Archives

2009–2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

This page has archives. Sections older than90 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 20.

Hello, thank you for cleaning up my user page and removing the invalid userboxes. I am new here and still learning, and I appreciate your help and guidance.Na.234996.ouz (talk)13:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you rightfully markedTemplate_talk:Pagelist#ER as done because there wasn't a working sandbox version. May I ask, how does a group of people who have reached a consensus to change a template (but that aren't actually able to implement it) usually proceed in this case? Where and how should one advertise the discussion to have someone that has the technical know-how needed visit the discussion and modify the sandbox as needed? Are the technical village pump and the wikiproject template the only places, or are there other ways?

Thanks.FaviFake (talk)20:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The next step is to edit the sandbox to produce the necessary code. Without that, the edit request can't be fulfilled by a willing technical editor who is unfamiliar with the code. If nobody in the discussion knows what to do to the sandbox, I recommend laying out exactly what the specifications are (i.e. we want the template to render like *this* under conditions a and b, and like *that* under conditions c and d). Then, create test cases on the /testcases page that will render as expected once the /sandbox code is changed. Then post a short note atWP:VPT with a link to the discussion and to the test cases. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will do that for{{pagelist}} :)FaviFake (talk)21:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! SeeWP:VPT if you're interestedFaviFake (talk)21:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I tried to give clear guidance. I clearly failed. Good luck. –Jonesey95 (talk)03:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery20:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, they are not. I did it to remove them because they were a lot of them showing up. Unless, a tweak has to be done from the filtered and main reports.WikiCleanerMan (talk)20:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the report that shows template dab pages. I am usingUser:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates because it can easily filter valid pages with no transclusions. (For page watchers,this is the relevant diff.)–Jonesey95 (talk)20:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates. As of nowTemplate:WiFi is one of those on the report.WikiCleanerMan (talk)20:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should be using that report; it is not maintained, and the vast majority of its content is pages that should be excluded from such a report. See the note atWikipedia:WikiProject_Templates/Unused_Templates_Task_Force#Wikipedia_Database_reports. That's why I made the report linked above. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the wrong page. I meantWikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (filtered).WikiCleanerMan (talk)23:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That report should be modified to exclude template disambiguation pages. It would help for it to be changed to use{{database report}}, so that anyone could edit the SQL. –Jonesey95 (talk)02:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The SQL is available atWikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (filtered)/Configuration#Source code if anyone wants to give this a shot, fwiw. — Qwerfjkltalk12:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I used that SQL to buildUser:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates. I didn't think it was my place to adjust the /filtered report. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl can the code fromUser:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates be used instead? That is the most fleshed out report without needing to do redundant work like adding pages in sub-categories ofCategory:Wikipedia transclusionless templates to that category.Gonnym (talk)16:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, can't you just copy that report? The only thing that might need changing isAND tl_from != template.page_id (which I think is for filtering out templates that don't transclude themselves). I'm not really familiar with SQL, though. — Qwerfjkltalk10:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your total deletion of my upload to Wikipedia page 1816 in Canada leads me to ask:- what is a "text dump" and how is my upload a text dump?- what existing format does it not follow?- what errors does it have?I have reversed your deletion pending an explanation of it.Thank you in advance for helping me understand your 1 July 2025 edit.Man1t0ba (talk)03:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One discussion in one place, please, perWP:TALKFORK. PerWP:BRD, please see and respond atTalk:1816 in Canada, where I cited some guidelines that appear to discourage the type of edit that you made to that article. –Jonesey95 (talk)03:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some time, could I enlist you to give me a peer review of{{Infobox gridiron football biography}}? I want to get another set of eyes on it before I get too far down the rabbit hole. I’ve got some goodtestcases going but could absolutely use more. Also some of the parser functions probably could use some cleaning up. Open to any thoughts you have and any help you can give. Thanks! —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})07:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have the energy for this one. It looks like the merger is pretty much done. If not, let me know if you are having specific issues. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only comment I have is to make sure you finish the cleanup after a merge. Categories, /sandbox, /doc, and /testcases needed to be deleted. Also, you left the documentation template on the redirects for some reason.Gonnym (talk)08:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to copy some of the code from the /doc pages over which is why I had left them in place for now. —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})08:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally typed Poland instead of Polish, evidence that I actually typed it out, and didn't use all cut and paste. It doesn't really matter now.Bearian (talk)15:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but why Polish, though?Wikidata does not link to an article in Polish. In any case, please use Preview, or check your edits after publishing, or both. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe go easy just a little ? These are new templates used in just a single place so other editors can see them in use and make comment and give feedback... try not to bite the users !Wibwob28 (talk)20:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you are talking aboutthis revision of a template /doc page. The template showed up on a report of unused template pages, and the /doc page inexplicably had a single line of text instead of the boilerplate text that appears when you create a /doc page. I added the standard wikitext and cleaned up the misplaced TemplateData and the templates' whitespace for you. When you create live pages in article or template space, you should expect them to be edited so that they do not show up on error reports. If you want to create experimental pages, Draft and User space are good places for that; editors tend to be less fussy about problems with those pages. –Jonesey95 (talk)20:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

It's WONDERFUL that you added instructions to this category page! I AM a noob and I'm so grateful to find instructions on a category page so I don't worry that I'm getting it wrong, offending someone or breaking something. -=AND=- your instructions are clear, precise and gentle. (There have been times when I've nearly felt nausea at how confusing a help file was.) I keep saying how grateful I am. Let me say this: you made my day. Thank you!Oona Wikiwalker (talk)20:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I find it frustrating to arrive at a maintenance category to find zero documentation about why it exists and how to address the issues that it is tracking. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Quick heads up that I just closedWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 September 2#Category:Pages with a stale GOCEinuse template on them as rename. Looks like it's a quick fix but I'm not that familiar with templates so leaving to you. Could be a bit before the admins (and bot) get to it though, so I could remind you later too if you'd like. Thanks for the work that you do at the GOCE ;). Cheers,GoldRomean (talk)03:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the template and moving the category. Is there anything else I need to do to finish the CFD process? I don't frequent CFD. –Jonesey95 (talk)04:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks!GoldRomean (talk)14:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. While discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion, editing legitimate comments, as I did atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style, is considered"appropriately editing others' comments". See these examples atWP:TPFIXFORMAT:Fixing format errors,Fixing indentation levels, andFixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance) Please take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.FaviFake (talk)18:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a snarky response, I think there was no need for you torespond to my edit in this way. I even made sure toexplain my reasoning in detail and ping you since I knew you didn't like editing of the contents of the text of your own comments. A simple "Hey, thanks but I also don’t like the colons being changed" would've done the job.FaviFake (talk)18:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of editing disruptively. Please stop. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing someone's comment indentation in accordance with a policy page is "editing disruptively". Gotcha.FaviFake (talk)19:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely hope that "Gotcha" here means that you understand that what you did was objectionable and that you should not do it again. You have received many admonishments on your talk page regarding disruptive editing, and if you do not change your editing patterns, you will end up blocked. It is always sad to see a potentially productive editor end up having to leave the project. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I understand:

• What I did was not objectionable because a part of the guideline that you mentioned (WP:TPFIXFORMAT) specifically allows it.
• Since you have now warned me for the 1st time, I will not do it again to your comments, as the guideline says.
• I will change all the indentations of all the comments on Wikipedia that I believe to be incorrect, until the guideline that allows me to do that is modified.

This should clear things up.FaviFake (talk)19:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your words. Good luck. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might have some thoughts onthis thread about making a new conversion module… Does something like what I’m talking about already exist? —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})05:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox sportsperson}} does a rudimentary conversion of height and weight. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[trimmed by Jonesey95]

• Users that search using regular expressions (regex) can now use additional features including:
  • for theintitle: keyword:metacharacters for start-of-line (^) and end-of-line ($) anchors[5]
  • for bothintitle: andinsource: keywords: shorthandcharacter classes for digits (\d), whitespace (\s), and word characters (\w); andescape codes for line feed (\r), newline (\n), tab (\t), and unicode (e.g.\uHHHH).[6]

First of all, thanks for catching the error inyour edit here.

That said. The premise of your edit summary was false. Yes, of course I previewed and took a look; I justmissed the problem, because I was looking at the original reference not the repeated version. However, you've now established it forever that I apparently don't bother with such things. The edit summary lasts forever barring something like oversight. I've written salty edit summaries before but generally regretted them. People make mistakes sometimes; it's not a big deal. Again, it's great that you're fixing these, but there's no need to shame people like this. If you wanted to bring it up, an "FYI" on my talk page would have been fine and appreciated. I don't think the edit summary is a good place, especially since per above you've assumed a "worse" case than was actually true in reality.

