User talk:ActivelyDisinterested: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I think you missed that after https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_warning_labels_in_the_US&diff=prev&oldid=1175026395 the full cite is still there. Also the URL you put back is broken, unlike the one in References that the sfn links to after my fix, which I have restored. OK? RudolfoMD (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that you had added the details as text, which causes the same error as if it being missing. The {{sfn}} template creates a hyperlink to the details of the full reference, it only works if the full reference is in the form of a fully formatted cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your follow-up fixes look good! Weird to see an article get basic stuff like author names wrong like that. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be that the original author wasn't working in their native language/script. Could explain the similar but wrong names. Another cause of errors I see a lot is that editors are adding references from another work. So they read a book and include in the article the references they see in that book, so the articles references end up with errors as if they had been passed through a game of Chinese whispers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested. Thanks for your reply at RSN. Are you aware of noticeboard discussions, RfCs, etc that supports your comment that only one reliable source is not enough? - Hipal (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOB is pretty clear, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. A single source does not meet the burden of widely published. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To put it succinctly "singularly published" can't be the same as "widely published", they would seem to me to mean the opposite of each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your alertness in catching the bogus close of the "Cohen crime family" AfD. I fear that many if not most editors would not have noticed that an editor was being impersonated. I certainly did not. I was wondering what you think of this potential caveat in the AfD instructions? Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came across it because the vandal had already been spotted on ANI. They had tried the same at other AfDs and been reverted, but that one was missed. At to AfD instructions, signatures are like ^[footnotes] they can lull you into foolish certainty. If you're in any doubt you should always double check. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, while I was surprised I wasn't in doubt as to the close's authenticity. I wonder if any tricks like that may have succeeded in the past? Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of thanks for the assistance! My formatting (and, obviously, citation) skills seem to be a bit meh, so you've been a great help, thanks! VMORO 15:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help, if there is anything else I can help with just drop me a message. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mistaken Roman Warszawski with Roman Warszewski. Warszewski is other person and does not resemble Warszawski from a photo The Wolak (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aah fair enough, but in that case the {{ill}} template should be removed, as no pl:Roman Warszawski article exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been mulling over your edit[1] to references where Antony Beevor was the author. I have found quite a few other articles where short form references do not seem to point to the right work. The most obvious clue is if the page number is higher than the number of pages in the book. Others are simply perplexing, but are either citing the wrong reference or the wrong page. I think the instance we have seen here is a mechanism as to how this happens. The target work does not end up in the bibliography. If there is another reference by the same author, a correcting editor assumes that the short form ref has the wrong date in it, and changes it. From experience, sorting out exactly what reference is intended – some time after the event – is a substantial puzzle, especially with a prolific author. It is even time consuming to fix if you have one work in two different editions, one of which has some extra material which messes up the page numbering.

First step to stop this problem is for people like me to check that sfn references are actually working before moving on to something else.

A second level of protection from this is hard to recommend. In an ideal world, no-one would edit existing text without its references to hand. In many cases that is an unrealistic expectation. Antony Beevor is someone who has his major publications listed here in Wikipedia – looking up publishers' websites is not a complete answer as many academic authors use more than one publisher – but even then that would not help to identify the 2014 published work in this case, as that is the paperback version of the 2012 hardback edition. (Since page numbers can differ, identifying the correct edition is important.)

It seems to me that a high level of caution is needed by a correcting editor who alters the year of a cited work in a short form reference. With a recent edit, the editor who created the problem can be identified and contacted (whilst they still remember what they intended). With older errors, it may be better to flag the discrepancy on the article talk page in the hope that a subject expert will take up the matter.

Perhaps it is just the type of articles in which I do most of my editing (small numbers of published experts, each with several publications), but I see this as a big problem in ensuring verifiability of Wikipedia articles. That is why I tend to avoid short form references as the full citebook template is more resistant to hard-to-correct errors (if you have an ISBN in each inline citation, you can normally identify the correct work).

