User talk:NSH001/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

How does one figure out this url?

At Warakamai I've been fiddling for over an hour to get the right url, without success. The problem is, when I open up and downbload the book through Acrobat, it gives me a pdf that ain't functional, though it is a resumé of the one you get at google. Can you get one that works? Sorry for this endless bother. And the very best for a healthy and prosperous New Year by the way, N. Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, as you will have seen, I fixed the obvious typo in your URL, but the URL produces a "not found" error on the ANU site. I tried several searches on the ANU site, but couldn't find anything. I'm reluctant to try further searching, because that can consume enormous amounts of my time. I notice the publishers are John Benjamins, not ANU as stated in your full cite, which suggests that what you're after is not the actual book (available on Amazon for a trifling £1,282!) but some other version of it (you suggest "resumé" above), in which case some of the other cite details may need changing. --NSH001 (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Any of my whinges for help should be taken cum grano salis. If you haven't a quick fix, faget them. I know how important time is, having little of it myself. Suffice it to flag the problem briefly. Never get sucked into my confusions: your cleaning of my Augean stables has gone way beyond the requirements of amicable courtesy.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You are hereby awarded the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for your patience, lovingkindness, and mercy. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You are hereby awarded the Civility Barnstar for excelling in maintaining civility in the midst of contentious situations. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Diplomacy for having helped to peacefully resolve conflicts on Wikipedia. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but I really don't deserve three barnstars – one possibly, but not three! Anyway, the thought is very much appreciated. --NSH001 (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Conundrum from fuddy duck

At Maringar, I can see the words 'in Gallurese' on the page, after the citation from Rodney Needham. However I cannot find any trace of it in the edit version (in order to remove them). What the eff is going on? My unspectacled sight for my age is diagnosed as abnormally acute, but perhaps if I'm seeing things I need to check back with the optometrist, or ask around if he has a private drinking problem.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's just a small typo -- you've got an {{sdn}} instead of an {{sfn}}. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct, as you can see if you go to {{sdn}}. --NSH001 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So, chaps, it's me: I have, it seems, a private thinking problem. Thank you both.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It may be influenza'd eyes, but I have a hard time finding Kuungkari and Bidia, to name but a few, in the Queensland aboriginal tribe category lists on those pages. I have put in the correct cats, I believe, but at least on the pages as I view them, they are missing from the list? Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's actually a navbox Template:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland, not a category (categories, of course, appear right at the very bottom of the page, just like they do for every other categorized page on Wikipedia). Whenever you add a new tribe, I add it to the appropriate navbox, so it seems I missed those two. Anyway, I've added them now, so you should be able to see them now on Kuungkari and Bidia (you might need to refresh the page to see them). If you look at the page for tribe X, you should always be able to see the name of tribe X in bold in the navbox; if you don't, then they haven't yet been added to the navbox. Note that my spy page (click on the link at the top) depends on these navboxes being kept up-to-date. --NSH001 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what a navbox is, unless it refers in Australian slang to a transgender navvie's 'box' (Tassie delta), but whatever you did, it worked. I think you should ghost write a Lord Wimsey detective novel, given your powers of eliciting the obvious that even relatively undumb people like myself regularly miss. Fanks, yungfellah.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, it's a "navigational box". The idea is that it helps you navigate around connected pages. So in the case of these tribes, you can immediately jump from one tribe in the state/territory to any other in that territory by clicking on the name of the tribe. You can even jump around between the states/territories by clicking on the line at the bottom. So in at most two clicks, you can immediately go from any one tribe to any other Aboriginal Australian tribe. --NSH001 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just offhand, while I click through a couple of hundred articles to find it, it would be nice if you could remember what template you taught me to use for putting down aboriginal marriage systems. We have great data on the Kaiabara just sitting there begging to be tabulated under social organization, but I can't remember where I last used it. If I find it I'll put it on a link in the bibliography page to stop needless nagging over things you taught me which I should remember. if not, I'll dredge it up somewhere in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Faget it. I think found the template, at Mirning, and will see if I can adapt that one. Fanks anyway.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

name change

could you see thisNishidani (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done NSH001 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fanks.Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

help, please

Could an admin please revdel the highly offensive edit summary in this diff, please? I've copied it to my "fan mail" (link at the top of this page), where it is available for reference if needed, but this stuff really doesn't need to be broadcast in an edit summary. There is no need to revdel the whole edit, just the edit summary. Thanks in advance. --NSH001 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 16:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, appreciated. --NSH001 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies

I am sorry that you constantly have to fix the citations for my edits. Im not very good with html, but I do try and copy and paste your templates so I can reuse when I can, I just don't know how to add a source, sorry again. Very much appreciate your work. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

BlackfullaLinguist, no, no, no! Absolutely no need to apologise whatsover. You concentrate on getting good content into Wikipedia, you're doing a good job. Citations are difficult for newbies to pick up, just do what you can, I quite enjoy fixing crappy cites, and I have an automated script that does most of the work anyway. You will get better at it with time, just like we oldfellas did. And thank you for the kind words. --NSH001 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You might have gathered that I'm not a fan of Visual Editor! --NSH001 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

BlackfullaLinguist, a piece of advice: don't use Visual Editor (VE) for generating citations, and especially not on these Aboriginal articles. One reason is that VE generates a whole shit-load of garbage, as you can see from the cites I've fixed. The other reason, which applies to these Aboriginal articles, is that VE uses a citation style which I call "LHT clutter", that makes the wikitext very hard to read and to edit. Take a look at the very long thread at the top of this talk page for all the reasons why this is a really, really bad idea. Don't worry, I don't expect you to read all of it in one go!

By contrast, our Aboriginal articles use a citation style that makes the wikitext delightfully easy to read and to edit. Also WP:CITEVAR requires that editors should normally follow the existing citation style used by an article. I see you've already figured out how to use {{sfn}}, so all you need to learn is how to set up the corresponding long cite (the one that goes in the "Sources" section at the bottom). This is easy to do (well "easy" as far as citations can ever be easy!): just copy-paste a long cite that is similar to the one you want to create, and make the obvious changes to the values. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead prob

How did I screw up the note (efn etc) at Arrernte people? I know it will be obvious, but . . .Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done (as described in edit summary) --NSH001 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've long thought it is worth risking flu' or even pneumonia every time I have had to doff the cap and bow your way, acknowledging the cool breezes of reason that set my errors straight time and again. Well worth the coughing fits! Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the thing that's making me (metaphorically) cough and splutter at the moment is the bizarre hysteria in all the "mainstream" media here over the Skripal poisonings (or whatever it turns out to be in the end). Blatantly obvious propaganda trying to promote a conflict, or even war, with Russia. I've often been amused watching scenes of Lavrov or Putin in conference with their western "partners", and you can sense them wondering in their heads, "How the fuck did these people get to the positions they're in?", while Lavrov always remains, on the surface, the professional diplomat. A contrast with this feisty lady (Maria Zakharova) from the Russian Foreign Ministry. --NSH001 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Lavrov certainly makes his western colleagues look like dumb fly-by-night-soiled amaturds, but one should always bear in mind that diplomats are defined as those who 'lie abroad' to represent their country's interests. Yes, it's impossible to figure out what is going on: and the last sources to trust are the mainstream, a word which more and more conjures up the notion of a stream of hot piss. Perhaps the Russians are behind Skripal, after all, several major Western powers have consistently broken international law, assassinated their perceived enemies abroad, and just about thrown away the rule book, so at most, were that true, their behavior is to deplored as a dreadful form of mimicry, and our mainstream response the typical vice Luke 6:42 noted. Ah, well, back to my genocide/ethnocide articles.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

ETVP script

Hi NSH001, I would like to try this script. Where can I find it? Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter, you can't, because at the moment it's private. But it is very gratifying to have someone express an interest, so thank you for that.