It's not a big deal in my case, but bringing it up in case a similar issue arises for a newer editor - I think a friendly talk page information is going to be better than the edit summary call-out there, as well.SnowFire (talk)04:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're reading "shame" into "please use Preview before publishing", I don't know what to tell you. I left a polite suggestion in an edit summary. Theversion you saved had a huge, red error message and was only 485 words, barely needing scrolling on my small screen to see the whole thing. I make mistakes too, and I am grateful when people correct them for me. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful, and I've caught other people's errors on this (some busted references that have stayed in articles over 2 months!). However, as I've already said, I did in fact preview, so your assumption was incorrect here. Yes, I missed the huge red error message, it happens once in a blue moon. Like I said, mistakes happen; the point I'm making is that this isn't something reminders particularly help on. It's like telling someone to preview so that they can catch typos. It's good advice, but sometimes diligent editors will preview and check and still miss stuff.SnowFire (talk)14:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that there used to be a report for identifying values in a template parameter across articles. Does such a thing still exist?Mackensen(talk)11:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the template has a TemplateData section, click on the monthly report link. If it does not, one needs to be created, and then you need to wait until about the 10th of the next month for the information to be collected. –Jonesey95 (talk)12:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you!Mackensen(talk)17:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonesey95. Since you started replying to all my talk page discussions and editing most pages I create or edit soon or immediately after I edit them, I've started to feel uncomfortable, like you're stalking me. I've tried to distance myself, move onto other methods of contributing; but you've still followed me there too. This is my only warning. Stop stalking my edits, or else I'll have no choice but to report you forWP:HOUNDING as my quality of editing on enwiki is deteriorating because of your hounding/stalking.waddie96 ★ (talk)05:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the nature and content of your responses, they arealways negative. Hence, I'd appreciate if you stop this behaviour immediately. You need not respond positively, I wish for you to desist from interacting with me. I will never stand in the way of an editor reverting policy issues, but your constant negative frivolous and meritless complaints constituteharassmentwaddie96 ★ (talk)05:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stalking your edits. You have the cause and effect wrong. You keep making errors in editing that draw your edits to my attention. Your edits have repeatedly shown up on previously empty or resolved sections ofthe Linter error table, onUser:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates (untranscluded templates), and onWikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates. When an editor causes repeated entries on such pages, it is natural to look through their other contributions to see if they are breaking anything else.

Ourfirst interaction consisted of me giving you helpful advice. You have, until very recently, neglected to take that advice. Laterasking me to "Fuck off" was not a good way to interact. You dug a deep hole there and have not managed to climb out.You have done better recently, which is why the above message surprised me. As for reporting me, that is your prerogative, but you might want to readWP:BOOMERANG first. –Jonesey95 (talk)12:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can clearly see if you look through all my contributions, every single revert you've done. Every single edit request I've made you've commented on and had issue with. Purposely had issue with. In fact, chimed in when another editor was dealing with the edit request. You have insistently made an effort to make my experience the pastmore than a month uncomfortable and frustrating. It's a terrible feeling having the notification icon pop up and feeling sick knowing it's you once again making sarcastic comments on my talk page. There's no use quoting them all now, it's an excessive amount that's all logged in our contributions. You persistenly target me alone to message consistently on my talk page about errors you are always fixing anyway. Yes, I lost my cool, and I apologise for that. There's no excuse for that language. It was a result of frustration, lack of sleep and irritation at feeling you persistently target me. And the way you go about addressing the issue is a problem. The talk page comments and their headings are sarcastic and belittling and it's demoralizing for an editor who isn't intentionally making your admin work increase on purpose or as you have claimed multiple times that I'm editing disruptively. I will escalate this further if you do not leave me alone. Other editors will likely be there to pick up the work you don't do, so use that as consolation to avoiding parsing through my contributions any further if you claim you've looked through them only onceto see if [I'm] breaking anything else. Your threshold for breaking being linter errors of which there are 100s of thousands, and my 87 added in one instance is enough to type a huge essay as to why I'm so disruptive? And not once mention what a linter error is, how to address them, how to avoid them. But to remain belittling. Even after I reply saying I'll keep trying to read up if you don't explain, and to not explain but spend further effort simply 'shouting' as it were.waddie96 ★ (talk)13:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I am not targeting you. As I explained, I monitor various reports for errors. When they pop up, I work to fix them. When people post edit requests that are listed atUser:AnomieBOT/TPERTable, I look at them to see if I, as a template editor, have the skills and knowledge to implement them. If the requests are incomplete, I say so; the instructions on the edit request form are pretty straightforward. If you do feel the need to report me, please ensure that you supply diffs that support your complaints, and be ready for other editors to supply diffs showing why you received the messages that you did. It will not be a pleasant experience for either of us. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep getting reverted, or asked to stop what you are doing, you should stop what you are doing.And not once mention what a linter error is, how to address them, how to avoid them, if you can't figure this out yourself (eventhough, I'm sure Jonesey linked toWP:LINTER as he does so inevery single lint fix he does) then maybe you should stop editing the template namespace.Gonnym (talk)14:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym Like I've explained above.It has nothing to do with legimate policy reverts. I've explained in detail what I'm trying to address here. Please re-read the chat, review both our contributions taking note of Jonesey95's interactions with pages I have edited, talk pages of pages I've edited (edit requests) and their associated /doc pages. As well as his posts on my talk page. and then your contribution would be valuable.waddie96 ★ (talk)16:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He never linked to that document, I'd like him to find that diffwaddie96 ★ (talk)16:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey did link to the linter page.Tenshi! (Talk page)16:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will thank you all tonot assume that I use male pronouns. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple when you know how. Many thanks for the speedy and efficient resolution!

I do have one further question, though. The article has been marked Use mdy dates|date=May 2021 and this makes sense to me. While mdy is widespread in the US, the format of dmy is of use in the contemporary US Navy.

Given that this relates to the past, ought it be the case that mdy should be used? As it happens, I am British, so am used to the use of dmy.Keith H99 (talk)15:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood that you had changed from dmy to ymd, as well as the hyphens. No further action needed - PICNIC issue this end.Keith H99 (talk)15:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. SeeMOS:DATEVAR for the murky guidelines on how date formats are chosen for each article. I did not research the history; I just made the formats more consistent based on the presence of the "Use mdy dates" template. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following themid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomedGoldRomean to the coordinator team.Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, andMiniapolis andMox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist ourombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be foundhere. June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for theJune 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere. July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for theJuly 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere. August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for theAugust 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere. September 2025 Drive:Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name fromour mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)23:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the ANI, I think you meantMOS:NUMRANGE/MOS:PAGERANGE rather thanMOS:RANGE.Kanguole11:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. –Jonesey95 (talk)11:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a template error for you. On enWikivoyage the other week, they added Google Maps as a map option to one of their biggest templates, but it's giving a bogus image parameter error of "Google Maps directions" fromen:wikivoyage:Template:Listing oren:wikivoyage:Template:Listing/doc. I'm also seeing that the new icon for this (on articles) is displaying a hovertext of "target=_blank", which leads me to suspect the hovertext wasn't identified in the correct way since OSM's map icon says "OSM directions" in that icon's hovertext. Got any ideas? Thanks,Zinnober9 (talk)13:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed withthis edit to a new module. –Jonesey95 (talk)11:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you so much! Knowing where to look is sometimes half the battle.Zinnober9 (talk)12:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageJürgen Czarske, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• Abare URL andmissing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)16:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only sort of guilty. The invalid edits were made byZehuadou. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think yourlatest edit of the Infobox musical artist template broke the website parameter due to a misnumbering of the labels, as website and module have the number 51. The template no longer displays URLs in articles, and in the case of modules being used, has that data in place of the URL. SeeSlipknot (band), where the band logo is in the website field.Miklogfeather (talk)14:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you duplicated the data51 parameter. It's affecting more than 8,000 articles. It's an easy fix, but I can't do it because I don't have template editor privileges, although I would like to get that. Please fix it. Thanks.Ira Leviton (talk)14:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it! I worked hard to spread out those numbers, and I goofed right at the end. Terrible job by me. I have fixed it. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Careful.[7],[8] &[9] introducedduplicate args.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})19:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, going too fast, and I broke{{Infobox musical artist}} (see above), which meant that I couldn't patrol the duplicate parameters category for new entries. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if I had a nickel for every time I broke something… Script you might find helpful!User:Ahecht/Scripts/refresh. Allows you to essentially null edit an entire category. I ran it on the duplicate params category to clean out the Infobox musical artist issues.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})19:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was running that or a similar script at the same time. It still took a few hours to clean it out, during which I was fixing infoboxen. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Keep up the good work! —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})19:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now it ismy turn… Absolutely BLEW UP the duplicate params category. And what’s worse, even though I’ve fixed it, the problem will get worse before it gets better with caching.Facepalm -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})22:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a subtle one. I'm glad you caught it before someone else got to trout you. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man I coulda used me some trout…Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})22:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So any idea what is going onhere!? This is like the 5th one of these I’ve seen…Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})01:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you do not smell is called "iocaine powder". If you copy and paste the version of the string from before you fixed it intothis web site and click Convert, you will see that the Unicode version isJanuaryU+00A05,U+00A01795 when it should beJanuary 5, 1795. "U+00A0" is otherwise known as anon-breaking space. Such characters arenot permitted on Wikipedia pages, but they sneak in via copy and paste. When you replaced the non-breaking spaces with regular space characters (good instinct!), your script was able to parse the string. You may be able to find a module that converts all such invisible white space characters to regular spaces before the string is interpreted. I don't know why we don't have bots going around to change these invalid space characters, which cause all sorts of mischief. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WOWWWW. Well you learn something new everyday… Thanks for the explanation. Is that something I can/should account for inModule:Person date?Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})03:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you program the module to work around them, you will see fewer errors because the errors are hidden. It's up to you. –Jonesey95 (talk)11:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you explain why you incorrectly though thatTemplate:Post-palatal was atest page?BodhiHarp19:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in Template space, but it had no template parameters, no documentation, no categories, and probably had no transclusions or incoming links from discussions when I found it, making it impossible to understand why it was created. All of that gave it every hallmark of being a test page. Test pages in Template space are almost always just text with no incoming links, which is what the page likely was when I found it. As it is now, it appears to be used tostore article text, which is contrary to the template guidelines. –Jonesey95 (talk)20:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summaryhere I strongly suspect that content was machine translated from fwiki. The center tags appear in the French wikitext. Best,Wham2010 (talk)14:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Yes, it looks like there are stillmany thousands of center tags in article space on fr.wiki. –Jonesey95 (talk)17:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fix forTemplate:Infobox academic, let me try it out. —hike395 (talk)19:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this message. I responded at the template talk page and will take a break from technical editing for a bit. Thanks for catching my errors and being willing to try fixes. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonesey95,

