Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
The edit special:diff/1245337253 does not accomplish anything useful. All you did is arbitrarily capitalize one template name, re-arrange an arbitrarily ordered template parameter, and change the markup for dates in templates from the simplest and most concise machine-readable format to a longer format, when the {{use dmy dates}} template at the top is already auto-formatting everything to a more concise format below. Please exercise some basic discretion and refrain from making this kind of edit in the future. It creates distracting churn in edit histories and the effect is to make the template markup take up more space while having no effect on page output. –jacobolus(t)17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Jacobolus: I disagree. Machine-readability is good but not sufficient. Dates should also be easily readable for the average person. While "2024-09-10" is ambiguous globally, "10 September 2024" is clearly understood. That is why I did and still do consider the change useful. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Robby.is.on You are not understanding. When the {{use dmy dates}} template with the cs1-dates parameter set is included at the top of the page, all of the dates inside citation templates will be standardized to the preferred output format. It literally makes no difference which date format is used for the markup of the template parameters at that point – readers will see the same output regardless. Beyond that, articles can, by local inertia or consensus, set their own preferred date style, and it is inappropriate to do drive-by script-assisted changes of those without discussion; see MOS:STYLEVAR. Doing the type of edit your did is not helpful, but only (mildly) disruptive. Please stop doing it. –jacobolus(t)18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
When the {{use dmy dates}} template with the cs1-dates parameter set is included at the top of the page, all of the dates inside citation templates will be standardized to the preferred output format. That's not what I'm seeing, though. See the screenshot. Reference section at Radha Charan GuptaRobby.is.on (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The output appearance was identical before and after your change. The use dmy dates template explicitly specifies "sy" format, which means that the main date of a citation will be in shortened style (e.g., from your screengrab, 8 Jul 2010) and the access and archive dates will instead use the numerical ISO style (e.g. 2018-11-18). That is the deliberately intended date format on this page, and the MOS makes it clear that this style is an acceptable variant, which should not be changed if used consistently. –jacobolus(t)19:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The output appearance was identical before and after your change. I re-checked and found that you're right. I think the the cs1-dates parameter is a disservice to our readers but I'll leave it. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. You may not have noticed my edit to Ray Ferris that undid your reverting the addition of the NIFG (Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats, nifootball.blogspot.com) website as "a random blog". The site was accepted as reliable some 15 years ago at this discussion and hasn't become unreliable in the meantime, as far as I'm aware. And it's listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links#Northern Ireland. Anyway, just a heads-up that I'm intending to restore the remaining reverted ones (gradually, real life permitting), check the heights listed and format them properly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Latest comment: 18 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