Sorry to ramble on about this subject. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I go through I lot of checks to try an ensure I get the right work, including times relying on resource exhange. The Wikilibrary is also very useful. In this case I was sure you'd correct me if I was wrong :). I have an incomplete and out of date list of things to check, any additions would be welcomed.
There are error messages for this type of reference, but they are off by default. If you want to turn them on you can find the details here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors.
I've been working though the backlog of such errors with a few other editors, now 8.5k down from 26k articles. If it can be cleared I hope to make a suggestion that the errors are on by default, and a bot to highlight errors similar to CS1 maintenance messages.
As to page numbers it's an odd one, I've seen instances where inline refs where converted to short forms, and the cite deleted. So I restore the cite, but the page numbers don't match the page number range in the cite and it was always wrong. Ultimately it can only be as correct as the original referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I will take a look at turning on the template error messages. As an only partially related comment, I do wonder how often editors do check article content against references – yes it happens in any sort of content dispute, but in the ordinary flow of editing I suspect that it is quite rare. I say this as I recently researched some relatively over-cited text and found that none of the multiple references supported it. Some of the refs even directly contradicted the article text. The multiple references are a barrier to checking, as it is difficult to get to read all of them, so in good faith one presumes that the the unconfirmed content is in the source that you cannot access. I do wonder how common this sort of thing might be in Wikipedia. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From working through many articles, I'd say that in general someone writes or overhauls and article and at that point the referencing can be quite good. Genuinely fake/hoax referencing at that scale is unusual, although it does happen (see the history of History of Hinduism in Afghanistan for instance). However overtime edits are made and the quality of those changes vary a lot. They may improve the article and it's referencing, or they may add/change content without changing the references. Sometimes the references just end up in the wrong place, so they don't cover the detauls they're next to buy do cover part of a section higher up in the article. That's a common result of edits adding unreferenced details in-between referenced details and their references. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the overview. The instance I looked at appeared to result from one editor who, in my opinion, allowed their passion for the subject to get in the way of due objectivity. I suspect they were aware they were doing it, as they changed from a very active (and quite aggressive) participant on the article talk page to ceasing any involvement in the article. This was after I pointed out (in as non-confrontational manner as I could) that there was misrepresentation of references. After a one week ban for edit warring on an article content matter elsewhere (in which they appear right on the content issue) they have voluntarily (and bitterly) withdrawn from editing. Since they have been a prolific editor, one has to worry about the huge quantity of material that needs to be checked. Somewhere in all this there is probably a psychology thesis, but not from me :) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to counter this is with editors who know the subject area. Otherwise a knowledgeable editor can run wild. Most of Wikipedia's checks and balances are more generalised, so don't do well against any insidious attempt to misinform.
Thankfully in most high visibility articles there's a good balance of editors looking out for such things, but the more minor or esoteric the subject the more likely it can slip by. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mpnader (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, May I ask you to help me with grammatical correction in Battle of Kiev (1941) article? I'm somewhat inexperienced in writing work to English in Wikipedia. If you are not willing yourself, Would you please recommend someone else for this work? Thanks in advance! Mpnader (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, they are likely much more qualified that I am. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Your recommendation is very helpful. I didn't know there is such a wikiproject. Mpnader (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very helpful project, you may also be interested in WP:MILHIST an active group of editors interested in all things military history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to chase other editors away from like you tried with me here? The fact that I had already left the discussion doesn't justify you chipping in.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I'm being serious I have absolutely no clue what you're referring to. I replied to a massively confused thread, that seemed to be veering off into matters not related to the reliability of a source. My comment was in that regard nothing else, it absolutely certainly had nothing to do with you in particular. Because, and I can't make this plain enough, I have no &#$%ing clue who you are?!?!? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said "go somewhere else". This was aimed at me. Therefore you do not want me to participate in that discussion. Don't pretend otherwise.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ever remember interacting with you before that thread, please do tell me if I'm wrong. But as I have basically agreed with you argument about the source being reliable, I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion you have. A similarity of words is poor evidence to cast aspersions on my intentions. I'm sorry if I caused offence that was never my purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. My prior edit in the caption of the image was reverted, so I added the text to the subsection instead, forgetting about the wrong year. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, easy mistake to make -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two years and only 8,000 articles with no target errors left to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Are you glad you made an account, rather sticking with IP editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a user page to store links has been handy, and it's certainly avoided having to fill out an enormous amount of edit requests ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does it stand for? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Contact Unit -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]