I've been slowly developing the script, from scratch, including learning a programming language from scratch (and quite a few other things too, including regular expressions). I started it as an intellectual exercise to keep my brain cells active in retirement, but I soon realised that the only way to learn a programming language is to apply it to a useful, real-life problem, and what better than getting rid of turd templates? I'm highly motivated to do this, since they drive me nuts!

I do intend, eventually, to release a public version, but it needs a lot of effort first. I started this project in the full knowledge and expectation that large chunks of the code would need to be re-written. Just like wiki articles written by beginners usually need substantial re-writing! The code currently has many dozens of "TO-DO" and "HACK" comments, all of which need attention, and I keep thinking of new things for the script to do (a never-ending process?).

The first thing I did with this script was to turn turd templates into ETVP, leaving them inline. The next was to add an option to move cite templates to WP:LDR, after first transforming them into ETVP, of course. The next after that was to switch cite templates to short form referencing, which is the option I've been using on Nishidani's Aboriginal Australian articles. I've now realised that the method I used for the switch to LDR is not very good. So the next major development is to completely re-write the LDR option – that should reduce the lines of code required by a factor of 2 or 3, with a corresponding speed-up, but the main advantage, of course, will be more robust code.

Sorry you'll have to wait a while for a public version, but we might still be able to help each other.

Nishidani has supplied abundant material which I can use to test out my script, but he's beginning to run out of new blunders and cock ups for stress testing my code (the old rascal is learning from his mistakes!). Perhaps you'd like to throw a few articles in my direction (not too many!), on which you're either the primary author, or where you've gained consensus for a change in citation style. For example, you might want to switch an article to short form, in which case I can run the script for you, and save you some tedious manual work. I would still find that useful for testing, even though I can see that you are unlikely to provide as many little mistakes as Nishidani.

--NSH001 (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just finished moving all ref defs into reflist on History of underwater diving, but they are still an abomination in terms of format and completeness. Cock-ups and blunders abound as I have not gotten round to fixing them yet. Feel free to run your script over them and see how it turns out.

I rather like the readability and reasonable compactness of the ETVP, but with a decently formatted reflist it would not be a huge task to do that manually. Underwater diving is my first (and so far only) FA, with pretty decent ref def formatting except they are horizontal (I put spaces before the pipes to encourage unsurprising wrap), so it would be interesting to see how that would look in ETVP too. If I don't like it it would only be a click to revert the experiment, so low risk.

If you really want to test it on a pig's ear, try Frogman.

I have the dubious privilege of mostly working on articles in Wikiproject scuba diving where there are very few editors, so very little strife, and hardly anyone has an issue with cleaning up refs and listing them together.

At this stage I do not know what all your script does, but was assuming that it does not convert manually formatted to template formatted, or expand incomplete refs.

Somebody said "perfection is the enemy of good enough". The trick is to recognise the borders of "good enough". Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the demo at Underwater diving It seems to work well. I find it a good compromise and quite readable. Does the script re-order the parameters for you? Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, thanks for the kind words. Yes it does, it was designed from the start to make cite templates as easy to read as possible, and the script to be easy to tweak as well, to make it even better. Remember the mantra "Easy to Visually Parse"! So if something occurs to me to make them even easier to read - or just saving a bit of white space without impairing its ETVP-ability - I will probably put it in the script. I need to get round to documenting it properly, but you can get the basic idea just by examining what it does. Some of the basic priciples are outlined in my responses to Doc James in the long thread above.

I find that I can just look at a screenful of cite templates in ETVP form, and spot errors or omissions almost instantly.

Also, I soon realised that as I had everything to do with a template so easily to hand, it wasn't hard to get it to automatically correct errors (which, sadly but not surprisingly, abound on cite templates!) - and that error correction process has grown so that it now probably accounts for almost half of the code. But obviously, it can't correct errors which require looking at the source, or which require a human to make a decision.

--NSH001 (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

More trouble from the usual suspect

I see you are, understandably, busy at the moment, but eventually if you can look at the Mathews 1900 source (I have a downloaded copy) and the 'social organisation' ref. on the Jingili page, could you find a wiki table capable of reproducing the structure Mathews provided. No urgency in this, any solution up to 2020 would be most welcome. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, how complicated is your table? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked it up. It does not look too difficult, so will give it a try. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

For a minute, Peter, I thought you were inquiring about our dining settings, which are rustically simple, forks, knives, a plate, cheese dish, wine glasses. Of course, if it comes to the menu's results, that is infinitely complex, my wife being a superb cook in the great Italian culinary art.:) Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, Sounds practical. Anyways, I have drafted a table for you, where do you want it? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops. My mind is always drifting in the run-up to dinner. If you are alluding to the table on the Jingili talk page that requires a fix, it should be placed under the section on social organization. In the meantime, many thanks for your kindness. Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. You should check the spelling and order of the contents of the main cells. I have left the formatting as basic as it gets. If you need it to be made a bit fancier, let me know how and I will see if I can do it. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see now that you have different data on the talk page to what I got from Matthews. I think you may have to talk me through the fix, as it is not obvious to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have made a best guess of what is needed. It may be wrong, so let me know if it needs to be fixed. Signing off for the night. Cheers. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

'Bout time to call it a day here too, Peter.- I've been on a boring article on a different topic elsewhere all afternoon, and will get back to this tomorrow. Thanks again. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

On the technical side

See the removalism practice putting down roots at the 1946 page, I wondered what policy is regarding shifting such materials, if they eventually are removed on technical grounds as sources for the text, to a 'See also' section. All over wiki you have See also sections, whose reliability is rarely if ever challenged. I think Suarez's book should be put in one such section because it is undoubtedly a useful lead for future readers 'to consult, since wiki won't allow it to be actually cited. ?Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well my view is that, re Suárez, the RSN discussion was inconclusive, because the only "independent" editor to respond did not offer anything worthwhile in response to your extensive arguments, merely IDONTLIKEIT stuff. I'm tempted to add something in again from Suárez, just to see what happens. In any case, I think it would be wrong to conclude that, if we don't actually use the book, it's not RS - merely that we used other sources for the same material (and that tends to corroborate Suárez). Haven't looked at the other stuff yet.

