User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2020/October

Archives

Fort Snelling

Thank you for reminding me that I had not finished my refs. I now have an issue that I have not a clue about. I added the weblinks to what you deleted and reposted the material. When you look at the reflist it says "dead link". It also gives a date back in 2007. I had not written this paragraph until last month. [1] It works here. Do you know how to fix the issue? Thanx Mcb133aco (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm not sure which reference you're thinking about. The one marked "dead link" is indeed dead. It is meant to go to http://www.mnhs.org/places/sites/hfs , but that page doesn't exist and it redirects to https://www.mnhs.org/visit. The link you give to the civil war page does work, and is used correctly three or four times on the page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I apologize for troubling you. If I understand your page correctly you are an administrator. If you have a moment could you review Seabee and Seabees in World War II. I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. Is there anything I need to do in retiring from Wikipedia? Am I supposed wipe my pages. Do I delete my ID? Thank you.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

No trouble -- happy to help (when I have time and know the answer). This time, I'm not sure how to help. I don't edit military history much, so I don't think I can give much useful input for those two articles. Maybe it's just because I don't know much about military history, but the articles seem incredibly detailed to me. When I read them, it's hard for me to get through the jargon to feel like I've understood anything useful. For someone familiar with the subject, maybe they're not so bad. Both seem to have long lists that aren't particularly well-referenced, and might be better off as separate articles.

If you're interested in good feedback, you might use the Wikipedia:Peer review process.

Since I've never retired from Wikipedia, I'm not sure how to do it. Sorry, but I've nothing to offer for that one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your thoughts reflect the tags. Since "military" is completely foreign for you, everything you stated was completely neutral. One article is tagged for size with over 300 footnotes and your comment is it has sections that are poorly referenced. If I cited everything that could be cited the byte count wouldn't stop. There are two sections intentionally over detailed for readers the exact opposite of you, "military authorities".(USMC and UDT) I would say that there is a single list, the Seabee legacy and that is all inline links. If that needs refs I am clueless, which I already am as you stated lists plural. I clearly am into something I should not be. Thank you again for your time very sorry there wasn't anything in it for you.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

Appian Corporation

Hello! I saw your recent edits to Appian Corporation and was surprised to see you removed the entire Services section. It looks like it was originally added to the page in duplicate by mistake, but could you tell me more about why you chose to remove the entire section instead of just the duplicate? For full transparency, I have a declared COI so I won't be adding it back to the page myself, but it was a requested edit that I had posed on the talk page. I'm open to suggested modifications if you feel it doesn't meet inclusion guidelines. Thank you! JMGAppian (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! The "Services" section was repeated, and I indeed deleted both copies instead of just one. I've restored one instance of the section. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your help! JMGAppian (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I saw you pinged me--odd, in my notifications it said you pinged me in an edit summary, but I thought all those notifications had a diff to click on. Not for edit summaries? Anyway, thanks for cleaning up after me, I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alteplase

Just to note, I think it was an accident. The user is a part of an education project - and they encourage them to edit visually which makes it easier to edit. The VE doesn't AFAIK understand how to move/edit references well (also the cause of all the name=:0 refs and the like) - so he removed it for another ref in the prose, which messed up the infobox named ref. It wasn't necessarily without explanation - moreso that no explanation was needed because he wasn't intentionally removing the ref from the infobox. I'm watching that page and trying to go fix issues that arise, but I'm pretty sure anomie bot would've come along anyway and fixed it eventually :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think there is no way to discern intention without an explanation, so an explanation is always necessary. That's what the "edit summary" box is for. AnomieBot misses lots of things (thousands, really) and often doesn't get it right when it does decide to act. As such, we (human beans!) have to check into the articles with errors and figure out what's wrong. By the time we've done that, it's just as easy to clean up. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about robots being unreliable - but I was merely pointing out that in this case (removed named ref from same page) I've never seen it get it wrong. On the note of the explanation, an explanation is not necessary nor can it be expected because the editor does not even know that it was removed. This is a fault of the visual editor - not the person editor - the visual editor does not give the user any way of knowing that they're screwing up a reference in another part of the article when they click the ref number and click delete. I agree that intentionally removing a named reference which is used elsewhere requires an explanation - but when it's not a fault of the editor but of the software I think it's a good idea to cut them some slack. Regardless, thanks for the fix before I could even notice that it was borked :P -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that leaving behind a broken reference needs an explanation -- I'm suggesting that any edit needs an explanation. In fact, none of the changes this user made (involving the reference or not) are explained in the two most recent edit summaries prior to my fixes. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autocorrect mistake, thanks for noticing

Thank you for noticing my edit for B.O.B. I assure you that I wasn't trying to remove the reference. You can see (when I'm done writing this to you) that I meant to just connect a previously used reference, but the tablet I was using unknowingly changed the author last name to Adams while I was typing the rest of the reference label. I'll need to be more careful when not editing from my PC. Glad you're "on the job" to check these things.--SidP (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for the fix! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Mikeblas/Archives/2020/October, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 17:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're the Chinabot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.243.187.209 (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]