User talk:Mikeblas

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

WINC (AM)

[edit]

Hi, could you explain these changes that you made? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COPYVIO, Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. I removed links to material that I think is clearly copyvio and left behind the contextual references.
See these related conversations:
That's not "copyright-infringing material, though". That is, quite literally, the actual magazine, yearbook, or almanac in question.
Reading the first post, I see a lot of "maybe", "possibly", and "could be" statements, but nothing that is set in stone. I would highly recommend the community at large have a say on that via AN. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already has the WP:COPYVIO policy, which says that Wikipedia should not link to material that violates copyright. Those links were removed, the references themselves remain. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says that we, Wikipedia, can not publish works, on Wikipedia, that are in violation of copyright. It doesn't say anything about other sites or us linking to those sites. There is also no proof that WorldRadioHistory.com is in violation of any copyright. None of the discussions have came to a !vote for removal. It seems unilateral on your part. I recommend taking this to AN for a community !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please examine WP:COPYVIO more carefully. As I've mentioned, and as discussed in each of the other conversations I've linked, the policy says Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. That means Wikipedia should not link to the content at the site, and those are the links that I have removed. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no proof that the site is in violation of COPYVIO, nor have you provided any reasoning why Wikipedia's rules have influence on other sites. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, your changes have broken multiple sources, plus, you continue to remove sources from other pages (see "copyvio" in your edit summaries). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about editing restrictions

[edit]

He does not want me on his talk page, so I'll answer you here. The one comment a day restriction was, if I recall correctly, mostly a bludgeoning of noticeboards issue. If an actual conversation is happening, I don't think it makes any sense to enforce that rigidly. If bludgeoning is happening, then it should be. The disparaging other editors restriction was mostly about previous over-the-top false accusations about racism or prejudice. But it is concerning to me that an overall battlefield attitude seems to be happening again, as that is the underlying issue previously, and I suspect that those who supported an unblock last year would not be happy about that.

I'm not that editor's guardian angel, nor his parole officer, and in general he doesn't welcome my input, so I don't want to be in the position of sole enforcer. If I see something egregious, I'm willing to reblock him, but I'm not going to check his contribs all the time. If a battlefield attitude (which is, of course, different than simply disagreeing with you!) continues, you might consider pinging the unblocking admin, Ingenuity (purposely not pinged here by me, I'll leave it to you if problems continue). Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background! I Found this ANI thread where the most recent unblock happened (I think). The whole thing seems absurd -- very many little blocks, and now they're unblocked again and causing problems. Reading the ANI page, I don't know how anyone could conclude there was concensus to unblock, or concensus around this list of conditions. Is it not possible for these conversations to result in "no consensus", keeping the status quo? -- mikeblas (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]
Wishing Mikeblas a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined references in Lists of wars...

[edit]

Thanks for picking up on these. I don't know what to do about the editor concerned. I've tried to communicate with them, but they don't appear to believe in using User talk. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat -- I saw you fixed up several, too, and reached out often, so thanks for that as well. I've pinged them in my edit summaries and wrote a couple times to talk, but I was hanging back a bit hoping you would be able to influence them to fix their own mistakes. When editors don't WP:COMMUNICATE I'm never sure what to do about it. -- mikeblas (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red isbn errors have vanished?

[edit]