"See also" sections are meant for internal wikilinks, but it would certainly be possible to list external sources, not cited in the article, in a "Further reading" section, as long as they are relevant to the topic. --NSH001 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The RSN board never helps out in this area, and since the discussion was inconclusive, I don't know what to do. Of course Suarez is RS, but I think for the moment I'll adopt your suggestion and put it into a Further Reading section. There can't be any objection to that,(though there will be!) Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What have I done wrong

With the Madley quote in para 2 of the Tasmanian article? Damn it and sorry.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Some of your lessons seemed to have percolated through the Alzheimerish matter. I failed to watch my p's, hence the q(uerie)s! Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't manage to yank the dummy out of my mouth

What did I do wrong with cite ^ [[#CITEREF|]]. at Eora (note 34 or thereabouts)? Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a couple of typos. I thought your eyesight was quite good? (unlike mine) Cheers --NSH001 (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The eyes still have it - I'm unspectacled still- but the visual input evidently has problems being processed in the old timer's clogged and diseased grey, going on dark-, matter! Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

• New partners
  • Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
• Wikimania
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, much appreciated.

I must be getting old (amazing how time flies!)

--NSH001 (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello NSH002! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, NSH001. 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)

Thanks (1)

I don't think I've ever actually thanked you for all you've done on a number of projects I've been involved in with our mutual friend, so if you would forgive the lateness of this, thank you very much Neil, your contributions are greatly appreciated. nableezy - 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, I always appreciate a "thank you". In any case, I've always found it a pleasure to work with our brilliant old friend. --NSH001 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Nableezy - Thought about nominating the latest effort for DYK? I'm too lazy to do it myself! --NSH001 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

ya will do. nableezy - 01:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Taxes for Peace not War

I am trying to distinguish between organisations of conscientious objectors, - who object to conscription on principle - which this is, and those who objected to a particular conscription, which are in the anti-conscription category. Category:Peace organisations based in the United Kingdom is a subcategory of Category:Political advocacy groups in the United Kingdom. It should be in the most specific. And it is clearly an organisation, not a movement.Rathfelder (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No.

Firstly the organisation is called "Conscience". Its full title is "Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War". Its literature uses both, but mostly the shorter form. It is never simply "Taxes for Peace not War".

Secondly (thinking of the obvious example), 100 years ago, conscription was of millions of men to fight and kill each other either face-to-face, or within shooting range of each other. Nowadays, in modern Western countries, conscription is mostly of money to pay for the technology that does most of the killing and destruction, with a paid volunteer army sufficient to do the nasty face-to-face stuff when deemed necessary. So it is very definitely against "a particular conscription", namely the conscription of money (and even a volunteer army requires conscripted money to pay for it).

(added later) And just supposing conscription were re-introduced, or proposed to be re-introduced, in the UK, there isn't any doubt that Conscience would be against that. That follows a fortiori from its main purpose. Another reason for including it in the category. --NSH001 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thirdly, probably Category:Peace organisations based in the United Kingdom should probably not be a subcategory of Category:Political advocacy groups in the United Kingdom at all. Many members of the former will also belong to the latter, but not all. It is possible, for example, to promote peace at a personal level, or at a slightly higher level, mediating disputes, without engaging in political advocacy.

(later) Ah!! I took your word for it, but I've just checked, and in fact – contrary to your claim above – the former is not a subcategory of the latter! Neither is it a subcategory by virtue of being in a chain of subcategories whose highest category is a member of the former (yes, I checked that as well).

Fourthly, your edit summary "removed Category:Anti-conscription organizations" is misleading as you also, in the same edit, removed two additional categories not mentioned in your edit summary.

Fifthly, your mass removal of categories is worrying. It is tiresome, annoying, time-consuming and difficult to go through and check in detail all your edits when you are making so many (and I have only had time to look at a few). In the future, at the very least, if a page is in both category A and category B, and you are removing category A because B is a subcategory of A, please say so in your edit summary. It is annoying to be forced to trawl through all the categories on a page to try to find the one which is a subcategory of the removed category. That's simply a basic courtesy to your fellow editors. Usually removing category A will be correct (and I have done this often enough in the past), but also the question of whether category B should really be a subcategory of A in the first place needs to be considered.

Sixthly, you final point about its not being a movement is debatable. Yes, it's an organisation, but it is also part of the peace movement. Peace movements require organisation in order to be effective.

--NSH001 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Conscience:Taxes for Peace not War is the campaigning organisation formed to represent those in the UK who desire or promote the principle of 'conscientious objection to military taxation' (COMT). In addition to trying to get the law changed to recognise this, it also works to get COMT recognised as a human right globally via the United Nations, and campaigns in the UK to decrease military spending and increase spending on peace-making. In that sense it is in an organisation. But COMT is also a movement; as people are made aware of it as a concept, those with pacifist tendencies do tend to 'get it' straight away and come on board. A combination of information campaigns and social media activity has seen support for COMT in the UK risen by some thousands in the past few years. It is now being pushed for within UK political parties by their membership. Local branches are being proposed and discussed; one has just started in Scotland. COMT, co-ordinated by Conscience:Taxes for Peace not War, is increasing in awareness, support and social acceptability. At what point does it get to be defined as a 'movement'?

I am also getting weary of these unexplained category changes. Putting Conscience:Taxes for Peace not War down as being in Cyprus looked more like vandalism than a mistake. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

SandJ-on-WP Thanks for your comment. --NSH001 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

• OAWiki
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

How difficult is it for you to apply your citation style if I make a mess of it?

Hi NSH001. You've fixed up my citations in an article.

Thanks for that. But it's had me wondering - if I go in and make more edits, how much should I worry about keeping your citation style intact?

Does it take you a lot of effort? Or can I just add in citations with the visual editor, and then it's as simple as a click of a button for you to fix them?

Thanks --Sanglorian (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Re citation style taken on its own, it's no trouble at all. But there are a couple of points worth mentioning:

• If you want to cite something written by say, John Smith in 1995, first check that the cite isn't already in the biblio listing. (This shouldn't be difficult, as the listing is in alphabetical order - and my script keeps it that way.) If it is already in the listing, then all you need do is use {{sfn|Smith|1995}} – or {{sfn|Smith|1995|p=25}} if you want to cite a page number. No need to trouble yourself to provide a full citation!
• Do check the automatically generated citation against the source, especially for the date and author or authors. These are crucial items to get right in a citation, and automated tools often get them wrong, or miss them out altogether. This applies whether it's VE or some other tool such as ReFill. These tools often get the title wrong, so check that as well.

