An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mercer Island School District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KUOW.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I was wondering if you could put @CanonNi's mentorship status as away with Special:ManageMentors? He's been inactive for a good while. Thanks in advance. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm not familiar with the mentorship program or its policies, so I'd be uncomfortable making that change. Maybe you can get help at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features or Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They obviously have expertise and zeal/enthusiasm but wanted you to know I've left another post on their user talk: User talk:AkanArchives#sfn cite issues at Begho. - Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The urls for the primary sources IMMEDIATELY follow the actual book citations in sfn format. If that's wrong, then I will just delete them, but they seem useful for readers. A hatnote was your answer? SMH Obenritter (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not at all clear to me what you're trying to do. But you shouldn't use raw URLs, and you've got at least one no-target footnote. If you need help, just ask. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's clear now. If not, please consider making the needed corrections. Thanks for the help. --Obenritter (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I'm still not sure what your goal is. Why do you want each footnote to have two links to the reference? Normally, one (presented as a citation with {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}) is used. The references are already linked in the citations, why present the link again? And it's not so consistent, so maybe you're doing a different thing in each spot. Some footnotes say "See: a reference", and others simply name that reference. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In several cases, where applicable, the reference is to an available printed resource, while the other is exclusively online. The online linked references are for the ease of the reader without access to physical copies of the books. Not sure what is confusing about this. Some people may have the actual books in their possession (like myself), others do not.--Obenritter (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority seem to be completely redundant to the footnote. I'm trying to figure out why you want multiple links to the same thing; with multiple references. For example:
{{sfn|Pliny the Elder|1942|loc=2.67}}{{efn|See: Pliny ''Natural History'' [https://www.attalus.org/pliny/hn2b.html Pliny 2.67]}} could be just {{sfn|Pliny the Elder|1942|loc=2.67}}. An adequate URL is already in the anchoring {{cite web}}. -- mikeblas (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So just insert a url in the same Bibliographic template as the book reference, which will take the reader there as well? That makes sense...never occurred to me to do that. Provided I am understanding you. Wait, that won't work for a second reference to that book in a different location, however. Not sure why it is problematic to have a reference to a physical book AND a note to the primary source online. Honestly, at this point, do whatever you want, I will step away from this page. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother editing Wikipedia. -Obenritter (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why you're pouting -- I've done my best to come to understand what it is you're trying to do, and to try to offer you advice to do it in the right way. If you want to publish something without people editing it or thinking about improving it, you might be in the wrong place.
- {{sfn}} is meant for page numbers in printed references. If you want to provide a citation for print, and then also provide a URL for an online version, you should use {{cite book}}, which has all the parameters for a reference into printed material, but can also have a
url= parameter. I don't think your approach is right because the redundancy invites divergence, and that makes the intent unclear. For example, for the notes that don't match the reference, is that intentional, or just a mistake? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously there may be mistakes, as I had a lot of things open at once when working the page. Sorry for the rant, as I was just in a mood (a lot happening in my life). I removed the redundant refs per your request. While I quickly perused the citations for errors and corrected a few things, feel free to further review anything I may have missed. --Obenritter (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to hear you're having troubles. Meanwhile, the references look much better. Thanks for the fixes! -- mikeblas (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mikeblas. Thank you for your work on FDK Corporation. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mikeblas,
I saw you reverted this edit on the "Autism therapy" stating there are "dozens of referencing problems". Could you share more context on what you mean by that, ideally with 1-2 examples? It's not clear to me from this sentence whether you're talking about some formatting issues or something more fundamental.
Thanks! 7804j (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there! Your edit added many no-target footnotes. For example, you added
{{Harvard citation no brackets|Barnes|McCabe|2012|p=257}} when no citation for "Barnes McCabe 2012" is present in the article. There are more than a dozen such errors. There are also problems with reference groups A, P, and T, which were not given matching {{reflist}} tables.
- Sorry to be heavy handed, but there are just too many errors for the edit to be acceptable. This often happens when text is translated from other languages while ignoring the need for citations.
- Also, you might follow the instructions at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors to learn how to make such errors visible so that you can catch them when previewing your own changes. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Berlin Defence. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I almost always use preview. Yet, amazingly, sometimes I miss a warning message. I do my best. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I have made a fix. Please check it again and get back to me. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't heard back from you. Was the fix I made adequate? -- mikeblas (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix.
In the first instance, I did not realise that there was an accent over the letter in the Hispanic surname. My command of Spanish is limited.
In the second instance, I was convinced his surname was a portmanteau of Malcolm & Son, so was a surprise that the last six characters of his name are "*comson"Keith H99 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The accents (and em- and en-dashes) can be really tough. I can barely see them! For Malcomson, you might want to make sure I corrected the prose as well as the referencing. I'm not sure I got it all. Names are hard, but at least you can see them, LOL! -- mikeblas (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting out a bunch of the inline citations I messed up!
Quick question. How are you finding them? I'm assuming you're not just going over each of them manually? I'd like to try and catch them myself, but I don't see any kind of warning when I make an error. Is there a script or something you're running? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi!
- I monitor categories like Category:Pages with broken reference names and Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors to find articles that have problems. If you check out those categories, you'll see instructions for turning on some options and scriptlets that will explicitly show the errors. Referencing on Wikipedia is treacherous; it's a house of cards, a bunch of things glued together that barely work, so it's super easy to make mistakes or end up with an error. I think it's really important to have the error messgaes turned on, and check previews to see if the citations in an article are okay.
- Hope that helps. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be working. Thank you again! – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. Good luck! -- mikeblas (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm confused why you're removing so many ISBNs on Cardinality. They seem to be correct at, eg, https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9780268000004, https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9783663008750, etc – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See here for the details, but books published before 1965 or so don't have ISBNs. Sometimes, a book or manuscript is re-printed, and then the "orig-date=" parameter can be used to express that. In the cases where I removed the date outright, the original date doesn't apply and the reference is completely adequate without the ISBN. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. That makes sense. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, kind of. I think the weird thing is that a book might not have an ISBN, but then gets one later on, soon. The Skolem book says it was published in 1962. It probably doesn't have an ISBN number. But if it was re-printed, or released as a newer edition, in 1965 or just after, it would then have an ISBN. So then the citation ought to use that newer publishing date and then it wouldn't show an error from the citation template when the ISBN was included.
- I think ISBNs exist in citations to make it easier to find the material, or confirm that the correct material was found, which makes it easier to verify the reference. Page numbers can shift from edition to edition, and even printing to printing, so it's important to capture all that information. Some people will show a page number and say it's from the 1962 printing (with no ISBN), but then offer an ISBN number for a much more modern printing ... which won't have the expected ontent on the referenced pages since it was edited and re-numbered. So this check helps make sure ISBNs are only offered for compatible publishing years, and ...
- Well, that's the way I understand it, anyhow. -- mikeblas (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on finishing up the article soon. It'll go through Good Article and (hopefully) Featured Article review, which will put more eyes on it by more people who have some experience in dealing with situations like this. So if that's wrong, it should be corrected soon, and you moving the ISBNs to comments is good since helps make that easier.
- Seems like you have a pretty good understanding though, so I'm sure its fine. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with GA! -- mikeblas (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
