Hildeoc

You didn't get a response to this question but I see what you mean. Or at least I think I do. This seems like a software issue and they answer questions about those at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you. 66.87.148.175 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Did you get the response to this question that you needed? There was not one on the Help Desk.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you very much for your interest! Unfortunately, no, I didn't get a response. Greetings--Hildeoc (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you're asking, but when I look at the Help Desk and Teahouse archives and see questions that weren't answered, I try to answer if I can. This is one of those cases where I can't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

You didn't get an answer to this question and I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Since you were the last to edit that page, I'm guessing you haven't found the solution.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you very much once again for your interest and notification! I took this as an incentive to have another go: Special:Diff/886833270. Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

We tracked down and fixed the formatting problem here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Portal:Typography.

Thank you for the revert/alert.    — The Transhumanist   13:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hildeoc. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thermostatic Expansion valve, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a valid speedy deletion criterion, please see WP:CSD#R3 for restrictions on nominating redirects. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

​I saw you just nominated this for speedy deletion again. If you think the redirect should be deleted please bring it to redirects for discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Barkeep49: No, why? This is an obvious misspelling in the sense of WP:CSD#R3.--Hildeoc (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hildeoc because as Amory, who is a sysop, linked to yesterday, it is not recently created and is thus ineligible for R3. In general if anyone other than the page's creator, but especially a sysop acting in that role, reverts your speedy deletion it's a good sign you should try a different deletion process if you think it should be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You have now been reverted a third time. Have you actually read the R3 criterion? It says This applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers, emphasis in the original. Both "recently created" and "implausible" must be met. Seeing as the redirect was created in 2014, there is no plausible scenario where this counts as "recent." You can take it to WP:RFD if you think it should be deleted, but please do not continue to disrupt the page by adding another R3 speedy tag. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amorymeltzer and Barkeep49: Come on, guys, let's not play with the semantics here – this is a needless redirect with an obvious misspelling and without any backlinks. Why do you want to harass me with expecting me to go all the way and bother RfD with this trivial matter? They already have more than enough on their plate round there, believe me ...--Hildeoc (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hildeoc the community has chosen to strictly limit the content which can be deleted without community consensus. This is true in a wide range of areas. Considering I can find a wide range of sources which use "Thermostatic Expansion valve" it does not seem like a misspelling at all. But even if it was the community has decided, through deletion policy, to not allow speedy redirects of old redirects. That's not semantics that's community consensus. We've all found consensus against what we think is right frustrating at various times but accepting such situations is part of the need to work in a collaborative encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is supposed to be the point in insisting on recency here?--Hildeoc (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please don't edit articles just to remove formatting invisible to the normal reader. Such edits waste other editors' time, and remove formatting useful to other editors, such as by making headings, sections, paragraphs and images easier to see while making substantive edits or checking quality. Many thanks for your understanding and cooperation. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Chiswick Chap: Sorry once more, but the problem is that such enclosing blank lines cause the rendering of extra line space. Hope this helps to make my proceeding more understandable. Best wishes

  Hello, I'm ZI Jony. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Requested moves have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ZI Jony: Hi there! This edit is supposed to, in fact, make sure that the shortcuts from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, as well as the instructions from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Instructions are transcluded to the pertinent main page section Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. What is supposed to be wrong with that?--Hildeoc (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

HildeocDid you see my reply on AN? Please don't change RM without discussion. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit review. Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

not to remove special names for references! It's very damaging if not spotted! Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Another reason why Allison Mack is on the left, not just for staggering purposes that the MOS suggests, but because she's looking right. It clearly states in the MOS that the preferred direction of images of people is to have them looking at text and not away from text. The reason Tom Welling and Erica Durance are both on the right in that section is because the cast is a bulleted list, which is why we didn't stagger it there (and they are both looking left).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Then sorry and thanks for settling that! Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

You didn't get an answer to this question. Did you find the answer? I may have suggested WP:VPT in the past.