Hello. Was seeing red errors on cite book Murray 1913, then clicked on (Help), what came back informed that ISBN numbers were created post-1965 so never assigned pre-1965, so started hunting for the reprint edition year & ISBN. That was a few days ago. Now, don't see any red error when assigning ISBN to the 1913 book. Do you know what's going on, am confused. Thank u. --IHTS (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I assume you're asking about History of chess. There, I removed the ISBN number from the citation template. The 1913 edition referenced throughout the article indeed does not have an ISBN number, so the tag was anachronistic. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the (Help) recommendation was to rmv the isbn. (Instead of doing that, my attempt was to find & replace w/ post-1965 reprint publisher & isbn.) But something else is apparently going on here ... I was seeing red isbn errors on Murray book citations, there and elsewhere, which led me to do as stated. But yesterday & today, when I restore isbn parm on a pre-1965 1913 Murray book citation, guess what? No red error.
Here's what I mean (there was red error w/ (Help) info two days ago on this same markup, but not anymore; apparently some WP techie made some unannounced s/w changes?!?) ...
    Murray, H. J. R. (1913). A History of Chess. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-827403-3. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
--IHTS (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Like I said, I removed the ISBN. Your change renamed the anchor for the footnote, which caused several unresolved footnote errors. So I also removed the different date you used in the citation. Once the ISBN was remoed from the citation and the correct date restored, the errors went away. I don't think anything in the templates were changed, and you can see the same errors if you look at the previous versions of the article before and during my changes. -- mikeblas (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but am still confused because as mentioned, the above citation for Murray had the red error, I rmv'd the ISBN, but now since restoring the same ISBN, no red; and even when I bring up the historical version of my page w/ said template that displayed the red error, no red! So logically, something changed, or something am not understanding. --IHTS (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)} I think this might have something to do with Wikipedia:ANI#Template edit incorrectly creating error cat with 25000+ entries needs reverting. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But I guess I still don't understand the question. This version of the article is first. It doesn't show an ISBN errors, but does show about a dozen referencing errors. My intent was to fix those.
My first fix remedied the no-target footnotes, but caused an ISBN number. This is the first time I saw an ISBN error in the article.
My later edit (the third to that article for me) remedied the ISBN error.
If a bug introduced to the ISBN or date parameters in the citation code is afoot, then it seems coincidental. I don't understand why my edits are being questioned. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Floq must be right, because this version of the article, prior to my edit, had a red Murray error, but now it doesn't. I've had no Q re any your edits, came here to try & solve my own puzzlement re disappearing red error on my personal user pg, since you appeared most involved/in the know. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC) p.s. Thx Floq! (Would'a never been able to find that.)[reply]
As I've said, I've never seen the article render ISBN errors, other than after my first attempt at a fix. I'm not sure how to make this clearer.
You don't say what specific ISBN errors you have seen. The one I fixed was legitimate; an ISBN number was claimed for a book published in 1913, which didn't have an ISBN number.
I am not involved in the implementation of the referencing templates. I suppose I maybe have edited them in the past for a simple fix I saw, but this more wide-spread problem has nothing to do with me or these edits. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't obligating you by posting here, you were correcting errors, so thought you might know. I can't regenerate the red ISBN error for you, since some techie has reverted their template coding error. As you see above, the 1913 Murray does have an ISBN specified, and, there's no error. (In the past, there was.) Sorry to have bothered/involved you. --IHTS (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply not seeing what you see, and I'm still not sure what your question might be.
I'm not sure what you mean by "above", but the "Murray 1913" citation presently in the article does not have an ISBN number paramterbecause I removed it.
Sorry that I couldn't help. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat here what was meant by "above":
    Murray, H. J. R. (1913). A History of Chess. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-827403-3. {{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
As stated, this citation doesn't show any red error, but it did show red error in the past before the WP techie reversed their erroneous s/w change. So there is no red error to see, and I cannot recreate the red error, because the techie reversed their s/w change. Again, this citation is the 1913 book, this citation specifies the ISBN, and this citation shows no error. p.s. Floq answered my Q. There is no outstanding Q here. --IHTS (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see that citation in the article. Maybe you're referring to some previous version. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that template was in my own personal user page, and I also discovered the same red error on more than one WP articles containing the Murray book reference (you can check my edit history if further perplexed). Can we be done now?? You seem to want to add question over anything I respond to. I happen to be a good communicator, so I don't blame myself. --IHTS (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Detention International

[edit]

If you are so inclined, could you please fix the article history so that it shows the history of the article that was deleted a few years ago as well as the current iteration? I’m assuming the undeletion board is the place to request this but they were unhelpful the last time I went there. Prezbo (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know how to do that. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, not important. Prezbo (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TEAHOUSE might be a good place to ask for help. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]