urls as citations. Templates are available at WP:CIT. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There are many other "Gadgets", "Tools", "Scripts" and "Bots" intended to simplify, make more efficient editing, Many of theses "Wikipedia Tools" are hosted on external sites and perform a variety of task such as reFill, that edits references by adding basic information to bare URLs in citations after they are in articles....and Google book tool that converts bare Google book urls into {{cite book}} format before being put into articles....and so see Help:Citation tools. -- Moxy (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the difficulty you are having with formatting citations properly? You've been directed both to where the appropriate templates are and to tools you can use that will (somewhat) fill out references. Yet, you continue to punch in bare urls all over the place. Is there something specific you're not understanding and someone can assist you with? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The difficulty I am having would be simple to understand for any layman, who is not a programmer or web designer. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_tools page has vast amounts of information and I have no idea where to even start. What I need is a section that provides examples of citations as they should be formatted.
1 Bot-filled templates
2 Tools
3 Not working
4 Templates
5 Citation tools
6 User scripts
7 Beta and obsolete
8 Documentation
Peter K Burian 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A screencast that walks through the essentials needed in citing your sources. (2:01 min)
A screencast that walks through how to use the various features of RefTools. (5:03 min)
Well, it might be a bit more laborious, but the citation templates I directed you to can be filled out by you. It's what I do. I rarely use tools or gadgets to fill out refs (mostly because they only do half the job). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok lets do it this way (all will have to give you time to do this in two steps)......add your ref as you have been doing ("<ref>" the url in between this coding you see "</ref>")....then go to this external tool (that you can bookmark) and type out the articles name then click on the FIX PAGE and then fill in any missing data if need be (it will guide you all the way.). -- Moxy (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Moxy OK, I used that tool to fix the citations on this Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danby_(appliances) (I wrote much of the content). It was simple but I don't know if it worked properly.
Looks good to me :-) ...we also have a cool tool to do just one ref at a time when your looking at it. See this tool - Just drag the (blue) button there onto your browser's bookmark bar to use it. Then, just click the bookmark when you want to generate a reference from the page your on. For a book at Google-books use this tool -- Moxy (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that one too, Moxy; for the next few days, I will use only those two tools. Once I am fully comfortable with them, I might be willing to try another one. Cheers! Peter K Burian 20:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
See, it doesn't fill in the access date or give the proper publisher; I don't think it does dates of publication at all... That's why I don't like the tools.
But, I suppose there's no rule that says you have to use one way of filling out a reference over another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm ... no? So I can use bare URLs? Peter K Burian 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Using bare urls is the opposite of filling out references; it is the absolute absence of citation information.
See WP:LINKROT: "prevention of link rot strengthens the encyclopedia. This guide provides strategies for preventing link rot before it happens. These include the use of web archiving services and the judicious use of citation templates [emphasis mine]." Properly presented references also just makes for a more professional product. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand but the complexity is so great, how does anyone without any training or experience in coding ever figure it all out? Sometimes I wonder if Wikipedia is like a secret society, where you can come for a visit occasionally, but you will never be accepted because you don't know the secret handshake or the rituals. The need for HTML complexity definitely keeps many, many people -- who might be valuable resources on certain topics -- from contributing; so the secret society stays small and insular. Perhaps that is one of the (unstated) intentions. Or, you can visit France, and speak the French you learned in high school and in university as I did, but you will never be accepted because you are not fluent and your vocabulary is limited. (Do les gens Français then ignore any opinion you might have, on any topic, even in if it's the one where you are an expert, because it's not stated in the purist manner? Yes, some do but others are more open to the content than to the format.) In any event, Moxy said it was OK to use the tools he recommended which do not produce citations in exactly the purist manner. For now, that is the best I can do.--Peter K Burian 22:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"[H]ow does anyone without any training or experience in coding ever figure it all out?" I just followed the examples of citations already present and got better with practice. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Using citations

Hey Peter. I think you would find if you try to engage that placing basic referencing is not nearly as hard as it seems at first blush. First, you do not need to use citation templates. It is perfectly okay to place handwritten citations. It's not as good; lots of formatting will be missing and probably inconsistent; but if you provide good attribution to the source, that's what really matters and it's easily fixable by others. What is insufficient is a naked link, making verifiability much more difficult. So, let's take an example of a citation you added in your edit, this one. I know you already know how to make it into an inline citation by using ref tags around it (<ref>...</ref>) because you actually did that. Look how easy it is to make that into an acceptable citation.