I know you do a lot of valuable work with the Guild of Copy Editors, and I really appreciate the time and effort you dedicate to improving articles.

If you have a moment, I would be very grateful for your help with a copyedit ofDraft:Kratošija. The draft was recently moved to draftspace with the explanation "language/grammar problems". All statements are supported by reliable references, so I would kindly ask that references not be altered — I only need help with grammar, clarity, and encyclopedic tone.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and assistance!VitisArchivum (talk)09:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the guideline that ledJoy to move this article to Draft space. The reasons atWP:DRAFTREASON do not appear to apply,WP:DRAFTNO item #5 appears to apply (you were actively working on the article), and item #6 appears to apply (you stated in an edit summary "meets notability and sourcing guidelines" when moving the article to article space). Iobject to this move and think that the page should be moved back to article space and should have a{{copy edit}} tag applied. This article is in much better shape than many articles we edit for theWP:GOCE. Nice work. –Jonesey95 (talk)11:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I moved it was basically inside your cleanup edit, @Jonesey95 - for example, this article had the bold link to itself in at least half a dozen places. This indicated an obvious need to give the new editor some time to figure out how basic linking and formatting works.

At the same time, I think we still may have a problem with machine-generated text and/or the copyright policy, though, because the first paragraph in the Origin section is quoted. I've never seen this happen myself. It sounds like it was copied and pasted from somewhere. Especially because of the very intricate list of references inside it. @VitisArchivum did you get this information from somewhere else? --Joy (talk)14:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your concerns do not meet the thresholds atWP:DRAFTREASON. I think that cleanup tags should have been applied instead. Please move the article back to article space, per the above links. Thanks. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, itdoesn't make sense to me to publish an article in this state. If you want to take responsibility for it, please feel free to move it yourself. (If there's a technical limitation, there's probably a forum to request assistance about that.) --Joy (talk)15:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging. I have moved it back to article space per the guidelines linked above. I have tidied and tagged it. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in the meantime I noticed thatthis whole series of edits happened - @DalidaEditor basically ripped that new article to pieces as aWP:POVFORK, instead including a mention of it in the Zinfandel article withthis edit. --Joy (talk)11:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and then there was alsoWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unilateral redirect and removal of verified content without consensus (Kratošija → Zinfandel). --Joy (talk)11:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inthis ANI thread you said.

I believe that it is better to leave a slightly broken ISBN in an article than to delete it without doing a bit of research. Someone who truly cares about fixing broken ISBNs while not introducing other problems or deleting useful information will look up the title of the book, notice that there is an ISBN that is one number off from the erroneous ISBN, and fix the ISBN.

That's an excellent observation worth further discussion. I'm commenting on your talk page rather than the ANI thread because I'm going to get a little bit off the main topic.

I'm reminded ofWikipedia:Link_rot.

At the risk of getting even further off-topic, I haven't looked at the link rot page in years and realized I misremembered it. I thought the advice was not to remove a dead link, but I see that the actual admonition is:

In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Tools, procedures, and processes are available as outlined in this document.

In other words the advice talks about the underlying cited information not the dead link itself. Curiously, the bulk of the page seems to address the rationale for not removing the dead link itself rather than the text purportedly supported by the citaiton itself, which may be why I misremembered it. Still, the general point has validity—the error itself contains information which might be helpful to some other editor with enough bandwidth to do some research.

The objection by@Salpynx: was flawed.

That editor's contention as noted in the edit summary is as follows:Undid revision 1164611993 by Srich32977 (talk) The invalid ISBN tag is correct here: it is printed on the book https://books.google.com/books?id=PvyfAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=ISBN Please stop removing ISBN information

It is not accurate to say that the ISBN value is accurate—if you go to the Google books you'll see:0803764545

But the one introduced in the edit is a different value:0-8037-6454-2

Still, there is merit to the suggestion that the mistyped ISBN may have useful information which goes away if it's simply removed.

This does bring me to a broader issue which is part of the reason I bring this up on your talk page not in the ANI thread.

Over the years I've developed a mindset that I don't believe is fully articulated in any written principles – it's my view, crudely stated, that an error by an editor should not impose an unreasonable burden on the reviewer.

The clearest example I can think of that it used to be the case if an editor mistakenly created an article in a language other than English, some editors would argue the proper response is to translate it rather than remove it. I haven't noticed that is much recently although I do see that CSD advice still says:An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.

I think that's a modification of the original rules but I don't have the energy to track down the history.

Dealing with a bad ISBN is a similar issue although far less significant in terms of effort required. It's typically easier to track down the correct ISBN than to translate an article from another language into English.

When a reviewer finds a bad ISBN what's the proper response?

One potential response is:

• Correct it if the error and the correction is obvious
• Remove it if the correction is not easily identified

I think that's the way Srich approaches ISBN errors

Another potential response is:

• Correct it if the error and the correction is obvious
• Leave it for someone else if is not easily identified, and optionally send a note to the editor in question to ask them to look into it

I won't speak for you but I won't be surprised if you feel this is the better option.

I don't see this as a clear-cut question. If you push for the optional notice to the original editor, that imposes more work on the reviewer than the original editor. Recall that one got into this situation because the original editor didn't follow best practices. According toHelp:ISBN:You can also manually enter an ISBN – but you should click the linked ISBN to WP:Verify that the link is good.

Almost by definition, the original editor did not do that or they would've clearly seen the error notice. They almost certainly are the editor in the best position to know what was intended and correct it. Arguably, removing the erroneous value will encourage the original editor to fix it to the extent the original editor has the page in their watchlist. There is some value in providing feedback to the original editor to encourage them to follow best practices which could be done with specific communication to that editor and more crudely by reverting blunders.

I lean toward putting more of the burden on the original editor than the reviewer but I concede that good-faith editors can have differing views.

However, I'm talking about nuanced issues which shouldn't rise to the level of blockable offensesS Philbrick(Talk)18:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the long note. First, a response to your comment on User:Salpynx: you said "It is not accurate to say that the ISBN value is accurate", but that is a rebuttal to something Salpynx did not say. They said "The invalid ISBN tag is correct here". By "invalid ISBN tag", they meant the{{Listed invalid ISBN}} template, which I linked to in the ANI discussion in case you hadn't heard of it, and then followed that link with an explanation of why the template exists. Srich completely removed the listed (i.e. printed in the book) ISBN, which is not a valid action to take, perWP:SAYWHERE. It reducesverifiability.

As for ISBN-fixing options, I have fixed many thousands of invalid ISBNs (I used to ride herd overWikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors until I got fed up with unfixed Visual Editor bugs that introduce ISBN errors and that the MediaWiki developers have not fixed after many years), and the "Correct it if the error and the correction is obvious" is the first and best option, as you suggest.

