User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2018/October

Count Your Blessings

Thanks for fixing that, but you didn't have to make me feel bad my giving me a mention. dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) How you feel is completely up to you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I was mentioned in one of your edit summaries, and ended up spending a few minutes looking at how I came to introduce a duplicate ref. I removed a stray space from an existing ref, which then was identical to a second ref further down the article. I was surprised to be named in the edit summary - I assumed I had done something wrong, but in practice, I wouldn't routinely the rest of the article for any side-effect of a small tweak to a ref. As there are now three editors in the last six weeks who have come to your talk page as a result of being named, might you reconsider the practice? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yet, you should review the article when editing a reference: a "small tweak" to a reference carelessly made can make the edited reference no longer an exact copy, and therefore a duplicate. We know the edit was carelessly made because it produced a very visible, red error message after the edit -- so the editor didn't review the article after their changes. Everybody makes mistakes or typos when editing, but igonring the error messages caused by a new edit seems pretty irresponsible. The change you made didn't improve the article in any real way because the trailing whitespace is semantically ignored in the context of the reference tag. Your edit only served to damage the article.

I think that drawing attention to bad edits is a good idea for the reasons I've listed above. Indeed, three or four people have complained. The number of people who have thanked me is more than 100 times higher. These numbers show that editors almost unanimousl agree that being notified of their mistakes helps them improve their practices, and helps the corpus improve, too. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to slip up with duplicate refs, we all do it from time to time, but it does seem a titchy bit OTT to slap the offending editor's name permanently into an edit comment for such a thing: that's something many of us reserve for out-and-out vandalism, and I basically think only for IP editors via Twinkle or whatever. If you really think I don't watch the articles I edit then you're free to chat on my talk page but it's honestly not necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed easy to slip-up. That probably one of the reasons why the parser shows a red "error" message in the article when such a mistake is made. I outline the reasons why I mention editors when I fix referencing errors above. The mention is no more or less permanent than the edit itself. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please be civil

Please keep your snark to yourself. Next time you mention my name had better be on ANI. Llammakey (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you've verified my fixes to your edits, but I think you're bringing hostility into a situation that doesn't need it. As for civility, I'm not the one dropping F-bombs in edit summaries. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought you're holier than thou attitude would shine through. I did not verify your edits. I undid my error. The initial cite error is there for you to fix. You smarmy....Llammakey (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

My horrible duplicate refdefs

Mike, thank you very much for fixing my duplicate redefs. I had written the content in my Sandbox, and it looked OK. So I copied it into the article, and upon previewing I got the red errors. I did not publish that, until I went into the chat, and some helpful members suggested I do publish the edit, so that they could see what had to be done. They recommended what to do in order to fix it which I agreed to do in a few minutes (I had to run), and as soon as I got home, I noticed you fixed it for me. So...thank you ! Ferkijel (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help! Sandboxes are kind of funny because they're missing some of the context of the original article ... like other reference names. I took the names off and now there are no duplicates. But you might want to use some other method of referencing. My solution repeates the whole reference; some prefer to use {{rp}} to show the page number rather than repeating the complete reference the way I did. And there are a couple of other solutions, too ... -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

name callout

Dude, if you're going to call out whoever made the edit that you're "fixing", then a) don't, because that's incredibly rude and counter to the collaborative spirit of wikipedia and b) at least get the correct editor. You just called me out on List of Donkey Kong video games for messing up a reference, but I only have a single edit to the page from 2011. Since that edit was to swap out the list template used when it got split into a subtemplate, and did not touch references at all, it's pretty clear that you're just using an automated tool to determine the editor "at fault" and not bothering to verify. Which is kind of ironic, since you seem to be calling people out due to them not paying careful enough attention to their edits in your opinion. --PresN 17:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you believe that collaboration can be effective without feedback? I don't, so I offer feedback. If you're not willing to consider feedback, then there's not much I can do to help. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

So, you criticize other editors for not paying enough attention to their edits, but don't actually pay enough attention to your edits to make sure you got the right person. And you "offer feedback", but—as is plain to anyone reading your talkpage—are completely unwilling to accept feedback yourself that your approach is rude, condescending, and ineffective. I'm not sure if this is a performance piece or if it's really just that ironic; either way, please stop. --PresN 23:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: That's not feedback. That's you showing you are better than everyone. Keep showing the world what kind of person you are. Keep on believing your shit don't stink. Llammakey (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging

It's really not necessary to ping someones username in the edit summary over some edit, please don't do that thanks. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I second this @Mikeblas: Llammakey (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)