I hope that helps. --NSH001 (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sanglorian - A few more points before I forget (raised by recent edits on Dreamtime, but generally applicable):

• Don't worry about maintaining citation style, at least on those pages where I am active.
• But I do recommend (if you're not already familiar with them) that you familiarise yourself with WP:CITEVAR, and with the documentation on short-form referencing - {{sfn}} is a good place to start.
• My script has a vast array of options. Its main purpose, and original motivation, was to get rid of #turd templates. One option, which remains possible, is just to switch them regardless. This is what I usually do with Nishidani's stuff - he makes a lot of small blunders and mistyping of template syntax, and doesn't always follow WP:MOS, but he never misses out crucial citation details such as date and author/editor names, and my script is capable of fixing most of his blunders and correcting according to MOS. There is another, more cautious option I use if he's added a lot of new material. This option still switches cites if both date and author(s)/editor(s) are present, but if not, it leaves them in-line (in ETVP format), so that I can preview, and if necessary, edit the cites. In these cases, my script has to generate something to put in the |ref= and which will appear in the corresponding {{sfn}}s once it's switched. My script is getting pretty good at this, but sometimes I might want to tweak what the script generates. Note that these cites are not mistakes, these details are missing because they really are not in the source. Once I'm satisfied, I re-run the script on the tweaked version, to give the version that I will post on Wikipedia.
• There is a third, even more cautious option I use whenever I can see that Visual Editor (VE) has been at work (and in some other circumstances where there is reason to believe that the cites are full of errors). This option merely leaves all the cites in-line but in ETVP format. I expect, in these cases, to have to manually inspect every cite, manually correct any obvious errors, and go back to the sources to add missing details and correct mistakes. I then re-run my script (once in simple cases, twice if I want to be cautious) as described above.
• Because the in-line cites are in ETVP format, they are easy to find and correct
• So my advice to you is: don't worry about me, but do worry about the crap that VE generates. For example, on Dreamtime [1]:
  • VE missed out the date and author names on all the cites to The Conversation, even though they are very clearly displayed there.
  • VE generated a non-existent second author, also called Gill, on the cite to Gill 1998.
  • Don't worry about the stupid stuff that VE generates, such as blank parameters or |language=en. My script will delete it automatically.
  • But do take the trouble to check the cites against the sources (very few editors actually do this, whether they're using VE or some other citation-generating tool - one reason why citations are so full of errors). Especially if you can see that date and/or author(s) are missing. That will definitely be helpful.
  • Also, do try to avoid duplicating cites, as I recomended above as the first point in my earlier reply to you. For example, you duplicated the full cite to Swain [2], whereas it would have been easier and quicker just to put {{Swain|1993|pp=21–22}}, causing me extra work in having to de-duplicate it. (BTW my script does eliminate duplicate templates, but in this case there were too many small differences for it to recognise the duplication; if the only difference were the page numbers, it would have recognised them as duplicate.)
  • Also good practice: if you've checked the source, and it really is undated, you can put |date=n.d., and if there really are no authors or editors, you can put | author = <!-- not stated -->. This is helpful, as it tells later editors they don't need to check those items again.

Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about my many blunders. Sometime back someone even wondered if this were not a trace of some incipient Oldtimer's disease. Could be, but I tend to discount that probability, perhaps apotropaically, because (a) I have a dreadfully aged keyboard, with several keys loose or permanently hunched down and not quite responsive (b) when I do read what I write, the spelling errors are appallingly obvious (c) but I unfortunately edit and then don't check the result more often than not (d) often out of laziness but as frequently because, esp. recently, I can only edit rapidly because I have a thousand daily chores lingering around which require intermittent but constant breaks and attention. I tend to read up on something, keep it in my head and organize it mentally and, when back from a hospital ward, or wherever, dash to my study, glance through notes, and then make a rapid fire edit or series of edits. Ah, for the good old days when one could sit down, read and work carefully for several uninterrupted hours. Have a great New Year, Neil, and profound thanks for your unremitting assistance. I thought wiping incontinent arses by the disabled a tough chore, but cleaning up these texts must be no less trying.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about all your little blunders, they're no trouble since they can be fixed automatically - and they're part of your unique charm! Plus they help me stress-test my script. It needs to be robust before I release it to the great unwashed wiki public, and if it can handle your messes, it will probably be able to cope with anything (ha! probably not - it's not possible to anticipate all the crap that people type into Wikipedia). Yep, I know about old keyboards - the "C" key on my older laptop completely stopped working. Had to solve that one by getting a USB keyboard. Takes up more desk space, but at least it's easier to type on. You have a great New Year too, my old friend. --NSH001 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That is all very useful. I will try to keep the citations clean and correct. Please do feel free to share other tips if you notice other mistakes (or if I keep making the same ones!). You mention writing {{Swain|1993|pp=21–22}} is easier than using the citation tool, but is that still true if I'm using the visual editor? Should I prepare these in a separate notepad and paste them in? Sanglorian (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help! Regarding Visual Editor, I never use it, and have no intention of ever using it, but I understand it has a facility to "switch" to editing the source text directly, so if you do want to continue using VE, that is likely to be your best option if you want to insert stuff like {{Swain|1993|pp=21–22}}.

It takes a little effort to learn how to use short-form referencing, but once you've done so, it's a lot easier to edit than any other citation style. I don't see why you would need to use Notepad, since if you want to insert a short citation, you should already know the author name(s), date, and page number(s) – and that's all you need. If the full cite isn't already in the biblio listing, you can allow VE to generate it, and my script will automatically fix it (generating both the short cite, and moving the full cite in ETVP format into the biblio listing), provided you've checked its work as I described above (I guess you'll probably need to "switch" into source text to do that). Good editors should always check their citations, and it's a pity that so many don't. --NSH001 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross Arbcom

Thank you for intervening in the request I opened. As you can tell I'm very new to the processes involved.

I too added the Kamm difflink but was told all my difflinks were meritless.

A certain user has now gone after me just for opening the request. Your talk page is really interesting I'll be reading more soon.

Thank you for stepping in, I really appreciate it. Alex Tiffin (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see you've been blocked for sockpuppetry. I sigh with despair when I see editors such as yourself and Kal Holman – who have basically the right idea about the neocon warmongers (including Kamm), and the way Wikipedia is being misused to push the militarist agenda – go and shoot yourselves in the foot by breaking the most obvious rules. I certainly wondered whether Kal Holman was doing it deliberately, in order to go whining off-wiki about being blocked for bringing an Arbcom case. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

That said, I hate having to use up valuable time arguing at places like AE and ANI, and do it only very rarely. I think this is the first time I have raised anything at AE (not absolutely sure, I might have contributed incidentally at AE before), as I hate to see an injustice. So I'm also fairly "new" at AE, although I have watched many dozens of cases on subjects that concern me. BTW, as you probably know already, Kamm is lying at that Capx piece Cross linked to. I wish you all the best for the future, and thanks for stopping by to thank me.

--NSH001 (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Alex, I may have been a little too harsh on you above. From your talk page, it seems you may simply have forgotten your password or something, then set up another account to get access, then gone back to your original account after managing to get the password reset. Or something like that. A real sockpuppet would not leave details all over the place, as you did, obviously linking one account with the other. Also you haven't been behaving like a sockpuppet usually does, which is either to get round a block, or to try to give the misleading impression that other editor(s) is/are taking your side in a dispute. But just remember, sockpuppeting is a big NO-NO on Wikipedia, it's dishonest, and attempting to deceive your fellow editors. --NSH001 (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

fitting a template inside one of your Harvard cite footnotes

Hi. You made an edit for a 'consistent citation style' here.[3] Problem is, that wasn't even a year ago and already it was a dead link. I changed it to the AIATSIS citation template so that all such citations can be updated together, but I have no idea how to put in in one of your footnotes. Currently the citation fn is still there but doesn't link to the source. Anyway, thought you might know how to fix it. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Kwamikagami Yes, it can be fixed, but it may be a little while before I'm able to get round to it – see the thread immediately above. --NSH001 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• New and expanded partners
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Kokomini

N. Could you fix by restoring the Kokomini page, removing the redirects and in restoring it, title it Gugumini? See the discusson on Kwamikagami's talk page? Sorry for the bother.Best Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Nishi, I have been in excruciating pain for the last week or so, due to cellulitis, requiring multiple hospital visits for intravenous antibiotics and wound dressing. My own stupid fault for letting it get so bad before seeing the doc, but I think I can say that on this occasion, the quick and effective response of the NHS has saved my life. I'm still on antibiotics, and it still hurts like hell, but at least I'm on the way to recovery. It is awkward to edit wiki because I have to plonk my leg on my desk next to the keyboard, else it hurts too much. Plus I think the combination of pain and antibiotics is addling my brain.