Actually, after I submitted I got sent to an earlier response of mine. I definitely have.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you very much! I guess I'll just give it another try then. "Actually, after I submitted I got sent to an earlier response of mine. I definitely have." — What exactly are you referring to? Sorry for my slow-wittedness … Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It scrolls down to a previous section called "Your help desk question". And I gave you the same advice back then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You didn't get an answer here but WP:VPT might be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The site you referred to in your edit summary for Inquisition is run by radical sedevacantist Traditionalists. It is WP:SPS and not a reliable source for anything, especially not Catholic apologetics. Nonetheless you are correct about the "Holy Inquisition" designation. Elizium23 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Elizium23: Thanks a lot for your comment. Of course, you are absolutely right about the usability of the source I picked. But this was actually only meant as a means to show the reception – though in this case a hard-core critical one with regard to modern Catholic Church – of that term; it was not meant as a citable source as such. Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Muslim states and dynasties, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sar-e Pol and Hira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hildeoc. I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for biographical information in two articles. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed them, along with the ancestry.com reference which is similarly unreliable. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

WP:RSP#IMDb too. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hipal: Do you want to remove all IMDb refs from Wikipedia now? Have fun then …--Hildeoc (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please don't add any more. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_231#myheritage.com. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the hope that this will de-escalate the situation: I regularly cleanup a number of unreliable references, and check that they don't get replaced with similarly poor sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I fixed your removal of closing bold formatting at List of British Academy Award nominees and winners, hoping that you would not repeat the error, but the error has been repeated at List of Spanish Academy Award winners and nominees and multiple similar articles. Can you please restore the closing bold formatting to those articles, like this? Thanks. Using the syntax highlighter gadget or LintHint will help you catch the errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jonesey95: Thanks for your notification but please note: In these cases the closing tags are actually not required because all of the relevant lines are headings, which is to say there is no lightfaced text to follow within the relevant lines. I did this for reasons of a simplified systematic formatting clean-up process (using the "Search and replace" function by applying the generic table header beginning search term | [[Academy Award for) so that I didn't have to manually set all headers in bold tags. Hopefully you can now better comprehend my approach.--Hildeoc (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not talking about the edits that completely removed bold formatting from headings. Please see my diff above, and this more extensive one. You removed the closing bold tag from many lines, but left the opening bold tag, leaving entire lines looking like this:

| colspan="5" style="text-align:center;"| '''[[Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress|Supporting Actress]]

It looks like another editor fixed all or most of your errors for you. Please be more careful in future edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jonesey95: No, I got what you meant. And my comment was referring exactly to that: When you have a heading, and you put an opening bold tag before it, the whole heading will appear bold – even without a closing tag. As I already implied, in the relevant lists, I made use of the "Search and replace" function in order to remove double boldfacing from the tables by first removing all bold tags, and then systematically setting those headers in bold by simply putting opening bold tags in front of them. You don't need the closing tags there.--Hildeoc (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Every opening tag requires a closing tag. The fact that sometimes, unclosed tags happen to render the way you want them to render, is a situation in which the software is compensating for your error by guessing where the closing tag should go. There is no guarantee that the software will continue to do so; many similar errors have stopped being worked around by the rendering software.

Unclosed tags flag the page for inclusion in the Lint error list of articles with unclosed tags, a list of errors that WP gnomes are working to eliminate. The articles you edited incorrectly, which other editors then needed to fix, populated the top of this list, which is a list of the articles with the most Linter errors, refreshed daily. Please close all tags that you open. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Help:Archival material does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for stopping by with your helpful edit to Superman vs. Spider-Man XXX: An Axel Braun Parody! What do you think of the recent improvements to the page? Right cite (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Right cite: Thank you too! I think your edits are fine. Why exactly are you asking?--Hildeoc (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hildeoc, just hoping it made the article better quality and more likely to remain on Wikipedia. Thank you! Right cite (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I undeleted the page Xanthochroi and redirected it to Historical race concepts#Thomas Huxley's racial definitions. I hope you agree it is a good enough target. See also User talk:Explicit#Xanthochroi. - Nabla (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nabla: Thanks a lot for notifying me. I think your suggestion is very reasonable. However, currently, the term in question is still not explained as such yet. Hence, ideally, at least a short definition of Huxley's concept of Xanthochroi should be added in the target article, if you ask me. What do you think?--Hildeoc (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

