User talk:Isaidnoway/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Isaidnoway. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks

Dear Isaidnoway

Thank you for wading in on my entry. It has been wrecked over the years by the Intel Services (especially by Phillip Cross now banned) Anyone Googling can see all the bad stuff. My problem is that all my good work via UK MoD on Pakistan/Afghanistan/The Gulf was removed and due to the nature of my previous work there was no newspaper coverage so hence no way of putting some positive back. Please keep an eye. there has been vandalism in the last 14 days including absured allegations of sexual matter with young men, completely untrue and placed on her by non-editors but students c. 21 yrs of age. Thank you again.62.128.217.99 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Crown Jewels

Re [1], it was already broken and I was trying to fix it. There were TWO big red cite errors, and I managed to get rid of one by making the edit you reverted. Don't be so quick to apportion blame in future. Firebrace (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It was not broken, you made the edit on 2 October that caused it, and edited the article again on 17 November and you didn't fix it then either. I looked at the revision history going back to August and it was stable for that whole month, and on 1 September it was just fine, and again on 5 September it was good, it wasn't until 2 October when you tried to give it a ref name, it's a common mistake I see a lot with these sort of templates. No big deal, it's fixed now, just remember to use the Show preview button after making an edit. Have a nice day. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that old versions of the article use the current version of the template? I know, it's shocking! Have a great day. Firebrace (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool story bro! Isaidnoway (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Clark's grebe

Hi there. It appears you edited something to the section 'Sources' a few seconds after I deleted it (and someone reverted a few minutes later). I deleted it as I had already used the source inline in the references and considered it redundant.

I notice, however, you added a URL to GoogleBooks which has different bibliographic info than I have seen in the references in all the other studies I'm reading. Google states this is a 320 page book published in 1977, whereas I have the same paper as a 13 page journal article from 1979 (the title I copy&pasted from the earlier version of the wiki page was slightly wrong, fixed that)... What's going on? I feel GoogleBooks is likely wrong, otherwise all the citations in 1980s studies are wrong.

And is it wrong to remove redundant citations?

Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Kosovo

Yeah, I saw that I made a mistake and wanted to put things wright. If you can, please but it back in the article and last but not least - thank you for a thorough response and explanation.

Mm.srb (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting. I meant to de-capitalise "million" initially. I noticed {{r|FMD}}, but I didn't realise that it was a reference of course. I thought it was an odd template or something. Silly me. Thanks again, and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is an odd template, one of many here on WP that I've learned about recently that exist in my attempt to clear out a backlog in that category with incorrect ref formatting. It functions the same way as <ref name=source/>. Good catch on that million though. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sugar reffix

I was interrupted while editing sugar and left the refs in a mess. Thank you for fixing it. HLHJ (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the kind words, I do appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Wizkid

Isaidnoway, thank you for helping me edit it Oreratile1207 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thanks for your kind words, appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)