So my wiki work for the next few days is going to be very limited, much like it has been recently, but I'll do what I can.

--NSH001 (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, sorry to hear that: I already guessed I might pull my finger out and just do a revert, which I have done anyway, but didn't take this obvious measure when I asked because I saw a lot of redirects and thought me reverting would only stuff things up. Best wishes for a full recovery and yes, NHS is a life-saving institution. Take these down in Europe would mean declaring war on one of the few things that underscore all the hot air about civilization. We know that personally. My wife's health care these past two years would have required selling up our house to cover costs were it subject to what rich arseholes call 'economic rationalization', and we're only at the beginning of the battle. Best Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record: on reflection, the phrase above "has saved my life" is an exaggeration made under the influence of pain and medication, although it is true that if left untreated indefinitely (many months at least) the result would eventually be a long and very painful death. I am very grateful to have had the benefit of the NHS. Nishidani - sending you lots of good wishes for your wife's recovery. --NSH001 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hope the worst is over

A slight editing hiatus has me a touch worried, N. I hope you are recovering well from the operation. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but yes, I'm definitely recovering. I'm finally off the heavy antibiotics, and I've got my brain back, which feels great. As I told the doc the other day, it is no longer painful, merely "uncomfortable". BTW, I didn't have any "operation" (not the sort that requires knives/scalpels anyway) although I've needed about 100 hours of medical treatment/care so far. The wound dressings are slowly coming off, but I still have one small one left, which I hope will go within a week or so. The leg still doesn't look very pretty, though much better than it was. One of the nurses told me it was the worst case she'd ever seen. --NSH001 (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Geeze, wishing you the best. nableezy - 21:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nab, appreciated. --NSH001 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, this experience has given me an even deeper appreciation of Chrissie's achievement in winning her 2011 World Championship. Like me, she had an infected, swollen leg, and the medics' first concern was to check for DVT/PE (negative, thankfully, for both of us), then treatment with heavy antibiotics. She had it a bit easier than me, as her leg infection was superficial, not cellulitic, and the road rash disfigurement you can see in the video linked from her article was nowhere near as repulsive as what I had (now much better, though, but still very obvious). But antibiotics really take it out of you, the last thing you want before any race, let alone a full Ironman. Then add all the other injuries she had. I had an instinctive feeling before that race that she was going to produce something really special, such as lowering the record by 30 mins, or finishing among the first 10 men, and was disappointed on the day when she didn't. But my instinct was right – I think her performance must be a strong candidate for the best athletic performance of all time, by any gender and in any sport, in the whole of history; it's not obvious, as you need to know all the circumstances to fully appreciate it (the sources in her article will help). Records always get lowered (eventually), but I can't see anyone else equalling that performance any time soon in any sport under similar conditions. And that's what makes her the greatest ever. --NSH001 (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The prejudices of youth, seeing Burt Lancaster playing Jim Thorpe, long convinced me Jim Thorpe was the greatest athlete of all time, but reading Wellington's record makes me reconsider, esp. the overcoming of injuries, which tops, I guess Thorpe's battle against prejudice, and a bad pair of running shoes. It's a hard choice, perhaps affected by gender bias: I still think competing in, and winning, both the Olympic pentathlon and decathlon multiple events must rank as one of the most excelling achievements of all time. Keep well, mate. Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed, he's certainly one of the greatest. As well as the pentathlon/decathlon, add his performance in other sports (baseball, American football, basketball) and he definitely wins the prize for versatility, a contrast with Chrissie. Always difficult to compare across different sports, different eras, different genders and different technologies (I wonder how well modern jumpers would get on with the poles of 1912...). But I'm not aware of any other athlete who won every single race entered at his/her main distance, and I'm still amazed at her 2:44:xx marathon at the end of an Ironman - there aren't many men who can manage that.

Mention of the 1912 Olympics brings back warm memories of the venerable stadium, where the Stockholm marathon finishes. It certainly has an aura of great history about it, and claims to be the place where more records have been broken than any other. I have vivid memories of finishing the marathon there, hearing two female friends cheering me on (I didn't see them in the crowd, but I certainly heard them!) so that, totally exhausted, I miraculously found the energy to put on a sprint, overtaking everyone else round the outside of the bend. I couldn't believe it! --NSH001 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Which reminds me of one of the sections space won't allow me to write up, but which merits attention, the long history of the incapacitation of Palestinian athletes under the occupation. You can get a glimpse of just one small angle into the problem by reading Assaf Gavron's article, for Palestine:Why we need to start paying attention to a national football team TLS 31 May 2017. The contrast between the commercial image spinning and what occurred to the kids at Bil'in when they re-enacted in real life the scenario, tells it all.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani - I can't see that TLS link, as it's behind a paywall. Could you email a copy, please? I'll send you an email so you can reply with an attachment. Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll be hanging round a hospital until the afternoon, so will try to see if I can fix this when I get back. I get the TLS weekly and read the original story there. I have a vague idea that when I sought the online version, which came up without problems, I downloaded a copy, but can't find it right away. Till later then.Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, got the attachment OK, which I read through in its entirety. Then I noticed the URL at the top of the word document: <https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/playing-for-palestine/>, which is not the same as the one in your link above, and – as you would expect from its being in a /public sub-directory – is not behind a paywall! Regards, NSH001 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Good grief. Fingers crossed, but that's relatively manageable I think, gathering from what several acquaintences have told me. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

ref script

Can it handle stripping the urls from the page numbers in Al-Azhar Mosque? It makes it so most of the point of the shortened footnotes, that theyre shortened, is lost the way it is now. And try as I might I cant come up with a regular expression that does what i need it to do in there. Also converting the <ref>{{harvnb|blah|blah}}</ref> to {{sfn}}s would be nice too if at all possible. nableezy - 02:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The script doesn't have an option to strip URLs from page #, but probably wouldn't be too difficult to do. I've run the script anyway to convert the <ref>{{harvnb|blah|blah}}</ref> (it's done this by default for a long time – including any named refs pointing to the same ref – tho' there is an option to suppress it).