PS: Mind also that in this article as well as in Mediterranean race, for instance, the terms Xanthocroi and Xanthocroic are still linked to Nordic race … (Thus, it would probably be best to mention Huxley's concept there as well.)--Hildeoc (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree it could be (better) explained, I am not sure I am the one to do it (I don't know zit about the subjet...) but I may try, by the weekend. Yes, some links there are somewhat problematic. Maybe the said explanation could deal with that? (as in, ... the Xanthochroi were later associated with the (name of the?) Nordic race ...) - Nabla (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I noticed you capitalizing titles at pages like Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. Please note that these titles are required to be lowercase by the guideline at MOS:JOBTITLES. Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. I will consider that in future.--Hildeoc (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited States of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Singular.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to bump this issue up to a 'higher authority', such as a project. Surely someone knows about populating a footer? Any ideas?-- Quisqualis (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Quisqualis: Thanks for your willingness to make that important effort (and for notifying me). I've already tried my luck to receive such a hint here. I've also considered asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, maybe even Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump. In any case, feel free to ping me as soon as you start a corresponding meta-thread on this issue. Greetings, Hildeoc (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, ping or email. I've inquired at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism#Is TruthSocial Alt-tech? I think our friends may now have focused their attention on Truth Social, with the intent to sever it from any Alt-Right and Alt-tech connection. Trouble is, the "liberal media" don't seem to be spending a lot of time on the site, then writing about it. I may do some OR to satisfy my curiosity. Hmmmm, wonder whether there are center-right NPOV outlets who cover TS? Wish me luck. Quisqualis (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I like the aim of this edit, but I would have worded it much differently. Let's see how long it lasts before someone else monkeys with it or reverts it. Traditionalists are lurking everywhere. They move more slowly than zombies but they're harder to eradicate. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kent Dominic: How would you have worded it then? What are your objections? Feel free to reword me. There doesn't seem to be a lot going on there recently anyway. What do you have to lose? Best, Hildeoc (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd have used the phrasing from the Preposition stranding article's lede. I'll pass on rewording it myself. So far this year I've avoided clashing with an editor who routinely trolls my edits and reverts them for picayune, piddly, prick-assed reasons, and I want to keep that streak of avoidance alive. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What if I promised to keep an eye on that issue and make sure you won't get reverted there for such spurious reasons? Apart from that, would you mind explaining what exactly you find fault with as to my wording? Hildeoc (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure: "dated" sounds argumentative since there's no supporting cite. Same goes for "non-theoretical". That I agree on both counts doesn't matter. Wikipedia just has a rule against original research such as this. Kent Dominic·(talk) 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kent Dominic: Thanks for clarifying that. As I wrote in the summary, I borrowed this categorization from Complement (linguistics)#Predicative, subject and object complements, which explicitly mentions several corresponding references. Hildeoc (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What are you doing? You replaced an English wikipedia article link with a non-existent Spanish article link, and added someone else without an article. We don't add relatives to the infobox unless they have articles. Meters (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Meters: This is not correct. I certainly did not "replace an English Wikipedia article link with a non-existent Spanish article link". Why do you say that? Also, please note that Jesús Alfredo Guzmán Salazar was only linked with the corresponding Spanish article. Also, which guideline says you shouldn't name relatives in infoboxes if there's no article on them [yet]? Hildeoc (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