You placed it with this:
<ref>https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19270628&id=N_AuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qtkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6772,4152719</ref>

All you would need to make this acceptable is add the attribution details of the source in prose after the URL (in red for emphasis):

<ref>https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19270628&id=N_AuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qtkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6772,4152719 "Historic Rideau Hall Was Built in 1837". Ottowa Citizen (Ottowa, Canada). June 28, 1927. p. 24.</ref>

However, using a citation template is not that hard. Each has documentation on their talk pages, and mostly you can just copy and paste them and then just add the obvious details after each equal sign. But let's break down one to see it's not all that hard.

  • All templates start and end with curly braces – they start with "{{" and end with "}}"
  • All templates have their separate "fields/parameters" separated by pipe symbols "|"
  • Fields in templates usually have some kind of intuitive name (always in all lowercase), followed by an equal sign for you to fill in the blank. For example title= .
  • As I stated at the Teahouse, there are four templates that can basically be used to make consistent citations for any source you can think of: {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}. Clicking on them will lead you documentaton explaining them and allowing you to copy and paste.
To cite this source, a news source, you can copy and paste from the cite news template's page, mix and match as you see fit, and just add the relevant information. It does not matter where each field is in the template. And of course it goes between ref tags just like you've already done:
<ref>{{cite news |date= |title= |url= |newspaper= |location= |page= }}</ref>

You can even do it vertically to see it better, it makes no difference to the output: 

<ref>{{cite news 
|date= 
|title= 
|url= 
|newspaper= 
|location= 
|page= }}</ref>
Just add in the information after each equal sign:
<ref>{{cite news 
|date= June 28, 1927
|title= Historic Rideau Hall Was Built in 1837
|url= https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19270628&id=N_AuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qtkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6772,4152719
|newspaper= Ottowa Citizen
|location= Ottowa, Canada
|page=24 }}</ref>

Placing that would format like this:

"Historic Rideau Hall Was Built in 1837". Ottowa Citizen. Ottowa, Canada. June 28, 1927. p. 24.

Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. Will try it tomorrow. When I don't do the citations in a perfect manner, someone often deletes everything I wrote. Peter K Burian 02:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up issues

Hellow Fuhghettaboutit. I tried doing a news citation with the template you had suggested. #99 on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad#Syrian_Civil_War:_2011.E2.80.93present It then looks like this: "Ward, Olivia (11 November 2015). "Bashar Assad a minor player in Syrian turmoil". Toronto Star (Toronto, ON, Canada). Retrieved 12 November 2015.
But I also use that same news reference in another section of the article on Assad. I know there is a different format for the second reference to the same news article, Citation 190, but what is the template for that use?
Also in the edit that I wrote I refer to a new book (Syria), citation number 98. I have not found a template that shows how to do the ref for that. ... But I added the book to Further Reading (hmm ... should I have put it into Bibliography?), and I'm quite sure I did that correctly. == Further reading == Abboud, Samer (2015). Syria (Hot Spots in Global Politics). Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-9797-0. I would love to be sure I am doing the primary types of citations correctly; I usually quote from newspaper articles (on-line version) and occasionally from books.
You did a good job with the Assad citation, even putting in parameters I did not tell you about (|last= and |first=). And it is important to add the author if there is one. (The example I had used above for illustration did not have one). You put in an accessdate too, which is good. Just note that if the source is clearly a paper one (like the source I used as an example; a scan of a newspaper image) there's no need for an accessdate. On to the two issues:
I fixed the Assad issue for you and left edit summaries to explain it. See here and here. I was thinking of explaining this in my original post here, but I didn't want to overwhelm you with more and more. Anyway, it's not all that difficult. The first time you want to use a citation that you're going to be using more than once, instead of opening it with a <ref> tag, use a ref tag with a name, in this form (choose the name intuitively – the last name of the author of the source is often a good choice (which is why I used "Ward", or the name of the newspaper and so forth.
Instead of starting with:
<ref>, use
<ref name="Ward">
That's the only change to what you would normally do to make the initial citation; after that opening change, the rest of the citation is what you would normally do. However the next time you want to use it – to recycle that same citation in the same article – all you need to do is place the named opening part, but with a forward slash just before the end, like so:
<ref name-"Ward" />.
As to the second question, I don't really understand. You figured out how to format the citation using the {{cite book}} template, but you placed that in further reading? You do understand that the cite templates just go between ref tags? So why didn't you use that citation template between ref tags in the text, instead of using a naked link? Replace the naked link that you placed between the ref tags for no. 98 with the filled-out cite book template you made and voilà, an attributed citation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do. Peter K Burian 01:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Rideau Hall is not the monarch's residence, Page 2

Tough to find journalists publishing any material claiming that a known fact is not true. But see this one[1] from Canada's National Capitol Commission. (I don't see any mention of it being the queen's residence in Canada.) The official residences in Canada’s Capital are owned and operated by the National Capital Commission. Rideau Hall, the home of the Governor General, is the only official residence open for public visits. Public Works and Government Services Canada provides the same role for The Citadelle, the Governor General's historic second residence in Quebec City. Peter K Burian 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely up to you. But, shouldn't you be bringing this up at Rideau Hall's talkpage? Peter K Burian 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

</ref>

You have to fix the "</<ref>" buried in your comment above to "</ref>"
Thanks for the fix tip.
There's no dispute Rideau Hall is the governor general's residence. You're trying to assert it is not the monarch's residence. An absence of a fact in one source doesn't mean the fact isn't true. Other sources (including the Queen herself) say Rideau Hall is the monarch's residence in Ottawa. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
PKB, I hope you can read the French language. You may need to, at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Merci GoodDay; Oui. I can read French. One of the benefits of being a Canadian who studied French for 8 years. (Also studied Spanish for 4 years, not typical in Canada, of course.) Peter K Burian 14:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/government/residences.html

Reference errors on 15 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gogo Inflight Internet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virgin Airlines. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I fixed Virgin as well as roach motel

Coordinates

Just letting you know, at Rideau Cottage, I didn't undo your good faith change to the coordinates to be obstinate; what I wrote in my edit summary is true. That is, for me, following the link the way I said I did. I don't know if it somehow appears differently on others' computers or using some of the other options (Bing Maps, MapTech, etc.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No objection at all; I am still trying to figure out what coordinates should be used on Wikipedia. The center of a building? That's what is provided at White House for example, and I wonder if that's a good idea in terms of national security; should we give such a specific location? Or is such info readily available anyway, on other sources. (Or are all coordinates a bit off, intentionally, for security reasons.) AND I wonder, if I want to go to a location that I find on Wikipedia, such as Rideau Hall or Rideau Cottage, would the coordinates for the parking lot not be more useful than those for the center of the building? For many buildings, such as Rideau Cottage, now the residence of the Prime Minister, the public is not allowed anywhere near the actual building anyway. Peter K Burian 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia articles that show co-ordinates, there is an icon above the data; click on that and it shows you exactly where those coordinates would take you: to the center of the White House, for example. Of course, I have no idea if that map is accurate. Peter K Burian 21:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, as I said elsewhere, I see the coordinates for Rideau Cottage as being directly within the walls of Rideau Cottage. I don't see why the same can't be done for Rideau Hall (though, it's not as neatly square as Rideau Cottage). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Responding

Hello, Peter K Burian. You have new messages at LjL's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

REACTIONS article does not include countries' plans to admit more refugees after Paris attacks

This is a continuation of the topic re: deleted sections from government reactions in other countries.