• My second and third options are "Correct it if the error and the correction is not obvious but requires a bit of research", and "check the article history to look for vandalism, editing errors, or typos".
• Another valid option that you do not list above are "Comment out, rather than delete, the offending ISBN and add an inline tag to draw other editors' attention to it". This option preserves the possibly almost-valid ISBN for other editors, including the editor who inserted it, to look up.
• Another good option, if the ISBN is hopeless, is "Add an OCLC value" so that the book is findable in a library database.
• {{Listed invalid ISBN}}, as mentioned above, is another possible option if you can find a scan of the inside of the book.
• {{Please check ISBN}} is available, though I do not use it. I'm sure there are more options.

I have found that communicating directly with most editors has a very low success-to-time-invested ratio. A lot of erroneous edits are made by editors with very few edits, some of whom are long gone. I have taken to pinging editors from my edit summaries, which is a lot less time-intensive than talk page posts. If I recognize an editor name, I will sometimes leave a User talk post. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

86% font is still more than 85% (as you said). Now at 100% size font page is unwatchable, nothing fits the line in standard width (most common automatic setting). If some people can't see it they can still enlarge it manually. There is enough maneuvering space (between 86% to 100% fonts).Sportomanokin (talk)19:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tables where I removed the font-size=86% declarations also have<small>...</small> tags in them, which results in a font size of 73%. If you remove all of the<small>...</small> tags from those tables, you can restore the overall font-size=86% declarations. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m staying out of the discussion atTemplate talk:Infobox football biography because it is making me frustrated… But one thing you might add is that as a result of implementing this change,errors like this, alsothis one andthis one (note dates were in article but not in the infobox) are being caught. These are just a few examples, if needed I can poll my contributions and find more. Hope it helps. You can also mention that I am monitoringCategory:Pages using age template with invalid date (0) multiple times a day (seemy userpage where it shows up in red if there are articles in it) to help flush out these problems.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})19:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep my responses short and to the point, to avoid the discussion forking off in a dozen directions. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely applaud you. I’m watching the discussion and you are doing a great job.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})19:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonesey95,

I want to thank you, respectfully, for restoring the articleKratošija to mainspace. I deeply value the way you support the community and assist editors with clarity and fairness, which contributes to objectivity and strengthens the overall quality of Wikipedia.

With sincere gratitude,VitisArchivum (talk)11:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you can address some of the tags I have inserted into the article, that will help. For the "disambiguation needed" tags, which might be confusing, click through the link to see that the link does not go to an article. Link to the appropriate article instead. –Jonesey95 (talk)11:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ll fix the links and will be glad to let you know when it’s done. I greatly appreciate your time and guidance.VitisArchivum (talk)12:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95

Thanks for the amendments

I used to put a br command to put a name on two lines, but I occasionally forget that now when using ubl, you need to put quotations on each part of the name that is split.As part of the RNLI Task Force, we are abandoning use of the br command, as apparently it causes havoc with screen readers, (so I'm told, I've never used one).

MartinOjsyork (talk)11:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that{{ubl}} also causes problems with screen readers, since it would read out inappropriately as a list of items, as I indicated inmy edit summary. I think that you should remove the ubl template entirely, and just let the text wrap normally. Awbr tag after the colon might also be appropriate. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Did you possibly mean [[Help:Line-break handling#<wbr> and soft hyphens]] →Help:Line-break handling#<wbr> and soft hyphens above? --CiaPan (talk)19:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, all I did was copy the URL text. Bad on me. Fixed, and thanks. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embedding HTML in URL sometimes requires a bit of acrobatics, and piping it additionally through a wikicode interpreter is close to wizardy. I had to compose three versions of the link above before the fourth one finally worked as intended. And even this is not displayed the way I expected. So don't feel bad, you're not alone.CiaPan (talk)19:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonesey95,

I have corrected the issues in line with your suggestions:

- replacedbunch withGrape cluster andpeeper withBlack pepper, - added a reference (Robinson 2021) for the^{[clarification needed]} tag and removed the quotation marks, - I have not removed the tags yet, so that you can take a look first and guide me if needed.

I also worked on reducing repeated links (MOS:REPEATLINK), usually leaving only one per section. However, I have kept the cleanup tag in place so that you can check if this is sufficient.

Thank you very much once again for your valuable support and patience.VitisArchivum (talk)20:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will let another editor take a look at it so that you can get a fresh eyes. A copy editor will probably visit the article in the next few months. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So, I can move dn in the meantime, I hope :)

Thanks again.

All the best.VitisArchivum (talk)09:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird is going on with{{Infobox royalty}}. When|name=empty_string it is suppressing the default ofPAGENAMEBASE. If you remove|name= entirely then it works… Is it something to do with theincludeonly tags? Any help greatly appreciated!

Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})23:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is how template parameters work at Wikipedia. It is a perennial source of frustration and confusion. When|name= is present but blank, the empty parameter value is detected and passed by{{{name|}}}, so the second option,{{PAGENAME}}, is ignored. If you want to account for blank parameters, the usual method is{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s bullshit… thanks for educating me! -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})01:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[10]Facepalm —Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})20:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your remark inthis diff? 'Letters as letters' are identified as such using{{angbr}}, not quotes. So⟨s⟩, not "s". The only issue was I had put the anchor (to the old name) after, rather than before, the new name (which makes it lot more editor-friendly but I accept the policy as it is). Another editor had swapped them around to the approved order. So what's the problem that justified a wholesale revert?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)19:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That template inserts span tags within the span-tag-based anchor. That doesn't work. You can see the broken code on display in section 1.2.3 of the version before my edit. I did not do a wholesale revert; I went back to the last reasonable version and then tidied the anchors to match the template's documentation. If I made any errors, please let me know. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, evidently I over-interpreted your reversion.

So if the normal {{subst:anchor|This is an "a"}} doesn't work, how do we get a correctly formatted section title? (is it the{{angbr}} that provokes the problem?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Ah... by "that template", do you mean{{angbr}}? Because I just assumed that it prefixed and postfixed anglebrackets. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)20:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Angbr}} can't be used at all in anchors because of the span tags it includes. Your example has quotation marks in the anchor text, which are contrary toTemplate:Anchor#Limitations. {{subst:anchor|This is an &quot;a&quot;}} should work, according to the documentation. –Jonesey95 (talk)20:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand. Does that restriction apply to all such 'convenience' templates? (I suspect that I have used{{ndash}}, for example.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)22:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one is safe, because its content is a single character, with no additional markup. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone the edit to apostrophe. I'd welcome your verification, please, if you have a moment or three. TYVM for your patience either way.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)22:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the anchors is broken again. You can't use quote marks in the|id= portion of an anchor, as I explained above. That's why clicking on the "below" link does nothing. You need to replace the quote marks with" –Jonesey95 (talk)00:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for startingthis template discussion. Don't forget{{Roh roster}}. Cheers! --Mann Mann (talk)04:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed it. I created anew TFD for it. –Jonesey95 (talk)10:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Despite its name has beennominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page.Polomo (talk)23:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I should ask you before I remove this since it feels a little weird to remove it. Your update toTemplate:Infobox sports rivalryhasBroncos–Chargers rivalry saying there's a image parameter error. Your edit looks fine, and it's the {{!}}class=skin-invert statement on B-C r that is the culprit. Is it fine to remove that extra statement, or does that need to be accounted for in some way?Zinnober9 (talk)00:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice detective work. I've been hammering on dark mode background-color issues in infoboxes, and I am surprised to have created only a tiny handful of issues (AFAIK) after modifying many hundreds of templates.Here's the fix, which I added to the template's documentation sometime in the last 24 hours. The images were previously showing with white backgrounds in dark mode, which was ugly, and the skin-invert option discolored the logos. The new way looks much nicer in dark mode (black backgrounds, but images with primarily black text need the new "class" option). –Jonesey95 (talk)00:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had lingered for a day or two, so figured it wasn't a purge thing, and my gut felt it wasn't right to remove the dark mode statement (without knowing if the template did something for that), so figured you would know. Thank you!Zinnober9 (talk)01:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to replace the sandbox? There is an ongoing discussion that relies on that sandbox code... If you are going to make changes can I possibly ask you to do aTemplate:Infobox Australian place/sandbox2? Or I can move mine there and reconfigure the testcases page...Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})01:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, please revert. I am doing updates to many hundreds of infoboxes to fix dark mode issues, and I'm not checking discussions or histories. I expect a few reverts from active editors. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Just wanted to make sure. -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})01:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you changed some of my edits onTemplate:Infobox weather event/meteorology and other related pages. Thanks for helping correct some of my mistakes, I gather it's better to define the colour of text as black instead of just removing the colour value? Apologies for not doing this in my edits, I wasn't aware that was best practice.