{{Infobox criminal}} is a wrapper for {{Infobox person}}, whose documentation for |relatives= says "Names of siblings or other relatives; include only if independently notable and particularly relevant." – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jonesey95: Right. IMHO, notability and particular relevance are evidenced e.g. per https://www.state.gov/narcotics-rewards-program-target-information-wanted/joaquin-guzman-lopez. Hildeoc (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then WP:WTAF Meters (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Meters: In that case, we would also have to remove the mention of Jesús Alfredo Guzmán Salazar. Hildeoc (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

done Meters (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

And my apologies for misreading the diffs wrt to the spanish article link. Meters (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Strewth, that was close! Thank you soooo much. My only excuse is that it's late here, and the more I read confusions, the more I absorb them. I appreciate your rescuing me from mathematical disaster. Elemimele (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're very welcome!--Hildeoc (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Finite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finite number.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please stop and revert your addition of images to overly large navboxes (navboxes can accept images up to the point of disruption of the size, as a very large navbox needs horizontal space to spread the links). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Randy Kryn: No. There is no consensus on your POV about this. These images have been quite long-standing in the presidential navboxes. Hildeoc (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Long-standing until an editor continues to go around adding every bill that crossed a president's desk to the navboxes, which has greatly extended them. Once they become too large a photo removes a great deal of horizontal spacing. Guidelines actually discourage use of images in navboxes, so consensus has already been established. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please seek specific consensus on this issue first. Apart from that, would precise guidelines are you referring to here? Hildeoc (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

woodensuperman may give more clarity here. I sincerely did not want you blocked, but I guess admins have knowledge of when to apply for a lesson-learned type of block (my only two blocks were those type). I can see the good faith in your additions, but please realize the size of these navboxes on smaller screens precludes the use of images which then take up a great deal of navbox horizontal space. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Once again: Have you reached or at least sought consensus on your stance? If not, your edit-warring is to be considered nothing but vandalism, sir. This is the reason I reported your behavior. Hildeoc (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are no examples given here, but personally, I don't think images generally have a place in footer navboxes. They do not assist in the functionality of a navbox, i.e. they provide no navigational benefit, therefore they are just clutter. Anyway, per WP:NAVDECOR: Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative. --woodensuperman 14:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Woodensuperman: Is there consensus on this regarding the navbox class in question? Also, please note that a representative likeness and the presidential seal are definitely anything but arbitrarily decorative in the given context. Hildeoc (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

But how does it assist navigation of the topic? If it doesn't perform a function, I'd say that it is arbitrary. However, I've seen much worse than {{Thomas Jefferson}}. We do have to consider that any image will be seen on every page this navbox is transcluded on, and whether that then causes an WP:UNDUE issue on any of those pages. --woodensuperman 15:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This illustration scheme has been well-established for quite some time as to the template class in question here, and the images as such do constitute useful additional information on their own in terms of a quick, intuitive identification and visualized overview of the relevant subject. Hildeoc (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Navboxes are for navigation, not information or identification, but tbh I don't care enough to rock the boat here. --woodensuperman 15:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Woodensuperman: So, clear identification does not benefit easy navigation then? --Hildeoc (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

No. How does having a picture aid navigation between the articles in this navbox? The functionality is the same with or without it. --woodensuperman 15:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because, if it's unambiguous, it helps in briefly grasping / summarizing the overall context of the relevant relationship. Hildeoc (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

What could possibly be ambiguous here? How does a picture of Thomas Jefferson on a navbox literally called "Thomas Jefferson" help to navigate between all the different Thomas Jefferson related articles? --woodensuperman 15:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, bear in mind that the inclusion of images could often mean that we are often repeating the same images multiple times in the same article. --woodensuperman 15:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks woodensuperman, the {{Thomas Jefferson}} navbox is a good example. My personal choice is that some imaging is fine as long as the size of the navbox isn't greatly impacted, as these U.S. presidential navboxes have been. The problem is another editor has and keeps adding every bill that crosses a president's desk onto their navbox, even those they had almost nothing to do with except for signing it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Randy Kryn: That's a different point, and I don't at all object tackling this particular issue. Hildeoc (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I wish someone would. It's a problem on mostly mid-to-late 20th and 21st century presidential navboxes. I've reverted them and tried to explain in the past but am ignored. On the image thing, please look at the Jefferson navbox on smaller widths than you may have your screen and maybe that would illustrate the image problem, thanks. (the ban club isn't so bad and we have better parties, if a user isn't banned at least once they're probably not doing it rigtht). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Hildeoc,

