Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Dear heart, I need to add a reference that is by someone already in the sources list, published in the same year, but a different volume. Can you remind me how to do that? I number something somehow? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to add a letter to the year, so |date=2019a and |date=2019b for instance. And then just make sure to add the appropriate letter to the refs so they match. You can use |volume= for the volume information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you!! And thank you for my cookies! They were delicious of course! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy, but I have made some kind of error citing an encyclopedia on History of Christianity and I cannot figure out why. It's reference #207. Please help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had me stumped for a second, as it's ref #183 now. But it's fixed[1], unless you use last and year you just have to setup the |ref= field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

183?! What the heck? I'm sorry, I must have edited out something after contacting you. My God - what would I do without you?! From an absolutely selfish motive I exclaim that you must never quit Wikipedia!!!

You know, you have taught me enough that I guessed it had something to do with the ref= but I had no idea about the harvid thing. What exactly is that btw?

You are the best. Thank you. I am still drowning in Christian History, but starting to tread water a little. Thank you for your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that ((harvid)) does is correctly format the link. The correct link would be formatted as CITEREFEasternChristianity2024, but that a pain to type so harvid just makes it easier as you just copy in the format you used in the ref "|Eastern Christianity|2024".

Harvid is really a redirect to ((sfnref)), but I always gind harvid easier to remember.
Happy to hear your making progress, I'm always here if it can help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trust everything's smooth sailing on your end. While the discussion has subsided and I don't intend to reignite it, but I'd like to remind you of this so share your thoughts about TPMM when you have the time. I love to hear your perspective on this source. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]