User talk:MSGJ

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Question from Clovermoss

How did you do this? I'm trying to understand other projects better and I assume this means you connected it with a wikidata item, but the actual process confuses me a bit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clovermoss. Unfortunately it is not possible to connect a draft article to a Wikidata item (although I have argued several times that this would be useful). So instead you can add the |qid=Q113793155 parameter to associate it with item. Once it has been moved to mainspace and a connected properly to the Wikidata item, this parameter is ignored — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Authority control issue

Hello. One of your changes to Template:Authority control (well, one of the Module pages related to this) has introduced a syntax error. On Template:Authority control, it's claiming it's a stripped li tag, but on the 750+ pages using this template, they are crying about a missing span and a stripped span tag error each. Would you have a second look at your changes related to this? Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly look into this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed Template:Authority control. Can you give me an example of a page with a missing span tag? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I can confirm the template is clean from the li error now. No other "claimed" syntax errors on the Template:Authority control page. I've purged the template page, and purged a few of the articles, but that hasn't cleared any of the span issues yet, so guessing it's an issue within a conditional statement and that state isn't present on the template page. This list, and this list have some pages to chose from that are reporting the missing/stripped span errors from the use of this template (universities, libraries, museums, and hospitals seem to be common themes). Zinnober9 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think all of those should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all good here now! Thank you so much! Zinnober9 (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317

Online events:

New: Women writers & their works | Geofocus: Islands A - H

Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (Jul, Aug, Sep)

Announcements from other communities

August 30 is the tenth anniversary of WikiProject Women writers!

Tip of the month:

Try her pen name when searching for sources, and remember to add her to any of these that apply:
List of pen names, List of literary initials, and Category:Pseudonymous women writers.

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project.
Follow us on social media:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reversions on List of people named Liam

Hello! I recently noticed your dialogue about formatting on the Talk Page for the page above. You mentioned you were soon going to revert previous changes back to edits I had made. Do you want me to do so? Happy to. Thanks, Debartolo2917 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not much time to look at that now. But will check back later. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cloyd's Mountain

Hello MSGJ - I noticed you assessed Battle of Cloyd's Mountain order of battle. Thank you very much. The Battle of Cloyd's Mountain has been entirely redone. Perhaps you know someone who could assess it too? TwoScars (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has assessed it as B-class which I agree with. It looks very thorough and well referenced. Perhaps you would like to take it to WP:GAN next? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from CatInTree (19:30, 3 September 2024)

Is it generally good to edit a redirect page redirecting to a section of a less relevant article to the main article? Ex. Relation on a set used to link to Binary relation#Homogeneous relation, but I moved it to redirect to Homogeneous relation. --CatInTree (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that looks like a good idea to me! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gehailun (18:05, 5 September 2024)

Greetings. There is much I need to learn about editing from reading the getting started pages, but I can't seem to find how to add an External Links section to a page. Right now the page I want to edit only has a Main section and a References section. Thank you. --Gehailun (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the "Edit" button at the top of the article (or the top of each section)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leatherworker (18:42, 6 September 2024)

In regards to the Draft I have created, I have used relaible sources as everything is either newspaper articles, magazine articles, and government sources. I was wondering if you could give me any information as to why it has been declined. I have read through the pages linked in the Comment made on the draft and have taken the formality out of the writing style to make it more informal. Is there anything else I should opt to do in relation to this draft? Thanks. --Leatherworker (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, sometime over the weekend — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rebecca Hermosillo

Hello, MSGJ. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Rebecca Hermosillo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from SanctuaryOnSchoolAve on Stand by Me (film) (17:23, 15 September 2024)

Please review two citation references for proper Wikipedia house style that document recommended update to Legacy section of Stand By Me (film) entry.
How does one insert a bracketed superscript reference number and link/tie it to the proper source? Also, do prior successive reference numbers automatically get re-numbered?

--SanctuaryOnSchoolAve (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The refernces look to be are formatted well. We wouldn't generally include facebook as a source because it is not regarded as reliable, so that one should probably be removed. Yes successive references will be renumbered (but it is possible to re-use the same source, in which case it could have the same number as a previous one). Hope that makes sense — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create nonexistent templates

Please do not create transclusions of nonexistent templates. It populates Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates, and then another gnome needs to fix your fix. I recommend removing one of the braces on either end instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create a template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke. You created transclusions of nonexistent templates. Please refrain from doing so. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chris M Horwitz (16:47, 22 September 2024)

Hello. I have made two edits recentlly, the more important of which was in Maxwell's Equations where there is a significantly wrong original entry which has been leading people astray for a long time. My correction was however removed without any communication with me. I would think Wikipedia would be using competent members to consider proposed edits but in this case I consider this to be an egregious lack of knowledge of the topic; someone expert in the field should re-consider my edit. At the very least I would expect the editor would communicate with me. For the second edit, on the history of William Shockley, I have had a helpful discussion with the editor who removed my edit - and that is fine, I will work on it and re-submit after I have downloaded the appropriate reference to your Commons. --Chris M Horwitz (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if your edit is reverted, the next step is usually to open a discussion on the talk page, in this case Talk:Maxwell's equations. There you can present your point of view or ask the other editor to explain why they reverted. I will open a discussion there for you now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris M Horwitz there is a response on the article's talk page. Please view and reply there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my proposed edit; after looking over the correct cross-product terms it's apparent that the moving diagram and its attendant field equations are correct as shown. My apologies for trying to spread disinformation! Chris M Horwitz (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]