I wanted to ask if it's ok to change the text inTemplate:Infobox weather event/Tornado outbreak to black as I noticed you didn't change that one. Is there a specific reason for this one? It's impossible to read the white text against some of the EF scale colours. Thanks again!SnowyRiver28(talk)02:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've noticed you've been working a lot on fixing dark mode issues. I'd like to help if you can give me some pointers! I noticed a lot of UIBs have these issues too.SnowyRiver28(talk)02:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, black looks fine. In 99% of cases, color:inherit does the right thing. I have changed many hundreds of infoboxes to work slightly better (or at least not generate syntax errors) in dark mode over the last few days, and it was inevitable that a few would get a little worse. Thanks for catching these. I'll be happy to provide a little guidance about dark mode, although I am mostly a monkey with a hammer. I don't understand the sophisticated CSS color variables that some people use. What's a UIB? –Jonesey95 (talk)02:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant{{Userbox}}, must've jumbled userbox and infobox up!

So you essentially just edit each template and change the colour attribute, then test in light, dark and automatic (occasionally I've noticed automatic gives different colours than the set modes), and see what's best?

A while ago I implemented an edit request tohere to{{Page tabs}}, which added some complex HTML to fix the dark mode issues (I notice you edited the same page earlier!). I suppose that sort of stuff isn't needed in most cases? A simplecolor: black; works most of the time?SnowyRiver28(talk)02:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made some fixes toModule:Userbox yesterday that should trickle down to pages and clear errors after a few days. For individual userboxes that declare background-color values, try adding color:inherit and look at the page in light and dark mode, then try other colors if that does not work.

Re Page tabs, the use of !important is generally frowned upon strongly, for reasons I don't remember. My experience has been that "color:inherit" works at least 95% of the time, so that's usually what I try first. It is more friendly than "color:black" in most circumstances. If you want to get really fancy and become a dark mode wizard, learn aboutCSS variables and design tokens, which are over my head. –Jonesey95 (talk)02:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful info!SnowyRiver28(talk)03:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixedthis! Thanks again!SnowyRiver28(talk)03:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded toJonesey95 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during theGOCE September 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions!GoldRomean (talk)03:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTemplate talk:Country data Cocos (Keeling) Islands § Edit request 2 October 2025.Marchjuly (talk)21:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sicne you wanted to delete the template, I moved it toUser:JPxG/Inflation calculator. Since this caused a bunch of the code to break, is there anything that can be done to fix this?jp×g🗯️06:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed it. I think the new RFD nominations broke the template after it had been moved. Waiting for the TFD to finish, or transcluding the template anywhere, would have been other valid choices. –Jonesey95 (talk)10:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to not work;the buttons are no longer functional. I don't know why this is the case, since I have not edited it since its creation. Is there a way for you to make it work again?jp×g🗯️09:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a merger involving{{Infobox Gaelic games biography}} and came acrossAlan Dillon where the infobox is embeded in{{Infobox officeholder}}. Got me thinking.. Is there some bit of code I can use to get the embeded infobox to inherit the header color from the parent? I.E. make it so these two have the same colors when they are embeded? Thought you might know...Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})09:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried "background:inherit" in the GGB/sandbox, but it doesn't do what I was hoping it would do. I don't know. –Jonesey95 (talk)11:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Booo. Oh well. Was worth a shot. Thanks mate! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})17:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an invalid image parameter "ZKM" coming fromhttps://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q191228 that's appearing onhttps://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Karlsruhe . Since I've only made 5 edits on Wikidata and Q191228 is semiprotected, I don't seem to be able to edit. Are you willing to find and zap that on my behalf? Thanks.Zinnober9 (talk)03:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in Wikidata. Putting a pipe character in any item that is likely to be imported into a Wikipedia site is just a bad idea. I forgot to turn on my edit summary toggle, so I didn't get to explain the edit (a dumb Wikidata feature), so we'll see if someone reverts it. –Jonesey95 (talk)11:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Zinnober9 (talk)14:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for helping withTemplate:3 Musketeers-Mars-Milky Way-Snickers names. I have a problem with the usage of this table template. As you can see I have changed the format to make it more compact and aligning it right. However a problem now is that wherever I put it in an article where it is nearby an image or info box, instead of the table going above/below the image/box, it shifts to the middle of the article and clashes with the text. I can use the 'Clear' template but that would also affect text and make a big white space so that is not good.

I solved my issue by putting it inside a 'Sidebar'. As you can see right now onMilky Way (chocolate bar) it is there in a sidebar under the info box. But it looks like the Sidebar does not appear on mobile views so this is not a good solution.

Can you help me please if you are experienced to fix the table format so that it behaves like any normal object?— Precedingunsigned comment added by3marish alt (talk •contribs)

Youalmost had it. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2025.Donner60 (talk) viaMilHistBot (talk)03:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I created a category that you redirect to. Can you create these categories?วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ (talk)16:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You createdCategory:2025 Thai films and similar categories. We do not have categories for "[Year] [Country] films". We group countries' films by decade, likeCategory:2020s Thai films. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanksวรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ (talk)00:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind updating{{Infobox_noble/Wikidata}} to onlysourced?Nikkimaria (talk)00:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. That was a little tricky. –Jonesey95 (talk)02:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Nikkimaria (talk)02:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded toJonesey95 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words (including rollover words) during theGOCE October 2025 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions!Miniapolis15:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arising [very loosely!] from your work on quotations in the MOS, may I ask a favour? [This is a rather arbitrary call for volunteers and, given the subject area, I won't be at all surprised if you decline because it is a morass and even I am close to tip-toeing quietly away.]

The question is how close to the original must an editor's summary of a BLP subject's statements be? Is it legitimate for an editor to apply their own "interpretation" when doing so?

If you can spare a few minutes, might you look attalk:Jo Phoenix#Transgender Women in Women’s spaces. to give me your opinion on the structure (not the detail) of my contention that editors cannot reinterpret unduly what the BLP subject said. The issue for me is BLP compliance but there is no obvious policy that I can cite.

The point of this contact is to get a second opinion on whether my position (that no, they can't, that would beWP:SYNTH) a reasonable one in this case. (Part of the problem is that I have no "skin in the game" for either POV and I can see myself getting sucked into a culture war that is of no interest to me. I only watch the article because the originalcause celébre happened in my home city.)

This is not aWP:canvas to take sides or even contribute to the discussion, that would not be helpful. Again, feel free to decline without a moment's hesitation.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)16:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much gender guideline parsing for me. My quick take is that if there is a dispute over how to describe someone's stated position, it may be best to use the person's original words, in an appropriate context, and let the words speak for themselves (or whatever possessive pronoun the words prefer [<-- a gender joke!]). Or report what reliable sources say the person's position is. We should not be doing SYNTH or OR here. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much obliged. At least I'm not being wildly unreasonable. (And yes, direct quotation [though not in a quote box] would seem to be the way to resolve the dispute but the other editor seems intent onWP:RGW and disinclined to compromise.) It is interesting that in all my years editing, this is the first case where I've encountered this kind of dispute so am not really equipped to handle it.

Thank you again.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)16:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend making a final post stating your position, then removing the article from your watchlist and walking away. If your temperament is anything like mine, you'll be bothered by continued fruitless discussion, and it won't be worth it. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more engaged in the question of POV and loaded language paraphrasing, in effect putting words in the mouth of the blp subject. I'd like to use it as the inspiration for an added section toWP:BLP.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)18:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whenthis was added, the closing double bracket was moved down into the new section.

Should the same have happened forthis recent addition?