The other topic, Reactions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks, is very narrow in that it only discusses how sad other countries are that France was attacked. There is absolutely no coverage re: the countries' plans re: admitting refugees in the aftermath of the attacks.

However, the article about the attacks already does include comments of that type, so that is where I will be discussing this sub-topic: in the European Council section and in the International section re: Canada's intentions and plans. Peter K Burian 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If you need any help or have questions let me know

[1] I know we disagree on this but just wanted to let you know that if you have any questions about Wikipedia, policy, structure, governance, ambiance or anything else, please let me know. It's very easy to get lost in all the rules, regulations, policies, bureaucracy etc. and I'm genuinely willing to help out. Volunteer Marek  16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely disagree, Marek. But if the Attacks article is getting too long, perhaps an Admin should move large chunks of it to the Reactions article. That would make sense. (And I do keep mentioning that in the Talk.) Right now, that one contains little of value. There are SO many revisions that I simply cannot figure out who was deleting content that I had added about Poland and the Czech Republic. (I am absolutely convinced that those comments make for balanced coverage: i.e. some want no refugees admitted at all, while others believe there is a responsibility to the tens of thousands of families stuck outside European borders. My added content has included commentary on both aspects, and both are essential for balanced coverage. This has nothing to do with my own view of which side is right; I simply believe that both sides' comments need to be published. Whether that section is left in Attacks or moved to Reactions.) Cheers! Peter K Burian 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Why do you insist that "an admin" should do this sort of thing? That's not an admin's job, as previously explained. Not what admins are there for. LjL (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been continued in the other thread about reactions. Peter K Burian 16:52, 23 November 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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite web

Hello again. Please keep in mind in edits such as this and this one that when you use the {{cite web}} template, you must provide a URL, otherwise the citation won't work correctly. If you want to cite an offline newspaper, then you should use {{cite news}} instead, which does not require a URL. LjL (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I have in hundreds of edits; problem is, I am finding deleted sections in old history versions of the main article, and the way the references show up, the url does not show up. I must remember to click on the title of the article in such citations, find the url, and add it to the citation reference. Thanks for remind me LjL. A valid point. Peter K Burian 01:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Can't you just "Edit" the old versions and copy the original wikisource instead of copying the rendered text which doesn't have the information? LjL (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I went to the old version, clicked Edit, and then went down to the citations and copied them; but they never showed the url. The title was a link, but when I copied that, it was no longer a link. Peter K Burian 02:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I am so tired this evening, but tomorrow I will look at it again and fix any problems. Some of the content was deleted by another editor because of a problem (the citation did not include the quotes I had provided ... I will need to find the correct source.) But I kept a copy of the original edit that I had made, so it won't be difficult re-constituting that content. Peter K Burian 02:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're actually editing the wikisource, there is no "down to the citations", as the citations will be right in the middle of text, and you will just have to copy and paste with no changes. LjL (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Wikisource. Hmmm. I guess I don't know how to find that version. Is there a link to a page that explains how to find that version? I just went to history, to a day earlier, found a version that contained the text I wanted, clicked on edit and copied it. Then I acrolled down and copied the citations. Yeah not easy or quick. Peter K Burian 03:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
By wikisource I simply mean the text that you edit, with all the Wiki and sometimes HTML markup. In that text, references aren't at the bottom: they're right after what they source, as "ref" tags. LjL (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. Can't recall why I did not find it in that manner; anyway, it's all done now, but will remember for the next time. Peter K Burian 15:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Toronto Blue Jays, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I DO sign my posts using the four tilde symbols; I click on the icon and it automatically inserts it. (Perhaps I occasionally forget to do so?) Peter K Burian 18:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yahoo! may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Signature issues, again...