In any case, are you really sure that stripping the URLs is what you want to do? I've been thinking for a while (prompted by what Huldra is doing on her village articles) of having a sub-list after the long cites in the biblio section, which would be set out vertically in wikitext, but display horizontally to the reader, of page #s linked to URLs; you'd the have a new template, say "sfnz", that would look identical to "sfn" but would link to and highlight the page # rather than the full cite. It would be more work to set up, but would solve the clutter problem quite neatly, and it makes sense to have an easy link direct to the page # where possible. That's been on my bucket list for a while. --NSH001 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I do, Ive always hated how it looks both in the editing window and in the endnotes. Theres a hodgepodge of references with links to pages and ones without, and besides not every one of those pages is even visible in google books and whether or not a page is visible cant be predetermined for all users as google has a habit of changing what is visible based on your past viewing and your location. My personal preference is link the title page or chapter page in the references section and then plain text for pages in the endnotes. nableezy - 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll first fix my script so that it will do the conversion also for the named refs, then I'll see what I can knock up for stripping the URLs. I still think my solution outlined above is likely to be the best option. Pinging Huldra for comment, as I know she likes linking to page numbers. --NSH001 (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't this depend on what you are linking to, though? In the village articles it is almost always (at least the pre 1948 stuff) linking to archive.org, or other always viewable stuff. If it was articles about newer stuff, which is linked more to books.google, then linking to the page would depend on wether it could be viewable at all.

I would suggest not linking to a google page where there is no preview, but linking it when there is a chance there is. Eg, I find Behrens-Abouseif 1992, p. 60 linking direct to page useful, but Daftary 1998, p. 96 is not (no preview to that book in my parts of the world). (I know what is visible is dependent on (as nableezy said) on your location etc, but is wether something is partly visible, or not, dependent on it, too? If so, I would probably change my mind,) Huldra (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Huldra. From what you say, it is definitely worth linking to page numbers, so the question is how to do it with the minimum clutter in the wikitext, and the most pleasing aesthetic appearance to our readers. The way you're doing it on your village articles is OK, but I think we can probably do better, something along the lines I suggested above – that will take a bit of work to develop.

Nableezy I fixed the code to do the replacing of the named refs, and then realised why I hadn't done it before - with the URLs in, it generates vastly more clutter in the wikitext, and hugely increases its size. So I knocked up something to strip out the page linking, which now does allow the named refs to be replaced. Done! (well, it still needs some polishing ...) --NSH001 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yay, thanks Neil, much appreciated. nableezy - 22:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: More info on linking to page numbers is available at WP:PAGELINKS. --NSH001 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Chomsky

Re: this edit, sorry if I did something wrong. I actually have no idea how to use the sfn syntax, I've pretty much just been counting on you to go through and format the refs properly. Vrrajkum (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

On that note, do you think that you might be able to go through and change all the references that point to a web URL to instead point to the archived versions of those URLs (in case the live URLs ever change or die)? I did some just now but would greatly appreciate if you would do the rest. Vrrajkum (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Vrrajkum, well, how to use sfn is quite well documented at {{sfn}}. I recommend that you take a little time to read through it. What you did wasn't actually "wrong", merely pointless – you used the more complicated template {{sfnm}} when the simpler {{sfn}} was sufficient. I'm a great believer in the KISS principle! There is only a need to use sfnm if you want to have more than one short cite appear within the same footnote.

Yes, it takes a little effort to learn how to use short cites (sfn and its siblings), but once you get it, you will find it much easier to use than the LHT clutter style, which unfortunately is the style most commonly used on Wikipedia. Plus I think that the whole article now has a much more professional appearance.

I strongly recommend that you do NOT add archive-url to any cite whose URL is still live – it's just unnecessary clutter, and confuses our readers. By all means, if you find that a URL has gone dead, then you can add an archive link, but in that case it is worth considering whether you can find a better source instead. Often, if a link has gone dead, a bot will come along after a while and add an archive link anyway. But what you can do, if you're worried about a link going dead, is upload a copy to one of the main archive sites, if nobody's done that already.

Regards, NSH001 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@NSH001: I see. Re: substituting [Great Depression] for depression in the one quote, is there any reason you prefer the latter? I initially had it as [Great Depression] (no wikilink) when I added the ref, but someone modified it to be Great Depression (wikilink without brackets indicating a modification to the original quote). I adjusted it to be [Great Depression], which kept both the wikilink and the brackets that indicate that the enclosed text is not a part of the original quote. (The other quote about Chomsky's father working in a sweatshop also has bracketed modifications.) Vrrajkum (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Brackets in the other quote are fine, since they are needed for clarity. I originally mistook your brackets near the end of the longer quote as a typo for a wikilink, and so changed it to a wikilink, keeping the displayed text verbatim. However, it can be argued that wikilinking – although helpful to the reader – adds an emphasis that may not have been the original author's intention. So in the end, after your convolutions with "nowiki", I decided to just KISS it and merely show the original text. Plus it's obvious anyway which depression he's referring to. There is also the point that "nowiki" should be avoided in mainspace (it's still very useful on talk pages, of course). The presentation is a matter of opinion, I suppose, rather than a hard-and-fast rule. --NSH001 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: this edit on the talk page, I didn't actually remove anything; I started adding a comment but needed to restart my browser, so I just copied everything in the editor into my clipboard. When I went back a little while later and finished adding my comment, I pasted, but forgot that I had the entire section in my clipboard. This meant that the section was printed twice; all I did was remove the duplicate material. Vrrajkum (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for not looking more closely, but you should still have said in your edit summary something like: "Oops, removing duplicate material I inadvertently added". Regards --NSH001 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

any fixes

on oz indig articles would be appreciated and thanks - my opibion of the current state of the range is unprintable, unfortunately, so thanks, appreciate any tinkering to help improve JarrahTree 13:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. My wiki-time is limited, and my main priority lies elsewhere, but I will do what little I can. It's not a big deal to run my script, though I can easily get sucked into investigating obvious discrepancies, which does consume valuable time. --NSH001 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, your kind thoughts are always very much appreciated!

I can't believe I took so long to respond! Sorry!

--NSH001 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hanna_von_Hoerner

Thank you for sending me the advice. I have done this page in paragraph form, putting lists of awards or publications under see also as you suggested. Would you take a look at it?Toandanel49 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Replied on Toandanel49's talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong

In trying to post my edit request at Talk:Jewish Israeli stone-throwing, which only manages to erase a lot of existing talk text?Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, see [4]. Nishidani - it's possible your ping to El_C didn't work because of the cock-up, so you might want to ping him again, unless you're sure he's watching the page anyway. --NSH001 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

Thanks for this edit of yours at Gweagal, restoring long-standing citation style at that article. You may or may not be aware that the anonymous editor is an IP-hopping, block-evading troll, just blocked (again) minutes ago. See for example the discussion User talk:101.187.83.6#Disruptive pattern of edits, which also lists some of their many other IP aliases, some blocked, most not. (Just found another alias for this IP editor today due to the Gweagal article: 49.195.96.45. They were the one responsible for these edits that you cleaned up earlier the same day you reverted the other alias.)

Please keep an eye out for this white-space and template-variation block-evading troll, and revert and/or leave Talk page messages as appropriate. Thanks again for your continuing efforts at Wikipedia. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but I really don't do very much. I'll revert vandalism if I see it on my watchlist (remarkably little - vandals and me seem to have few interests in common; I've also noticed that even the drunks who used to vandalise Scottish articles on Friday/Saturday nights (UK time) seem to have disappeared), and my ETVP script (see the long pinned thread above) makes it easy to maintain citation style. On Gweagal, I was glad that the IP editor didn't try to edit-war, and I just assumed that he or she might have actually read, and taken heed of, the links I provided.

