User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2021/January

Hi Mikeblas, please see my latest edit for ANU. -- ForMessageOnly (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lookin' good! -- Mikeblas (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for fixing my mistake. You'll note that the same citation appears in another place without using the same name (right now the named one is #12 and the other is #13), and for some reason I thought the one I removed was the aberration. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, “fix duplicate refdef due to edits by User:Mark83” seems like a strange edit summary to me. So I made a very minor error amongst many other edits improving an article. I don’t see how it’s constructive to call that out in an edit summary. Mark83 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In repairing duplicate references, I have to make a guess about what the original editor intended to do. Sometimes, the intention (and therefore the correct fix) is not perfectly clear. In this case, I think I got it right -- but maybe I didn't. And so I note the problem in the edit summary when I try to make the fix. That way, the person who placed the error can review my fix and see if it matches their intention. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have another example at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. You made a change which removed a reference definition, but left behind other invocations of that named reference in the article. Did you mean to remove all uses of that reference, or just that one? I can't tell ... so for now, I replaced the definition in one of the spots where it was previously invoked, and mentioned you in the summary so you might have a look to evaluate my fix. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a constructive reason, I stand corrected. Thanks for the explanation and I'm sorry for being defensive. Mark83 (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I usually don't miss these things on ref consolidation, but I keep hurrying to save on fast-moving articles; otherwise I keep having to re-do the work when there's an intervening edit.-Ich (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It really is terrifying editing articles like that ... how much work might I lose? :) -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...don't ping me for something as minor as this. There's a bot that fixes that. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit left seven different errors in the references for the article of an article that was, before your edits, rendering without error. I think that's pretty substantial, so I don't think it's egregious to notify you that the problems you introduced were fixed and offer you the opportunity to verify those fixes. If you don't want to take that opportunity, or thank me for fixing the problems you've caused, feel free to ignore the ping. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeblas there is a discussion going on at bagel:talk page regarding edits, please do not undo an edit without first engaging in discussion and seeing what is going on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figsandpecans (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I made didn't undo anything. I removed some unreferenced material; that's quite normal for Wikipedia editing. Otherwise, I simply implemented WP referencing and writing style. I don't think you should've reverted the changes I made -- looks like you're actually undoing changes Oliszydlowski made, actually. Please see my note at the talk page of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Relatively new to this, but trying to get up to speed and help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figsandpecans (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add an "undefined reference" to the Dick Irvin article, that thing was already there before my edit, and I have absolutely zero idea of what it is. If you want to target a user, try to target the right one. --Fairhop (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry about that -- indeed, the undefined reference was added just before your edit, by Kaiser matias. Thanks for checking on the fix! -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be a little confused here. I did edit the page, but I never made any changes to the prose. I modified the career stats table, but that didn't touch any reference. The citation error does not appear before then either. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double oops! Sorry about the confusion, Kaiser matias. Let's look at this diff which adds a reference named "OGHHOF" that isn't defined anywhere in the article. Isn't that the version of the article where the error first appears? If so, then that really is Fairhop's edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. That sentence is a copy from Steamer Maxwell (hence the reference to a "Maxwell and the Monarchs"). I've transferred over the proper citation, and changed the name to say Irvin and not Maxwell. Should be good now, thanks for catching that. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks!!1! Indeed, this is why I tag people when fixing edits. The idea is that they need a chance to check my fix; maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. But since I'm un-doing work they have done, they should check it out and see if I've got it the right way around. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]