Hi Peter. I see that the issue with your signature isn't solved yet, and that you seem to have made an attempt. That's good, but it's not good that your signature still is not a clickable link. Have you checked your preferences? Try that. There is a big box about "Signature". In that box is a smaller box which can be edited. Insert this content:

[[User:Peter K Burian|Peter K Burian]] ([[User talk:Peter K Burian|talk]])

Then check the box immediate below it that says "Treat the above as wiki markup." Then save your work, go back to the talk page, use four tildes, save, and see if it makes a proper signature (don't worry about the "talk" link not working. It won't on your own talk page, but it will everywhere else. Let me know if this works for you, because this needs to be fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I did exactly what you suggested. Let's see if it works now. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... it may have worked!! Thanks for your help. Cheers! Peter Peter K Burian (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome! It looks fine now. Thanks for your help on the Cosby allegations article, and keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosby

Did you delete too much here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that; I was trying to fix an error. [User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]]. If I did, I will fix it. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Just checked it. No, it's correct now. The previous version claimed that she had sued Cosby re: revealing confidential info about the lawsuit settlement but that was wrong! Cosby sued her on that basis and that suit is still continuing. So, I added the correct info and citation. (If you do see something I should not have deleted, please let me know.) Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that needed fixing, and you did it, but you also deleted several references. Shouldn't they be used? If you click that diff above and then look at the references section, you'll see several redlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added the deleted citations back, although I felt we had plenty of citations without doing so. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Hi,

Can I point you to an essay, its not policy, WP:RECENTISM. There is a tendency to pile more and more stuff into Falkland's articles about the sovereignty dispute. Sorry but does it really need it, Argentine politician A recently said the same thing as the last guy, the British politician B said the same thing they replied last time and it doesn't change. Please if we could resist the temptation to report on recent events it makes for a better article.

Regards, WCMemail 22:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I am new to this article but as an encyclopedia, surely Wikipedia should not be ignoring the developments in terms of the sovereignty dispute. Granted there is another article about that topic specifically, and I am updating that.
And yet, my experience on Wikipedia has been that editors who wrote most of an article take a proprietary attitude to it, resisting any changes by a new editor, whether the additions to it make sense or not. So, it will be interesting to see how the other editors of the Sovereignty section will respond. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
What makes you so certain that they're new developments or represent a change? La plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. FYI David Cameron has replied, repeating the last statement - so your edit was already out of date (hence my reference to WP:RECENTISM). Lather, rinse, repeat. Appreciate the veiled accusation of WP:OWN, a lack of WP:AGF always makes for a productive discussion. May I retort with WP:EGO. Un abrazo, WCMemail 22:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In the vague hope you actually might have an interest. The British return to the Falklands occurred on the 3 January 1833, the Argentine Government annually makes angry noises on the anniversary. So really it isn't anything new. WCMemail 22:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the History lesson but we spent weeks discussing The Falklands in the International History Course in fourth year of University. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've spent years studying it and I don't claim to know everything. I will leave you to ponder, perhaps we can pick this up when you're in a better frame of mind. WCMemail 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Chloe Goins Statute 6 - 10 years and even unlimited

Please read the talk section on Cosby's sex assault page as I have added a Link on California Laws which is not the entire set of laws , some cover 10 years and in the case of Agravated Sexual Assault there is no statute of limitations, this is all explained in the talk sextion which I added to under Chloe Goins Statute of limitation on Cosby's sex assault allegations pageWwdamron (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


Here it is for the Still Possible State Charges, He can also be possibly federally prosecuted but this I could not look up yesterday since I had limited time and was on my cell phone Date December 30, 2015.--- http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20151230/could-felony-charges-against-bill-cosby-help-ex-models-playboy-mansion-case

Ref name

Sorry... Can you use " <ref name= > " for same references? Thanks. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm ... yes, I should be doing so. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

North Korean test article

Hi, yes, I noticed after I submitted that the lede was starting to repeat that section you mentioned. I reorganized the article, shortening the lede a lot, and moved most of what I took out to other sections. Feel free to change it more if you see anything that looks out of place. —AySz88\^-^ 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! It looks fine now. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Perrault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sleeping Beauty. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.

NGS

Could you check this? —Obsuser (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right; Bell was not one of the founders. I will fix that so the correct number of people are listed. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conservative Party of Canada may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_K_Burian/Archive_1&oldid=1141971392"