Therewas a set of double brackets originally added there (but without removing the set in the section above), but were removed due to this creating lint errors on ~50 pages (see intervening edit). --92.29.27.47 (talk)11:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are asking me here instead of askingBeetstra or asking on the template's talk page. I don't think I have ever interacted with that template. I see that nobody has edited the template's sandbox or testcases page in a while; that is probably a good next step if something appears to be broken. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra own edit summary was a question mark, perhaps suggesting they aren't sure that their edit is correct; and I thought I remembered from a while back you were a bit of a whizz with template logic. The template talk page has seen no action for 4.5 years, my hunch was that posting there would see no reply. --92.29.27.47 (talk)23:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I originally just copied a line, and then noticed displaying broke. After removal the display was correct and I thought that it was just a counting error on my side. Now I saw the original reason of the double brackets (test and template does not make that abundantly clear, I may edit that in the comments) I have moved them as happened in an earlier edit.
The lint error on the other template was another copy-paste error - the templates are not consistent resulting in copy-pasting giving inconsistent outputs. Thanks!Dirk Beetstra^TC00:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good outcome. --92.18.76.179 (talk)13:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might findthis script interesting/useful. It looks like you currently use Frietjes's version. Mine is based on that but with a fewimprovements that I list in the documentation. Shameless self promotion...Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})09:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm ReBilovodsk Raion... Thanks for fixing that and appreciate you tagging me in the diff. Gotta be more careful in the future.... How did that last nearly a month!? Must be a low traffic page...Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})00:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates used to be patrolled daily, I think by myself andFrietjes primarily, but it has gotten stale over the past few weeks. Patrolling it is (mostly; present company excepted) a thankless task, since it repopulates with 50 to 100 new instances of nonexistent templates daily, and there is nothing in the software that prevents insertion of such template pages. Also, resolving each one often requires about five to eight clicks (e.g. click link, click page, click History, click diff, undo if appropriate, type edit summary, save). It's not one of the more fun chores around, but clearing the report is momentarily satisfying. –Jonesey95 (talk)00:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I TOTALLY get you! My passion project inCAT:UNKNOWN. I wrote a custom module to poll all the Infobox unknown param cats and display them if they contain over 100. Slowly working my way through them until they all reach zero then the threshold will drop to something like 5. But that satisfaction of reaching zero is VERY real.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})00:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for reverting the template - I really need to slow down when assessing these. Hope your doing well :)RossEvans19 (talk)01:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Pages with nonexistent templates show up on a report that I monitor; I wasn't tracking you in any way. It's always useful to use Preview and check your edits after saving the page. –Jonesey95 (talk)02:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldthis have started the smiley template appearing within external links to now be wikilink in external links errors? I've seen about 7 so far, and generally think they should be rewritten so that it's EIS with the link within, but kinda also don't care which way it goes so long as it's errorfree.Zinnober9 (talk)21:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our fellow gnomeAnomie removed the empty|link= as the default for all of the images, because some of the images are not public domain and therefore require links to the File: page for copyright reasons. I have added an empty|link= to the default smiley, since it is public domain. That should fix most of the errors; if other flavors of the image cause link-in-link errors, check the corresponding File: page; if the image is public domain, you can add|link= after that file name. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the non-PD/CC0 ones are. Also, if you want an easy way to identify unlinked images that shouldn't be, my user scriptUser:Anomie/unattributed-image-finder highlights them. I finally realized how to get it working reliably a few weeks ago, after wanting such a script since 2011.Anomie⚔02:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Was initially more asking about the technical why for the link parameter removal caused it, but the social reason is good to know since I wasn't aware of that. I'm seeing a few pages for {{smiley|#}} appearing, but I've been converting to those specific images in EIS based on the index in documentation. Thanks for the info.Zinnober9 (talk)22:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The technical reason is that there is a wikilink inside an external link, as the Linter is trying to tell you. It doesn't look like a normal wikilink, but images without a blank|link= always have a link to a File: page built-in. Removing that blank|link= caused there to be a new wikilink inside those external links. Adding a blank|link= to Template:smiley for the default image, which is public domain, causes the wikilink to go away, fixing the Linter error. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your recent edit(s) to{{WP Gymnastics Invite}}. Your documentation editions seem to be following the template erroniously, as can be seenhere.GauchoDude (talk)16:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I have fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does the self-closed~~<noinclude/>~~ in the source code do? --78.151.51.244 (talk)00:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It inserts your signature automatically when you subst the template. It is typical code used in invitation templates. –Jonesey95 (talk)00:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonesey95,I hope you’re doing well. Some time ago, you kindly helped me restore a draft that had been prematurely removed — and I truly appreciated your fair and balanced approach back then.I’d like now, if I may, ask for your brief review my new proposal, before posting, on the Talk:Zinfandel page, related to the structure and sourcing balance concerning Kratošija (the Montenegrin grape variety genetically identical to Zinfandel / Primitivo / Tribidrag).For context, the original Kratošija page was redirected to Zinfandel on October 12, unilaterally, without prior discussion, following a POV fork claim raised by another editor,(she redirected it). Although editor Liz initially reverted the redirect, and advised that a discussion should be opened, the page was later left redirected without a proper consensus. The redirect, therefore, remains in place, grounded only in that earlier POV fork assertion, rather than in an established community agreement. I contacted ANI, and they redirected me to the Talk:Zinfandel page for discussion.

My intention, for now, is not to reopen that past issue. I uderstood that this subject is not very familiar to many independent editors, who have no regional bias, so my current goal is simply to introduce these important scientific findings and the confirmation of historical heritage, by improving the existing article Zinfndel, in a balanced and verifiable way.I’d be very grateful if you could take a quick look at the text, before I publish it on Talk:Zinfandel, just to ensure that it’s neutrally written and consistent with Wikipedia’s standards.Truly appreciate ,again, for your time and for all the work you do across Wikipedia.

The text is:

Hello everyone,I’m a relatively new editor and prefer to work in consensus with experienced and objective editors. My intention is to help by making the article more complete and verifiable, while fully respecting Wikipedia’s core policies —WP:NPOV andWP:V.While reading through theZinfandel page, I have noticed a few areas that could (or should) be improved with additionalreliable sources — especially newer peer-reviewed studies and well-documented historical materials. This addition is in line withWP:CSB.Since the Zinfandel article already presents the Croatian and Italian aspects in detail, there are also peer-reviewed and historical references that documentKratošija (Kra-tosh-ee-ah) — the Montenegrin grape variety which is confirmed by DNA studies to represent the same cultivar as Zinfandel / Primitivo / Tribidrag.

Knowing the significance of the Kratošija name and its connection to the Zinfandel story, as well as the importance of new scientific findings that support historical records, I believe this information deserves inclusion — supported strictly by reliable sources.

Another subject I would like to point out is the matter connected with the structure itself in the “Distribution and wines” section. I have noticed inconsistency between the title and the accompanying text. I also noticed that both the historical reference to “Cratosia” and the genetic identification of Kratošija currently appear in this section. These details don’t actually relate to that section, which focuses mainly on modern wine production, vineyards, and the types of wines produced across regions (California, Italy, Croatia, etc.).Montenegro is currently listed under “Other regions” with non-specific data, and the content there refers more to historical documentation (not entirely accurate) and DNA research than to actual vineyards and wine production. Finally, the current title “Distribution and wines” might also be reconsidered, since it primarily evokes commercial distribution and, to be honest, may not fully match the content that follows (wine regions, vineyards, and the descriptions of wines). Perhaps a title like “Vineyard regions and wine” or “Zinfandel wine regions and wine characteristics” could fit better — though of course that should be open for discussion and consensus.Therefore, for better logical flow and accuracy, and considering the significance of Kratošija, it might make sense to:

• MoveKratošija out of the “Other regions” section and assign a separate subsection.Kratošija is the most important and indigenous Montenegrin grape variety, accounting for around 90% of the vineyards in the Skadar Lake Basin region, although it is present across all viticultural areas of Montenegro. Numerous scientific papers (verified data and references are available), as well as the renowned wine writerJancis Robinson, also confirm this. On her educational websiteTerroirs du Monde Education, it is stated, among other things, that: “Kratošija is the main and probably the oldest Montenegrin variety. The grape variety is dominant in all vineyards older than 60–70 years. Furthermore, it often represents about 90% of the grape varieties in the Skadar subregion, and is even more prevalent in the coastal area.”
• Second, move the historical note aboutKratošija to the “History” section (with appropriate, verified and verifiable references, along with a suitable brief explanation, since those are not fully correct). I will return to this subject as a separate issue later. Also, in this section, add appropriate data that belong, in terms of meaning, to this section.
• And third, move (integrate) the DNA identification ofKratošija into the section “Relationship withPrimitivo,Crljenak Kaštelanski andTribidrag," with reference examples:

- Calò, Antonio; Costacurta, Angelo; Maraš, Vesna; Meneghetti, Stefano; Crespan, Manna (2008). "Molecular correlation ofZinfandel (Primitivo) with Austrian, Croatian, and Hungarian cultivars andKratošija, an additional synonym."American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59 (2): 121–127.[16] - Maraš, V.; Popović, T.; Gazivoda, A.; Raičević, J.; Kodžulović, V.; Mugoša, M.; Šućur, S. (2015). "Origin and characterization of Montenegrin grapevine varieties."[17]

Several other reliable DNA sources also exist, which will be addressed later on the talk page.

