Jump to content

User talk:Erpert/Archives/2016/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
Volume III, no. 8, October 2016

Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                      

Project News

  • Good article Nominations, Project Updates
— View by clicking [show] —

information Note: Our members page design has been tweaked so that members can easily see newsletter-receiving members. We also updated the format of adding your name (i.e. please use {{Mailing list member}} instead on {{user}}. See the page for yourself for more information!

The following articles were promoted to GA status!


ReaLemon
Carrot

One new GA nomination: The Restaurant Marco Pierre White (talk | history | start review) by Miyagawa.

Some do's to do..

  • Please see the project's Tasks and To do sections for project and article tasks, and feel free to update the lists with new entries.
  • Please add all food/drink-related pictures on Wikimedia Commons to the project's categories.

Help us out by...

For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts.

Article alerts

— View by clicking [show] —
Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts
  • Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
— View by clicking [show] —
2 new members!
VarunFEB2003
JoshMuirWikipedia
Please consider joining the welcome squad to invite more members!
The project currently has 114 active members.
— View by clicking [show] —
Past newsletters

Food and drink articles by quality and importance

— View by clicking [show] —
Article statistics
Food and Drink WikiProject
article assessment
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 15 32 54
FL 2 2 4
FM 146 146
GA 18 31 77 281 407
B 56 232 346 717 87 1,438
C 77 405 1,012 3,592 548 5,634
Start 22 326 1,666 12,074 3,909 17,997
Stub 17 532 9,018 4,928 14,495
List 12 71 115 549 23 276 1,046
Category 8,564 8,564
Disambig 191 191
File 2,848 2,848
Portal 331 331
Project 350 350
Redirect 8 59 543 2,591 3,201
Template 969 969
NA 2 14 99 1,534 1,649
Other 190 190
Assessed 185 1,101 3,836 26,907 17,737 9,748 59,514
Unassessed 13 1,971 1,984
Total 185 1,101 3,836 26,920 17,737 11,719 61,498
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 204,619 Ω = 5.11

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

In use template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Erpert, you have a tendency to over-use the "in use" template, at least when editing Food Network competition show articles. The template is designed for occasional use when an article or a section of an article is undergoing a major revision. What you're doing are routine edits that are not of the duration or majority for which the template was intended. I've removed it from Food Network Kids. Please be careful to use template as intended, not to keep other editors away while you tweak a table. --Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What I'm doing isn't a major revision? And you know this how? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
You use that template every time you make an edit to any of the Food Network elimination shows, when most of what you're doing is minor stuff. That makes it hard to be sure whether the edits are major or not. What you did today should have been done in your sandbox. There was no justifiable reason to put incorrect information in the article, however briefly or for whatever reason. If all you need are the headings, cut-and-past the headings. None of this was anything approaching a major edit; your use of tweak in multiple edit summaries is proof enough of that. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The documentation at Template:In use clearly states that I am indeed using the template correctly. Nowhere on that page does it state that edits that going on in an article for a short while should be done in one's sandbox; specifically, it states:
Two hours hasn't passed. Now, drop the stick. (And my usage of "tweak" is irrelevant.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katie Lee (chef), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huntington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

JT LeRoy/Laura Albert pages

This post on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents is being shared with you: I protest most strenuously the interference with my October 15 edit of the JT LeRoy page. I replaced properly cited, pertinent information, and for Aloha27 to pull it down claiming "unreliably cited information" is completely unfair -- and suggests a different agenda is at work here, one that seeks to advance the argument of the original vandalism that I undid. Aloha27 needs to explain in what way the original text had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did. Now a brand-new editor -- 2601:646:4000:5076:d464:a479:a51b:ddc6 -- makes their first edit on the page for Laura Albert (the actual author behind the JT LeRoy books), adding something shamelessly judgmental and biased: After a quote of Argento praising Albert in 2013, this editor added the following commentary: "However in July of 2016, Asia Argento came further forward and break her silence on her real thoughts about the scandal." Ignoring the grammatical failings, who on earth is this person to say what Argento's or anyone else's "real thoughts" are? It was quite right that a vandalism warning accompanied that edit. It was totally unacceptable editing and I have repaired it; in the spirit of balance, however, I have not removed the 2016 quote.