Please leave an informative edit summary with every edit you make but particularly with page moves but it's unclear sometimes why you moved an article to a different title. Leaving an explanation helps reduce other editors' reverting your edits. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: I moved the page for typographical reasons, since a hyphen was used instead of a dash. However, I usually try to provide at least a short summary. Hildeoc (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Hildeoc: I have to revert your good faith move. Firstly they were not members, it wasn't a club. Secondly this is one of two template,s that explicity deals with the German Rote Kapelle only and more to follow. They were dozen to hundreds of others folk in other countries that were mostly Soviet agents of one type of another. So the move was incorrect. The template to a certain block of folk were all Germans. Another reason the move was incorrect. Thanks for taking a look at it. scope_creep^Talk 04:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Scope creep: Thanks for contacting me. However, I'm sorry to say but you are mistaken in your line of argument: see, for instance, Harro Schulze-Boysen, where the infobox expressly refers to him as a "Member of the Red Orchestra", and where you find the category Executed Red Orchestra members. "Member" can refer to any kind of group, not limited to clubs, as you falsely implied here. Secondly, the German name Rote Kapelle unambiguously and exclusively refers to the German resistance group in question AFAIK. Otherwise, I would have to kindly ask you to prove the opposite. Hoping for your understanding / cooperation, Hildeoc (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No it doesn't. I spent three years writing the red orchestra article so I know what I'm talking about. Do I need to take you to the edit warring noticeboard? The correct name is "People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group". The members thing in the article is the nomenclature used by author and doesn't reflect the nature of the situation. They were not members, they were all seperate wee groups of 2-3 people. It doesn't align with whats known about them. Lastly, I never created that category. It gives the wrong impression of what was going on. Please do not revert it. If you do, I'm going to take you to the edit warring noticeboard. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Scope creep: "No it doesn't." Can you verify please? Hildeoc (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wrote the majority of the Harro Schulze-Boysen article, I expanded from stub, along with his wife and wrote a couple hundred other articles from scratch on folks who were associated with Soviet espionage networks in Europe. Here is the leader: Leopold Trepper. It is the same kind of nomenclature that is used there, because that is what is available in sources for the person. They are only called members when they reached the court to be sentenced and tarred with idea of being one big unit working against the Nazis, but wasn't like that at all. When a modern person looks at that and see membership, oh, member of the golf club or member of a bridge club. It couldn't further from the truth. When your in Nazi land and your trying to find folk to trust, it is very difficult. That whole idea of Nazis everywhere is the core. That set the stage in the determination to stay hidden and that defined how folk behaved in open company. There is research how they decided to collaborate and their state of mind, a kind siege mentality and how they made connections using weird speech patterns and being divergent in conversation, describing e.g. a vase one of them, bought, in minute detail to try and determine if the person had a particular bent or particular idea, but not to actually saying out loud or asking a question. It nothing like the modern idea of how to live or work together, it so different. So taking members of group, when they weren't isn't ideal. It doesn't, fit so please do not change it. The Rote Kapelle wasn't only German. There was units in most of Europe, particularly big networks in Switzerland, Belgium, France, the UK, Holland, Italy, USA, along with the Caucasus which were smaller as less strategically important and there was even an attempt to establish a unit in in North Africa. I don't want to come back except to work on something else. scope_creep^Talk 19:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most links to disambiguation pages are mistakes and end up on a list of links that need to be fixed. To distinguish these mistaken links from intentional links to DAB pages, the intentional links include ‘(disambiguation)’ in the title, even if that title is a redirect. You can read a bit more about it at WP:INTDAB.

I haven't reverted your edit to Substance use again because I don't want to get into an edit war, but the proper format for the link is Substance control10d. Leschnei (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Leschnei: Okay, mate, I just fixed it accordingly. Thanks a lot for enlightening me! 🙏 Have a great day! Hildeoc (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply