User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2018/November

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for the edits AndrewKeeler (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

infoboxes

Please do not add the include tags to the infoboxes. Useless, and even counter-effective-DePiep (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You mention "ninclude" tags, but I'm actually using "includeonly" tags in my recent edits to the element infoboxes. Should I assume those are the edits to which you're referring?

Can you please explain your advice? The majority of templates I see use noinclude tags to segregate their rendered content from their descriptive content. They make viewing the documentation easier, clearly demonstrate the template's output, and separate the instructions from the included template language. Do you advise some alternative mechanism to realize those goals? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes those tags. Hiding the template is not helpful, because one wants to be able to check the infobox as it is. No use in having to go to the article page to check it. -DePiep (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary

I'd appreciate if you didn't imply that I created a duplicate ref when all I did was add a title to an existing ref. Thanks. Runawayangel (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You created a duplicate reference by making a modification to only one reference definition when another reference definition with the same name existed. Before your edit, there was no duplicate reference error because the two refrences had exactly the same content. Your change would have been correct had you made exactly the same edit to both definitions, or had you made the second definition a reference instead of a definition. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mikeblas. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of coats of arms of the House of Stuart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bosworth, Aubigny and Andrew Stuart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for the notification! -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit to the Imelda Marcos article. For future reference, you might note that the newspaper is The Philippine Star and not The Philippines Star. --Bejnar (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw that -- I tried to fix it, but I guess I missed a couple. Thanks for fixing it! -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Quantity

I agree with your comments on your User Page from over ten years ago about quantity versus quality. I spend most of my time working on the Jazz Cleanup Listing, a subject that no one will say is a matter of life or death. Nevertheless, the habits I've seen from IP editors and from regulars or former regular editors are unimpressive. The jazz articles have almost a 12 year backlog. My attempts to reduce it have gone pretty well, all things considered, but I'm astonished at the bias against deleting. What kind of an editor has a bias against deleting? Briefly, here's what I dislike: "saving" or "rescuing" articles (these are the words used) from being deleted due to some idealistic reason; citations in foreign languages; like a children's teacher, I have to repeat the same rules to people over and over again; experienced editors who create stubs or add unsourced material; the amount of unsourced material; the lack of inline citations; unwillingness to engage in real discussion and real debate about content and one's arguments; little kingdoms; vandalism from IP editors, who should be required to register if they want to edit; unwillingness to learn or follow rules; emphasis on "what I want" and "what I'm interested in" rather than what's best for Wikipedia; emphasis on current events and pop culture; treating Wikipedia like a newspaper; absurd amount of promotion, free advertising, autobiography, and conflict of interest; edit summaries that contain nothing but obscure acronyms; instead of worrying about retaining editors or getting more editors, why not shrink the amount of work existing editors have to do by shrinking Wikipedia?; instead of creating more articles, why not work on the ones that exist?; people who deprod articles ought be to the ones who find sources and add material rather than volunteering some anonymous other who might someday come along and write the article. Periphrasis and verbosity. A bias against brevity.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)