The Wikipedia editors have to ask themselves a very simple question about the JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages: Do they want an unbiased article with cited and accurate information, which leaves readers free to make up their own minds -- like we do for everyone else, from Britney Spears to Joseph Stalin -- or do they want a page that continuously seeks to judge and denounce its subject? A page rewritten to legitimize the hate-filled screed "The Cult of JT LeRoy" by Marjorie Sturm. It's no accident that "Msturm 8" and her previous sock puppets -- Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166" -- keep putting up the same judgmental, slanted language that currently distorts the JT LeRoy page.

I urge all the editors I have cited to stop moralizing and slanting information, stop distorting the record. The JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages have to be as legitimate as all the other Wikipedia pages. I am adding this post to the Talk pages for JT LeRoy, Laura Albert, and all the editors involved in or cited in this thread.NVG13DAO (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in this topic anymore. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Signature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please clean up your signature per WP:SIG#NT. You are transcluding {{trim}} with each signing, and this is against policy. If you are substituting a signature template, your template needs adjustment and use safesubsts. — Andy W. (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never even heard of that template, much less used it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Your current signature contains {{ trim | red }}, {{ trim | Erpert }}, {{ trim | green }}, and {{ trim | [[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]] }}. Somehow that got into your signature. May you please double-check your signature and make sure these templates are not being used? — Andy W. (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere on the entire WP:SIG page does it mention {{trim}}. And I don't even remember how my signature was set up (I've had it for years), so if you have a better suggestion, let's hear it. Otherwise, please let me be. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Trim}} is a template that happens to be appearing in your signature. May you please check Special:Preferences and check your signature field and make sure "trim" is not in your signature? — Andy W. (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I said, "Nowhere on the entire WP:SIG page does it mention ." In other words, there is nothing on that guideline page that restricts the use of that template. Now, either find a guideline that explicitly prohibits the use of it, or leave me alone. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Erpert, okay, would like another clarification. At Special:Preferences, do you see the code {{ trim | red }} anywhere in your signature field? If not, this could be a deeper technical issue unrelated to you. Thanks, let me know — Andy W. (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
And FYI, the guideline at WP:SIG#NT in the first sentence explicitly says: Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as User:Name/sig, for example) are forbidden. — Andy W. (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that in my signature at all; maybe there's something wrong on your end. At any rate, I'm done talking about this. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Erpert, your signature includes the transclusion of the template {{trim}}.
'''<span style="color:{{ trim | red }};">{{ trim | Erpert }}</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:{{ trim | green }};">{{ trim | [[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]] }}</span></sup></small>
which renders as:
This is "forbidden" by the bahavioral guideline Wikipedia:Signatures#NT, "Transclusions of templates ... in signatures ... are forbidden ..."
You could do the following:
'''<span style="color:{{subst: trim | red }};">{{subst: trim | Erpert }}</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:{{subst: trim | green }};">{{subst: trim | [[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]] }}</span></sup></small>
which renders as:
Alternatively, you could desist with using {{trim}} to strip the superfluous spaces. i.e. use:
'''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</span></sup></small>
which renders as:
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Before, I was told to change my signature to how it is now, and suddenly it's forbidden? It would be nice if people made up their minds. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The guideline says "forbidden", but it could be archaic. The reasons include "Certain automated scripts (bots) are used ...", but I would think these bots have been improved. Your signature include a link to this talk page, and the date, as required, but as it is inside a template, albeit a trivial template, I think it could be a problem. You seem to have odd, non-productive things in you signature. Sorry, just trying to be helpful. Have you been having a bad day? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I figured out that Erpert's substing {{font color}} in his signature. Hi Erpert, this will be the last time I ping you about this, but just an FYI. this edit inadvertently started making your signature transclude {{trim}} starting in December 2015. I've since corrected the template itself, so your signature transclusion issue is no more. You can take this whole thing as my initial misunderstanding. I'm glad at least it's resolved for now. Cheers, — Andy W. (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erpert/Archives/2016/October&oldid=1071618876"