These adjustments would improve structure and factual consistency, while adding verifiable and scientifically supported context.If editors find this relevant, I can provide full reference details, original quotes, and short example wording for each section, so we can review and refine it together.I’d prefer to start gradually and work toward consensus, inviting feedback from neutral editors, interested in the subject.My only goal is to support a balanced, well-sourced, and verifiable presentation of this topic, in line with Wikipedia’s encyclopedic standards. I believe that for any content, the type of source, is of crucial importance. You know, a newspaper article, no matter how reputable it may be, just can’t really be compared to a scientific paper, a doctoral dissertation, or experimentally verified research. For Wikipedia, such sources are far more reliable and should not be overlooked, ignored, or omitted in any way, as this seriously affects the accuracy and verifiability of the article. And, of course, science moves forward and new discoveries are constantly emerging… We have to stay in line with that. I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that.With sincere respect and appreciation for your work.VitisArchivum (talk)09:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above looks fine to me. It's much longer than a typical talk page post, but I think that is OK in this case. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, that means a lot — I’ll post it onTalk:Zinfandel shortly. If you happen to check that discussion at some point, your perspective would be greatly appreciated. —VitisArchivum (talk)09:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit... "Same reason"?? What'd I miss. I'm assuming the mistake is mine... But what was the problem?Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})14:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit summary in the history. Some fix is probably needed in one of the subpages of{{Needs IPA}}, but I didn't take the time to puzzle it out. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AH! Gotcha. Sorry when I saw "same reason" Iassumed you had undone multiple of my edits for the same reason, but then couldn't find any others. Didn't think to check that pages edit history. Thanks for the explanation. :-)Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})15:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to above, but if you have a chance... can you figure out whythis isn't working?! i've tested it in my sandbox (with{{user other}}) and it works fine! I'm totally lost. Probably something really obvious. I do want the count at 3, not 4, despite there being 4 total params.That is not a typo. But any help would be appreciated. 🤓Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})05:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tested it atMontgomery, Alabama by adding all four parameters with values, and it assigns the category just fine. The category has six articles in it. What is the error that you are seeing? –Jonesey95 (talk)12:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tested it onVancouver and it didn't work so I assumed I was doing something wrong. :-(Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})14:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me atVancouver if I add|mapframe=yes. Go figure. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It's got 3 images so it should be triggering the{{if all}} since count is set at 3... oh well.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})15:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third example under "Other examples" atTemplate:If all#Usage may be relevant. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a biscuit... Thank you. Sorry for the late response. Been at work all day. Thank you, once again for helping me. Much appreciated.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})22:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit of yours:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_Lapland&diff=prev&oldid=1293119775 you indirectly asked me where I got an "invalid syntax" from, referring to center. The answer is that I copied them from the Finnish language page Meri-Lappi.Mustakahvi (talk)17:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Obsolete tags do appear to be coming from other-language Wikipedias that have not been cleaned up yet, but I keep wondering if we have left behind any instruction pages here at the English Wikipedia that have obsolete tags on them. –Jonesey95 (talk)23:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The<center>...</center> element has been obsolete since the release of HTML5 in October 2014, although it was already deprecated (since the release of HTML 4 in December 1997). The proper way of centring an image (whether in a table cell or elsewhere) is by adding the|center option to the image specification, perWP:EIS#Location. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)22:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was reason why the dead link of QtWeb.io was restored back on QtWeb page and working web archive link was deleted, here, thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QtWeb&oldid=prev&diff=1319628993Minas-A (talk)05:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDNOT. Templates that do not exist are not allowed in articles. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Minas-A,Template:Webarchive might be the template you were aiming for, but "{{Template:WebArchive of Official website qtweb.net}}" doesn't exist and was not a functioning link inyour edit.Zinnober9 (talk)21:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm working onanother RFC regarding the issue of too many maps in settlement pages... If you are so inclined, I'd love to hear your thoughts onmy rough draft. Thanks!Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})06:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Malaysian English has beennominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page.Renerpho (talk)14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request -

• Phil Murphy
• Tahesha Way
• Glenn Youngkin
• Winsome Earl-Sears

GoodDay (talk)22:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, no diffs, then no edit summaries, nowWP:TALKFORK. You're not making it easy to find you a sympathetic character.

Thanks for the diffs. It looks like your reminder has worked, since the current versions of the articles do not have "elect" in the infoboxes. If the problem recurs, you can just report this person toWP:ANI. Make sure to link to the diffs in question, and the previous notices they have received on their talk page regarding problems with following this RFC (and with not using edit summaries). You'll have to dig through the user talk page history, because they delete instead of archiving. For my talk page watchers, this is a follow-up tothis dicussion. –Jonesey95 (talk)00:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.GoodDay (talk)00:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Jonesey95. I am reaching out to you regarding the removal of my paragraphs on the "Elizabeth Bathory" wikipedia page. Nothing that I wrote down was based on speculation, and is based on the book "Infamous Lady" by Kimberely L.Craft. I even provided a quote by Bathory on the night of raid that proved that she committed the crimes.

If you want more explanation as to why I edited the article please view the 'talk page' under this article. In this talk page I provide lots of background on this case based on newly found information regarding the translations of the trial testimonies. I would not have edited the page if I wasn't sure of what I was saying.

Did you read the trial testimonies? I highly doubt it, but somehow you feel its right to remove my edits which are based on the historical records. Keep in mind that Craft has been the only person who has published multiple books on Bathory with the original source material. All other scholars and authors have not cited the source material in their work.

If you guys want secondary sources, how can one provide secondary sources when there is no one to provide the reliable secondary sources. Yes, there are some complications to this case. But after reading Ms.Crafts books you won't have much doubt about her guilt.

Please reinstate my paragraphs, if you can, since the article on wikipedia is not accurate right now. Again, please read the talk page as I explain much more on there.~2025-31596-73 (talk)17:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as though you need to cite your source(s) properly. -Denimadept (talk)18:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for communicating. Iremoved your additions because they were a formatting and prose mess. Please look carefully at how existing text is structured, including the use of<ref>...</ref> tags. You should also run your proposed additions through a spelling and grammar checker, if possible, to catch easy-to-fix errors such as "disfurged" and non-sentences such as "It should be noted, that prior to author: Kimberely L. Craft publishing of "Infamous Lady" on October 27, 2009." –Jonesey95 (talk)18:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK Jonesey95 I will admit when it comes to formatting citations I didn't know how to do it. I assumed you guys you would have an issue with the content itself, but if that is not the case I would like to offer my apologizes. If its just with formatting citations properly, I don't really know how to do that.

If its possible, could I send you the citations and you could add it in to the article? And I could rewrite the sentences you deleted? Or do I have to do it? Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and am just learning how things operate.

Have a good day!~2025-31596-73 (talk)19:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We were all new here once. There is definitely a learning curve. One good way to learn is to examine the existing wikitext (the underlying code) on a page, then try editing bits of text yourself. Always use Preview to check how your edit will look; if it looks like it matches the rest of the article, only then should you click "Publish changes". I recommend asking for further help atWikipedia:Help desk. –Jonesey95 (talk)20:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several instances of "it should be noted"; they read likestatements of opinion, to be avoided. See also thepolicy on neutrality. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)19:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageEmmanuel Anyama, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• Amissing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)01:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left a nice cheat sheet on my user talk page atUser talk:Anomalocaris/Archive 2022#Linter fixes not required for TFD-related errors in a{{cot}} box titled "The things we do for fun..." Today I learned (maybe not for the first time) that the HTML5-compatible version of<table align="right"> is<table>. Any idea why they didn't allow<table>?

—Anomalocaris (talk)01:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why, but there isno such CSS property as float:center. You getnone left right initial inherit as options. That's it. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's because it would need text to flow roundboth sides of the floated box. If you're happy to have blank spaces instead of text, usemargin-left:auto;margin-right:auto; which will centre the box between whatever is to its left and to its right. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)20:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quick brown fox on the left looks at the tiny floating table on the right

Redrose64 seems to have the right answer, and if you don't want text to float to the left of a right-aligned table, it's pretty obvious what to do:

The quick brown fox on the left is below tiny floating table on the right, helped by "clear"

Or, you could do it this way:

The quick brown fox on the left is below Tiny margin-left:auto table, with no "clear" required

By the way,margin:auto centers with less bombast. —Anomalocaris (talk)09:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95: I see you updatedmw:Help:Lint errors/obsolete-tag in 2023 to add more on centering. Now I've updated it with §Right-aligning tables. —Anomalocaris (talk)23:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the new section is not relevant to a current Linter error. It would probably be better to avoid confusing the issue by adding different kinds of updates; it's confusing enough already. –Jonesey95 (talk)00:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We included stuff just above it on table cell alignment and color, which is also obsolete HTML not detected by the linter, so people who fix{| align="center" should also have advice on how to fix{| align="right". —Anomalocaris (talk)08:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the "As of" notes now. I don't think any of it should be on that page; it just muddies the water. I won't get into a big fight about it though. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why the nowiki is appearing to be ignored causingtable to be deleted errors onTemplate:Infobox aircraft/doc for the multiple cases starting with

<table><tr><td valign="top">{{demo|sep=</td><td valign="top">|<nowiki>{|{{Infobox aircraft begin...

I'm aware the Infobox aircraft things are undergoing a merging/reconfiguring, but I don't believe this error is directly due to that. I was suspicious of the sep parameter entry from demo, but removing that doesn't change anything when tested.Zinnober9 (talk)01:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that these errors, and the failure to display the templates correctly, and the unknown parameter errors, aredue to the recent merge done by the hard-workingHouseBlaster. I expect that more cleanup is forthcoming. A big project. –Jonesey95 (talk)02:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'll first note that I do not deserve credit for making the merge happen—that would be@Zackmann08,ZLEA, andPhuzion. But those lint errors do appear to be my fault, so don't blame them for that! Let me see if I can pull off some magic and update the doc to tell people who to use the new formatting. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be sorted now. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, and thank you @HouseBlaster, you've gotten them. I apologize, I asked Jonesey95 first since Jonesey is regularly better than I with understanding template related errors, and I didn't want to interrupt you with the merge cleanup since I wasn't aware of your knowledge of lint and I didn't think I could be helpful to you if I needed to explain both the error that I didn't understand and what lint is.

The two test pagesTemplate:Infobox aircraft/testcases andTemplate:Infobox aircraft begin/testcases also have this issue, but since they'll likely be merged to or deleted after completion, I'm not concerned about them, just mentioning so they aren't overlooked.

I knew Phuzion was a driving force on the merge due to the documentation related to their bot's task 4, (which did an unexpected edit resulting in a few errors on an article I spotted the other day), and saw that you were also connected from one of the discussions linked to within that BRFA. I appreciate everyone's efforts in this cleanup and general getting away from the confusing mixed look of "table bracket, template start, template other bits, closing bracket(s)" for some of the air and ship related infoboxes. Simple to understand and use templates that do their jobs effectively are always appreciated. Thank you again,Zinnober9 (talk)05:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize! Thank you for looking out for these errors :)HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)13:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you wrote about this particular template atUser talk:MikeVitale#Plans for Template:Hockey color?. I want to notify you thatTemplate:Hockey color,Template:Hockey color cell andTemplate:Hockey color cell2 were nominated for speedy deletion perCSD G4 (G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion), because all three were previously discussed and deleted atWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 30#Template:Ice hockey color cell. –sbaio11:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onCategory:All Wikipedia articles written in Malaysian English indicating that it is currently empty, and is not adisambiguation category, acategory redirect, under discussion atCategories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted undersection C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.Liz^Read!Talk!23:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonsey95,

I’m reaching out because I genuinely value your judgment, and your previous reply helped me more than I can say. As a beginner who is still learning how to navigate Wikipedia’s processes, your guidance means a great deal to me — especially now, when I feel unsure how to proceed.I have been trying to propose a small, sourced addition to the Zinfandel article, based on established international and regional ampelographic and genetic literature. I followed the advice previously given at ANI and moved the entire discussion to Talk:Zinfandel, especially since Dalida had unilaterally redirected the Kratošija article — an issue I have not abandoned, but I am approaching it step by step, respecting all policies, starting with smaller, fully sourced and carefully argued improvements within the Zinfandel article. I announced all intended edits in advance, provided full sourcing, and avoided re-adding anything that had been reverted.However, Dalida has continued to revert every contribution I propose with edit summaries such as “NPOV and misinformations,” but without explaining on the talk page what exactly is considered incorrect. Some of the material she added in place of my text is factually incorrect, and I pointed this out on the talk page — but that explanation was ignored. I opened several detailed sections and pinged Dalida, yet there has been no engagement. The reverting simply continues without clarification.This pattern of reverting without discussion appears to conflict with several core policies, including WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TALK, WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN and WP:OWN, since there was no attempt to specify what exactly was incorrect, no examination of the sources, and no effort to work toward shared wording.I respect Wikipedia deeply and I care about verifiability and accuracy. I am completely open to valid counterarguments supported by policy or sources — but I cannot accept continuous reverts without explanation, or the avoidance of discussion. It feels discouraging, especially after the unilateral removal of the Kratošija article, and now not being allowed to make even sourced improvements to Zinfandel.Because you have previously offered guidance in good faith, I would be very grateful for your advice again. I am not asking anyone to take sides — only to help me understand what the correct next step is in this situation. Should I open a DRN case, start an RfC, or is there another venue that would be more appropriate?Here are the relevant links:• Latest revert by Dalida:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinfandel&oldid=1322708866

• My previous edit that was reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinfandel&oldid=1322707166

• Talk page posts where I explained everything in advance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zinfandel#Proposal:_Improving_structure_and_sourcing_consistency_regarding_Krato%C5%A1ija_(synonym_of_Zinfandel)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zinfandel#Implementation_note_%E2%80%93_History_subsection_updatehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zinfandel#Clarification_%E2%80%93_Budva_and_Venetian_administration

Thank you very much for any advice you can offer. It truly means a lot to me.VitisArchivum (talk)20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeWikipedia:Third opinion and alsoWP:LLMCOMM. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiJonesey95, please would you share your view onWikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 14#Template:Sierra Leonean English which I have nominated for deletion. It is an obscure one that has slipped through the net as it doesn't have a corresponding Use Sierra Leonean English template.Dgp4004 (talk)17:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad to see some progress on this front... Is the dam about to burst, I wonder? -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times}22:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• After what I've seen, I refuse to get my hopes up. I'm glad that there are other windmill-tilters around here, though. –Jonesey95 (talk)23:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/misnested-tag?wpNamespaceRestrictions=1%0D%0A0%0D%0A4%0D%0A5%0D%0A6%0D%0A7%0D%0A8%0D%0A9%0D%0A10%0D%0A11%0D%0A12%0D%0A13%0D%0A14%0D%0A15%0D%0A100%0D%0A101%0D%0A118%0D%0A119%0D%0A126%0D%0A127%0D%0A710%0D%0A711%0D%0A828%0D%0A829%0D%0A1728%0D%0A1729&titlecategorysearch=&exactmatch=1&tag=blockquote&template=all

Blockquote?ShakespeareFan00 (talk)22:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally,like this. Like div tags, blockquote tags almost always need to start and end at the same indent level. That usually means either:

1. put the opening blockquote tag on a new line with no indenting, and put the closing blockquote tag on a new line with no indenting, or
2. put both the opening and closing blockquote tags on the same line, with no line breaks.

So you can write

::Foo bar<blockquote>baz etc.</blockquote>

but not

::Foo bar<blockquote>baz etc.</blockquote>

I hope that makes sense. –Jonesey95 (talk)23:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them area little stranger. Do the easy ones first and then come back for more advice if you need it. –Jonesey95 (talk)23:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't dealing with these, lack of experience, feel free to commence efforts yourself though.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)23:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hoping to assign me some work, I see. I'm currently focused onfinally trying to clear up article space, doing 50 or so a day. –Jonesey95 (talk)23:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The race is on.... Have a great day!Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})16:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing for me that you took a multi-year break. –Jonesey95 (talk)17:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA! right?!Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})20:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a note, that Grufo has been marking all their creations as subst templates, which hide their unused status. Some will also need to be evaluated if they even make sense being subst and not transclusions.Gonnym (talk)11:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fun development. Editors are endlessly creative. –Jonesey95 (talk)15:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started an ANI threadhere re LLM useKowal2701 (talk)23:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiJonesey95, I've worked my way through the articles reported ashaving multiple language tags. However, new ones keep appearing, likeProvince of Quebec (1763–1791).

The common factor seems to be EngvarB. As inexperienced editors don't know what it is, they don't seem to recognise it as a language tag and are adding conflicting tags in good faith.

As EngvarB now redirects to Use British English, I wonder if it would be possible to run a script to replace the EngvarB tag with Use British English. Editors who object to the new tag will no doubt discuss and amend the tag on those respective articles.

Unfortunately, I've no experience or knowledge of running scripts. I don't suppose you do, or perhaps know a technical editor who can help please?Dgp4004 (talk)11:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are not very many pages on that report. I would just revert the good-faith edits one by one and replace EngvarB with Use British English manually. Leave a good edit summary. Mass-replacing a redirect with its target is generally frowned upon by people who dislike noise in their watchlists. –Jonesey95 (talk)17:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are so few because I already fixed them the other week :D FYI, I haveraised another at TfD.Dgp4004 (talk)00:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could maybe remove the redirect and make it a wrapper template with{{Always substitute|auto=yes}} after replacing all current usages (which will require probably a bot request because the number is high, 85,359). You could maybe also get it deleted in RfD after replacing all current usages if you can convince the others that the name "EngvarB" causes more harm than good.Gonnym (talk)19:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I daren't as I'm afraid of creating 85,359 errors! :D Incidentally, another has appeared in the report today:Daruvu. I might raise it at EngvarB talk.Dgp4004 (talk)13:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jonesey95. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged forspeedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the newtutorial for patrollers,criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section coveringnon-criteria. Such pages are best tagged withproposed deletion orproposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriatedeletion discussion. Thanks!~2025-31245-28 (talk)16:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unhelpful boilerplate that didn't link to the page in question. And since you didn't undo my edit, I didn't get a notification. So it goes. –Jonesey95 (talk)05:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pages with syntax highlighting errors