(Sorry to wander off the topic, but the whole thing is so outrageous I'm finding it difficult to think of anything else.) At this moment, I'm wondering what to do about this kangaroo court, reminiscent of stories coming out of the USSR when I was a boy growing up some 60 years ago. The (mis-)treatment of an innocent man, amounting to torture, breaks every fucking legal rule in the book, but our so-called "mainstream" media is remarkably silent on the massive human rights abuse of a good man, yet they are fully capable of pointing out human rights abuses in countries they don't like. It's crystal clear to me that the time has come to revise Wikipedia's rules on "reliable sources"; taking account of the propaganda function of the media would be a good place to start. Jeez, even RT is more reliable on this farce. --NSH001 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's the old story. Close your eye to what we do outside our 'civilized' borders, and the abuse will, dunam by dunam, come back to roost in our own backyards. Unfortunately, this is unstoppable. The young-middling generations are going to have to wear what we were taught about the first half of the 20th century. 'Never again' has lost the initial 'N'.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Just on a small technical issue, Neil

Why is is necessary, with a named author of an article like Humaid, to drop sfn and replace it with harvnb (as here). The sfn version, when clicked on, gave the ref in the citations and the bibliography without problems. (Of course, I'm as thick as a brick, and no doubt you will tutor me in the obvious:) Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, not strictly "necessary", but the idea is to save a click: with a standard citation, you click on the superscript in the text, which takes you to the short citation; then a click on the short citation takes you to the full citation (two clicks).

By contrast, under the old system for an efn-type note, you'd click on the superscript letter, then another superscript (this time a number), then again on a short cite to get to the long cite (3 clicks); with the new system, the final two clicks are reduced to one – you don't lose anything, as you still see the short cite with page # (if any). This is, in fact, a sneaky example of parenthetical referencing (see Actuary for an example of its use throughout a whole article). It has the additional advantage of reducing the number of entries in the list of short citations, especialy if there are a lot of efn-type notes.

The most common objection to parenthetical referencing is that it obstructs the flow of text in the body, but this doesn't matter if the parenthetical cite is at the end of the note. That's why only the final short cite is parenthetical, and then only if it's right at the end. At some time in the future I might change it to make consecutive short cites at the end all parenthetical, but I have no intention of changing superscript cites in the middle of a note to parenthetical.

Does that make sense? -- NSH001 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not to me, no, it doesn't quite 'click' but I am sure it does to those with a fluent competency in such technical matters, who have invariably reason on their side and morons like myself, thought committed to enlightenment principles, must make an exception in such cases and adopt a fideistic trust that all such adjustments are for the better, because they trust the wise who perform them:(/ :)! Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hee hee, Nishidani, well in that case, forget my blether above and just get your mouse out, and start clicking, then it should become clear and eventually "click"! Incidentally, your first sentence should read "harv", not "harvnb" ("nb" = "no brackets", the opposite of parenthetical). BTW, it could equally well be "harvcol" instead of "harv". Thus, "harv" gives (Smith & Jones 1995, p. 25) while "harvcol" gives (Smith & Jones 1995:25). I've used both in the past, do you have a preference? --NSH001 (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There you go: further proof in my reply with its error that I'm thick-witted. Your second clarification has me harv in mind to girdle the loins and battle down my dumbness in order to wrest a skerrick of insight from this technical matter. Thanks, pal. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Smith, A; Jones, B (1995). example.

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not restore SPIs after a CU has closed them. I’ve reviewed the technical evidence, and do not believe that the behavioural evidence is strong enough to overcome doubts raised in the technical details. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Then why didn't you say so before closing the case in the first place? It's a gross discourtesy to close a case like this without an explanation. I really don't think that you can conceal the fact that something very, very fishy is going on here. --NSH001 (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Closing with no action means there is not sufficient grounds for a block. I intentionally left it at that for a reason: controversial cases involving real people are best closed without comment in my view, regardless of if it’s a block or no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think your explanation is adequate. Also for the record, and for ease of referencing, here is a permalink to the case so that readers of my talk page can check for themselves. --NSH001 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not fishy, and certainly not "very, very fishy" for an SPI case to be closed without action. A check was performed, there wasn't sufficient evidence for either of us to make a block. Therefore the case was closed. I don't know what more you expect, or what you're suggesting by calling Tony's actions "fishy". ST47 (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I said as much on the case page ("something very odd is definitely going on here", which is another way of saying "very fishy"). And why does someone supposedly innocent of the charge fail to defend him or herself? When I left a polite, and I hope friendly, message on his talk page encouraging him either to confess if he's guilty, and thereby gain leniency, or to defend himself? That fact, on its own, is fishy indeed. How many "innocent" alleged sockpuppets have you come across who fail to defend themselves? Can you not see why that is so fishy? Quite apart from the fact that the edits themselves are such a close imitation of Cross's. The only difference I can see is the editing volume and frequency. For clarity, the "fishy"-ness I am referring to is not your or Tony's actions, but the whole behaviour of NomdeA. --NSH001 (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Most subjects of SPIs say nothing at the SPI, innocent or guilty. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's greetings

	Happy Noam Chomsky Day!
	Hi NSH001, wishing you a Happy Noam Chomsky Day. Thank you for the work you have put into maintaining the Noam Chomsky article throughout the year and on its road to GA. Our resource helps 1.7 million annual viewers learn about a living humanitarian who's done so much to promote human rights and understanding. Happy editing, czar 08:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Czar. Still a long way to go on that article. --NSH001 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It may be because I've had a tiring day (no doubt like so many editors) but

Could you kindly help me by explaining what the red link is doing at the bottom of the citations on the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry‎ page. I sourced a remark, using Falk 2017 pp.100-109 having read it, and the red text states there's some problem with the content and the source?Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah well, I see that someone else has fixed it already. Pretty obvious that it doesn't make much sense to have sfn within ref.../ref tags. sfn itself works by generating a set of <ref refname=xxxx>....</ref> tags (plus some other clever stuff) and the wiki software doesn't allow one set of ref tags nested within another set of ref tags, hence the error message. Ponder how {{efn}} gets round that one, all good clean fun, as my excellent (Jewish) boss at work used to say, many years ago. Have a good rest and take care. --NSH001 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Assange

Just checking through all the links you gave for Nils Melzer's views, I couldn't see if you'd linked to this printed interview. Just in case,The Truth About Julian Assange 3 February. Given Melzer's standing, that gives us just a glimmer of hope (which won't erase the monstrous damage done). Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup, Finkelstein's blog post is a verbatim reproduction (also including most of the photos) of the "A murderous system is being created before our very eyes" interview in Republik which I link to above, along with a few comments and quotes. One small caveat: Finkelstein should have acknowledged the source of the interview, although I suppose one could argue that the final (German-language) paragraph serves that function, albeit only to a limited extent.

