User talk:Srich32977

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving article quality in May. One of mine was Jadwiga Rappé. --

ProQuest

When the report was accessed it was accessed through ProQuest. You are more than welcome to add an ID, but it is not required. The empty ProQuest ID templates throw an error that causes further cleanup edits behind you to fix. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A few points: 1. If an editor says the citation is "via ProQuest" they should provide the ProQuest data that will verify where the ProQuest citation can be found. (1.a. How do we encourage editors to actually verify such data?) 2. When the "id=" is in the citation, nothing shows up in the article reference listing because there is no actual data in the listing portion of the "id=" parameter. 3. Example: I just now added "|id={{ProQuest|via= }}" to Olive Smithells. I do not see any error message or any listing in the hidden categories. 4. In the particular case that you reverted, I think the error message was generated by a different item in the multiple edits you reverted. 5. Egad! I hope my understanding of what I did is correct. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also raised this issue with you before, and you really need to stop changing these citations to your preferred version. The template documentation for cite news in the template data section for the via parameter, clearly gives examples of accepted usage, Example EBSCOHost, Proquest, Newspapers.com. This has been brought to your attention before as seen here, and over the objections of several editors now, you continue changing them, when it's clear you don't have consensus to keep on changing them, so please stop, as continuing this editing behavior could be potentially seen as disruptive. Additionally, when you needlessly changed one as seen here, you didn't even bother to check if there was an online version of that source, which I easily found. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Politics of the Arizona Borderlands

An article that you have been involved in editing—Politics of the Arizona Borderlands—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Horse.staple (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for tidying up different corners of Wikipedia. Well done. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes in DOY articles

Hi there, I've recently reverted changes you made to May 16 - specifically where you replaced the – character(s) with an actual en dash. Please notice that WP:DOYSTYLE mandates the use of –. I can see that you are using WP:AutoEd - I haven't used this myself, but if you can ensure that it does not make these changes automatically, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwipete: I'm unclear on this. As you point out, DOY:STYLE says we should use a – (ndash). But it only gives us the actual " – " as the example. It does not give us "&ndash" as an example. Nor do we see " & ndash; " In my editing I go to the "Wiki markup" tool at the bottom of the editing screen. By clicking the endash character I get a the " – " character. An then I can add spaces before & after the –. (I do not know how or where to insert or use " – ".) But we also have {{snd}}, which produces " – ". I think the objective is to get ndashes in the markup for reader clarity. Seems that either method is good editing. – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977 - I've edited the particular statement in WP:DOYSTYLE that I think you're referring to. The requirement should now be clear to use "&ndash" rather than any wiki markup. If you want to discuss this further, it might be better to do so at the DOY project talk page so that other project members can contribute. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June thanks

Thank you for improving article quality in June! - I heard this music, yesterday, - streamed a day before at a different location. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice Uria-Monzon and her story, Julia Hagen and her no story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Bach's day of death, I decorated my user pages in memory of his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm Patar knight. I noticed that you have been adding short descriptions to articles. However, the short descriptions you added are too long to be effective, such as at Valentine Blacker. The guideline is that short descriptions should ideally be under 40 characters long, and no longer than needed. For more information, see the short description guidelines. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN gnoming

Could you please refrain from "cleaning unnecessary hyphens from ISBNs" going forward? There's no consensus for you or any gnome to be doing that—in fact, there's an explicit consensus to refrain from going out of one's way to fiddle with ISBN hyphenation in general iirc—and believe it or not, breaking up a string of numbers into smaller groups, each a few digits each long, has a clear positive benefit one can ascribe. Remsense 🌈 论 16:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Edits like the ISBN and date/year parameter name changes in this one are useless at best, and potentially removing useful information. Please do not remove ISBN hyphens. You have been blocked in the past for disruptive gnome edits like these. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to desist from undesirable ISBN editing behavior in:

Those were just the ones that I could find. I expect that there are more. Do you have an explanation for your return to this objectionable behavior? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: The edit you link was done to give us consistency (see WP:GOCE) in ISBN presentations. Same objective applies to most of the other ISBN edits. And as most readers look at WP via computer, it doesn't matter to them if the ISBNs are hyphenated. If they want more info on a book they click the ISBN number (hyphenated or not) and arrive at the proper Book Sources page. Regarding book dates, while WP citation templates allow for days and months in book citations, it is very rare in actual book citations to find that the month and/or date of publication is important. Book copyrights are posted in a year-only format. (Look at your own actual books and at Library of Congress Catalog Card Category Numbers (LCCN's). That is what you will find.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to continue reformatting ISBNs in this way that many editors object to, or do you intend to stop doing so? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see that you have answered the above question with your contributions immediately following the above posting. I have started an ANI thread about this behavior, which I would not have done if you had either stopped this objectionable editing or listened to any of the editors who have taken the trouble to visit your talk page with friendly requests about this issue over the past ten years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for continuing to make ISBN format changes on pages despite multiple editors raising concerns, cautions not to do so, and an open ANI thread on the subject. Seeking consensus on talk pages for these changes is good, but brushing off the ANI and continuing to make these changes actively is not. This is at the point of disruptive editing, and accordingly you have received this pblock until you engage, understand, and accept that this is the case. Please actually engage at the ANI thread.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* @The Bushranger: In the screen just above we receive two different courses of action for overcoming the block. One says "Please actually engage at the ANI thread." The other one says "...add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ... " Seems the COA's overlap, and I'm trying to do both. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "different courses of action for overcoming the block". You needed to engage at the ANI thread instead of just brushing it off as your original response there clearly did. That is only part of the block reason. Once the community is assured that you will stop your disruptive behavior, an appeal here to have the block removed, assuming it wasn't already removed due to that assurance at ANI, would be appropriate. But your comments there and here make it clear that no such assurance is coming, it seems. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Srich32977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Eight comments are listed by Jonesey95 over a 8 year period. Here is my review and summary: * December 2016 – RL0919 says don't remove hyphens. I respond with an explanation. RL0919 seems satisfied as no further comment is given. * January 2019 – Kdammers comments about changes involving page ranges and ndashes. Jonesey95 joins in and adds a comment about ISBN hyphens. Only 1 example that Jonesy95 posts involved ISBN hyphens. And that example produced a consistent scheme of hyphens. E.g., I both added and subtracted hyphens. * March 2019 – Dr Kay blocks for disruptive editing involving spaces in names and initials. Rationale by Dr Kay did not involve ISBNs. Block was removed by another admin. * January 2020 – Jonesey95 complains about typos I had made. * November 2020 – Nihiltres pointed out a typo. A = sign was added to an ISBN instead of a hyphen. * November 2022 – Dudley Miles says he prefers hyphens in the ISBNs. Dudley does not say the edits were disruptive. Sturmvogel 66 kicks in and then is content with my explanation. * June 2023 – A complex discussion about ISBNs. (As usual we do not get actual guidance on how to use ISBNs in citations – do they get hyphens or not?) * November 2024 – I get blocked by DMacks for re-reverting an edit. The rationale given by DMacks was based on a 2023 RFC that had closed with no consensus. What we really need is clearer guidance about WP:CITEVAR. Something that tells us what "established citation style" means. – S. Rich (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unblock from article space isn't necessary to achieve consensus on a particular style to use for ISBN. In addition I see no commitment to stop changing ISBNs in articles or any attempt to address the concerns of other editors. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Again, of the 8 notes posted by Jonesey95 I think we have a Conflation. That is, the comments are listed as if the WP Community is upset about my ISBN-hyphen edits. This is not the case. If we pare down the list to the actual ISBN concerns we have Jonesey95 as the "leader of the (very small) pack". Also, I've received some BarnStars for my editing efforts. Those ought to be counted to off-set the 8 listed transgressions. But to resolve this I will do the following: 1. Confine the ISBN edits to FA and FA-releated articles only. (There are only 7,000 articles to look at.) 2. I will only add hyphens to the ISBNs. (No subtractions.) 3. When I see a mix of ISBN-hyphens I will simply post a note on the article talk page and make my recommendation. 4. Edits which change the ISBN-hyphenation will be marked as WP:MINOR. 5. I'll keep track of the little WP:THANKS related to the ISBN edits. (I don't I'll find any – my search for them for the past two months came up empty.) So, am I good to go? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear, based on my understanding of your unblock request here and your replies on ANI:

You don’t accept that your edits are disruptive.
You will continue your ISBN edits.

Do I have that right? Northern Moonlight 23:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With 315,000 edits I concede/agree/confess that some of my edits were incorrect. But WP:DISRUPTIVE is the actual guideline we follow. It is easy for an editor to say "your edits are disruptive", but the guideline says "Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate policies and guidelines." (AND cases should be supported by "diffs" that pin-point the actual, exact edits that were "disruptive". Accordingly, I do not think my editing meets the "disruptive" guideline. Each ISBN-hyphenation edit was done to provide consistency. So, with the restrictions that I propose I want to renew my effort to improve WP. Those edits will comply with the 5 parameters I list above. – S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977 note the comment by Bushranger: "Please actually engage at the ANI thread.". I think it would be better to post all of this there rather than making an unblock request. Stockhausenfan (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the continued 'confusion' and denial of actually being disruptive is...not promising. (I'll also note that WP:THANKS has no relevance to this case.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a remarkable observation! Basically it says "speaking for the WP Community, I say your edits and comments are disruptive; therefore, you should be blocked." But you do not post any H:DIFFs that actually show WP:DISRUPTIVE edits. Also, forget about the Barnstars and 1,336 Thanks that you've received over the years – they do not overcome the 8 UserTalkPage comments which show how Community hates/loves you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DE can mean failing to engage in consensus building, disregarding other editors' concern, and rejecting community input. This has already been explained to you before. Northern Moonlight 07:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: Hello. We actually have two threads of discussion on my status. This one (above) and a more extensive thread here at the ANI As the points and counter-points overlap I've been unclear on how to respond. I think somewhere I said I'd limit my ISBN-hyphen fixes to Featured Articles only, and post ISBN-hyphen-correction notes on the FA talk page. (In fact I've actually done that.) But I can't find that promise. And then The Bushranger (blocking admin) said "the edits themselves aren't a problem...". It's the way I've responded that Bushranger and other editors don't like. So I've got 8 complaints posted by Jonesey95. On 2 of them we can track my particular edits and see that they were typos. But there are no diffs which show that my comments were disruptive! So please unblockme and I will follow these personal rules: 1. Don't touch and articles edited by the editors listed in the 8 complaints. 2. Confine my ISBN edits to FA articles now and GA articles later. 3. Use the Template:Format ISBN on the ISBNs that really do need fixing. (I'll post a reminder notice/banner over my computer.) Thank you for your review and I'm sorry that we have the overlapping appeals. – S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC). Added comment – Oh, I see I really did propose some editing restrictions earlier. – S. Rich (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]