Thanks for reminding me, I'm thinking of printing out that interview and sending it to my MP - although he's a Tory (ultra-safe Tory seat, unfortunately), I can at least hope he has a conscience. And, well, conservatives are traditionally supposed to support the rule of law and so on... --NSH001 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I quite like the Melzer quote about "the light" from the Randy Credico podcast, also linked above. --NSH001 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Gurindji people

Hi NSH001, I have been editing the above article with respect to a number of articles I am writing about localities created by the NT Government in 2007. I noticed that some of the citations that you added do really not comply. If you did not know, publications listed on the National Library of Australia (NLA) Trove website do have pre-prepared citations. For example, the 1970 book about Pincher Numiari has a page on Trove, i.e. [5], where there is a heading called "Edition details". Under this heading, there is a button with the words "Cite this". Click this button and a box will appear that offers citations in APA, MLA, Harvard/Australian and Wikipedia format. You just need to copy and paste the Wikipedia citation in an article between a pair of 'ref' tags. The only disadvantage to the Wikipedia citation provided by Trove is that the NLA lists everyone as being an author, i.e. the publisher, the financier of the work etc, which is not helpful. Please reply here if you wish to comment. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I haven't "added" any citations at all to this article. That's not what I'm doing on this series of articles on Aboriginal peoples/clans/hordes/whatever. Rather, I'm putting them into a consistent citation style, following that used by Nishidani who created and wrote most of the 600+ articles in this series. Among this series, there was a small number of existing articles, most of them very badly written, and mostly using a different citation style. Nishidani, with some help from me, put them all into short-form citation style, without any significant objection from other editors. I've been helped in this task by a script I wrote, which I currently call the ETVP script. Its main purpose is to get rid of all the horrible citation clutter, and the motivation for its development is described in the very long pinned thread near the top of this talk page. This script also fixes a huge number of errors that are common among cite templates that editors dump onto Wikipedia (I don't blame them, cite templates aren't easy to get to grips with, and the editors are mainly concerned with content, which is as it should be.)

As for Gurindji people, I've now switched all the manual cites to templates, so it's all nice and neat, in the proper citation style. It took a bit of work to find the McConvell & Hagen source, as the manual cite given lacked a date, but for the other manual cites, your work did help me in this exercise. I also took the opportunity to remove the entry for Pincher Numiari (and its accompanying very ugly citation) since people should only be listed in a "Notable people" section if they have an existing article good enough to withstand an AfD. --NSH001 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I see your point of view re citation - I have used 'short citations' on a number of articles, particularly those that are lengthy and that are unlikely to change much over time. However, I found that other editors adding to these articles would always use a different citation style. For your information, the "very ugly citation" for Pincher Numiari is what the National Library of Australia (NLA) Trove website produces for Wikipedia. By the way, I re-worked the two citations for the reports by Toohey and Maurice, and I will search online for a digital copy of Toohey's report in order to complete this citation. There has been recent discussion on the WikiProject Australia Talk page about what the NLA produces, but from memory the consensus was that the "product" is our problem, i.e. the 'editors.' The Gurindji people article and other associated articles need some more work which I will attend to in the near future. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm an interested party of course, but NSH001 and I had in mind the idea that over the long term Wikipedia should aim for encyclopedic uniformity, and we chose aboriginal articles to set a standard uniform format for all entries, and achieved that end. Of course many editors will come by and add information with their divergent, preferred style, but those additions will always stand out like dogs' knackers and can be rapidly and easily adjusted to conform to the model applied consistently over the field of aboriginal ethnic groups.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Cowdy - Yes, I've been aware for a long time that the suggested Wiki citations in sources (and not just NLA) are not very wonderful. They've obviously been written by people lacking in-depth experience of the citation templates, and in any case the correct citation depends on the context of the article. The main faults seem to be putting corporate bodies in |author= (or variants), and failing to use the last/first split. Corporate bodies almost never belong in |author=; there are some exceptions, but they are rare. If it finds an |author= or |authors= parameter, my script will try very hard to parse it into last/first, or a series of last/first. My script exists to get rid of LHT citation clutter, not to switch to short-form, although it can do that, as you've seen. Switching to LDR is also an option, among others (see the examples link in the hatnotes at the top of the pinned citation thread). One of the nice things about short-form is that the full cites are neatly arranged (or should be) in alphabetical order - my script sorts them automatically. A contrast to the random order that you wind up with in other styles. Yes, as I mentioned before, I noticed the welcome work you did on three out of the four manual citations (which obviously included Toohey and Maurice). --NSH001 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hope all is well

Keep out of harm's way there, Neil. With that moron in charge and the designed shambles organized for the NHS. If we can go by the 15,000 more deaths registered in just one year (2015) after Cameron's 2014 'reforms', this particular structural crisis will open every can of worms imaginable for civil life and limb. I hope your years of running have left you with a good bill of health. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, and reciprocated of course. From what I see, Italy seems to be having it even worse. Nor do they seem to have any shortage of delightful "moron"s for their politicians either - but I'm not very familiar with Italian politics. Biggest blow is that all the gyms here have closed, but at least it's a nice sunny day and Spring has finally arrived, so it won't be too bad being forced to take all my exercise outdoors. I'll miss my usual chats with the folk I see at the gym, though. That botched hernia operation prevented me exercising properly for a while, so I'm overweight, but otherwise I'm feeling well, now trying to lose the weight slowly. --NSH001 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah! At long last

I finally got a chance to correct a template edit of yours after years of grievous waiting. Mind you, being me, I couldn't avoid the temptation of making a mess of something else as I did so!;) Cheers pal Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha,ha! That particular template was all your own work, not mine; you did quite a good job of turning a manual cite into a template. My nice wee girl just moves things around a bit so they look nice; she's a good girl, as she always does what she's told! --NSH001 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll pull rank on you there (age and experience)- Umm. . .'Good girls' never do what they're told. They've got too much imagination for that! Cheers, pal.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a small point, re why many of the indigenous articles still require a lot of work. I originally adopted your format and would go systematically through the text, clicking on each source, and, if valid, reframing it and the matter with your template, source by source. This meant that everytime I returned to a specific page, I could see what source, retaining the old formats, needed controlling and adjustment. Your flash lass, with a marathon runner's haste to push through each mile, ran through many of them automatically reformatting articles so that, when I revisited either half-worked pages or came across new ones, a glance suggested to my impatient, weary glance that 'ah, this one is done' (when I actually, as often as not, hadn't even read it). Thus at Esther, I can't tell, except by memory, which of the bibliographical items have been closely controlled and which not. It's not really a bother, but explains why many incongruencies remain unattended to until I'm reminded of them. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As usual you are probably right

but, by way of explanation, I linked as author, Aviv Tatarsky to Ir Amim because that NGO does great documentary work, and Aviv T is one of their chief researchers, and has mastered all the details of these things. I occasionally link people that way, to their employer organization, so that a reader can get an idea they are not merely opinionizing joe-or-jean blows, but seriously engaged in research, i.e. competent. Clicking now, I see that the Ir Amin page doesn't mention him, which is a pity. Cheers and thanks Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, but not quite. I did later spot that Ir Amin is mentioned at the bottom of the source, so there is a valid argument for linking it. But my view is that that is not what |author-link= is meant for, and its use should be restricted to articles on the author only. Misusing something in this way just stores up trouble for the future (I've seen too many IT disasters caused by taking similar shortcuts). The Ir Amim article is interesting, so my advice would be to try and mention it in the article text somewhere, if possible. --NSH001 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 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) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)