User talk:voidxor

Question from Abbeymaguire (07:09, 16 August 2023)

hi, how do i publish a page thats in my sandbox? i have created a page but when i click publish it says not stash content found --Abbeymaguire (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abbeymaguire: Hi, Abbey, and a slightly belated "Welcome to Wikipedia"! Sorry for my delayed response. It looks like you've figured this out, though, by publishing Rozana Montiel and Julia Gamolina. Good work! If you need any further assistance, please reply here. See also Wikipedia:About the sandbox, and note that sandboxes a little different than draft articles (e.g. more freedom to experiment). — voidxor 23:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Norms

Hi Voidxor, I think you are trying to aggravate me by removing my content on Norms. It is incorrect and needs to be removed. Trevor Tmj1994 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tmj1994: Ah, so you can communicate! I've been reverting you and explaining why in my edit summaries for months. I've also left you multiple messages on your talk page.

I'm not trying to aggravate you (see also: our Assume Good Faith policy); I'm trying to defend an article from repeated unexplained removals of content. You need to leave edit summaries that explain your reasons, chiefly. We have guidelines on Wikipedia to keep things orderly, and please keep in mind that I have 18 years of experience editing here.

Now, to the issue of Norms Restaurants, what exactly is incorrect? For reference, here is your most recent edit. The fact that there are currently 21 locations is stated in the body of the article and correctly referenced. You are also removing the mentions of the restaurants all being in the Greater Los Angeles area and Southern California. Greater Los Angeles extends all the way out to Riverside per that article. How is saying that all restaurants are in Southern California incorrect? Have you looked at the referenced locator from Norms website?

Also, as I've said to you repeatedly, please quit removing the wiki syntax that looks like {{As of|2023|October}}; it's there for a reason to do with maintenance of the encyclopedia. — voidxor 23:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation param language=en

Hi, Voidxor, and thanks for your contribution to Zhurong (rover). Please note that you shouldn't remove parameter |language=en when you find it in a citation template. Saying it is only necessary for non-English sources is not quite right, because it isn't necessary for non-English sources either; in fact, no parameters are necessary and you can code the whole thing in plain text without a citation template at all, and still meet the WP:Verifiability standard. However, the citation template offers multiple benefits, one of which is providing structured metadata that is easily machine-readable; adding |language=en takes it one step further, and is helpful, not hurtful. That doesn't mean you have to have it, and I wouldn't normally bother adding it if it's not already there (although I sometimes do, when an English book has a foreign-sounding title, like, let's say, |title=Mein Kampf|language=en). But if it's already there, or if you feel like adding it, it has metadata benefits, and also improves verifiability for translators who pick up our English article and translate it into French, or whatever. So, if you see the |language=en params, please just leave them in place. Thanks again for your improvements to the encyclopedia! Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow. The whole "If XYZ isn't necessary, then ABC must not be necessary either!!" argument is one of the silliest red herrings I sometimes see around here. Grow up. And no, I'm not formatting citations as plain text.

Red herrings aside, see Template:Cite web for my reasoning. In the template list near the bottom, it says, "The language in which the source is written, if not English." After all, this is the English Wikipedia; English is the default. Furthermore, MOS:MARKUP says to omit unnecessary markup because it impedes editing and stands to confuse and discourage new editors. — voidxor 13:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've been unclear. I never said, nor meant to imply, that "If XYZ isn't necessary, then ABC must not be necessary"; I was trying to show a parallelism of user choice where multiple valid options are available. It is a fact of Wikipedia policy that the use of citation templates is in no way required to uphold WP:Verifiablity of content (plain text citations are just as valid); however, they may be used if desired. It is also a fact that when a citation template is used by choice, there is no requirement to use the |language= parameter; however, the parameter may be used if desired regardless of the source language. I hope that is clearer.

You're right about {{cite web}}, somebody added that to the TemplateData section, likely for the benefit of VE users, and that's their opinion, but just like anything on a Template doc page, it's just a bunch of helpful opinions by volunteer editors, neither a policy, nor a guideline. Follow it, if you find it helpful. (I wrote bits of it; hopefully they are both accurate, and helpful.) {{Cite book}} happens not to include that same wording that you quoted, probably because somebody else wrote that part of the /doc there; doesn't mean the |language= param should be handled any differently for books vs. web resources.

Personally, I don't find anything at MOS:MARKUP germane to the question of what citation parameters should or shouldn't be used, for two reasons: if you look at Template:Cite web#Usage, you'll see that the "Most commonly used parameters" example has nine params, and right under that, the full set has several dozen. Does MOS:MARKUP restrict using those additional parameters? I don't think so, otherwise, why have them? But there's a more important reason: the citation templates are neither HTML nor CSS markup, they are part of MediaWiki-designed software that augments HTML/CSS to provide transcludability, so MOS:MARKUP doesn't apply to templates.

I'm sure you noticed I didn't revert your removal of the |language=en because it's valid both ways. Something to keep in mind, is that MOS:VAR does say you shouldn't flip from one valid format to another valid one just because you prefer it, and that may apply here. I won't revert you if you flip them, because MOS:VAR still applies just as much after you remove them, as before; it's just that there's no advantage to removing it in the first place. Hope this clarifies what I meant to say. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Career development

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Career development, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Bicolour laser harp in laser harp page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, thank you for advicing me about COI, but I just added a reference on a topic written almost 12 years ago (not by me but speaking of my person of course since I am the inventor) about the invention of the bicolour laser harp. Since the invention changed the way to play laser harps around the world (you can find the same description in many languages verions on wikipedia) and since someone else adviced the a reference was needed in the description >I undid and added that reference. I had the bicoulour idea in 2008 and I called the machine Kromalaser. I am not interested after 14 years in advertising the Kromalaser (as other people is doing with their brand in the same wikipedia page lying on informations...), but I think that it is not fair to delete the paragraph about the invention and the improvement I made on the original instrument. since then all laser harps made in the world use my idea to distinguish tomic and diatonic by colour. So please I promis not to edit by myself the page again, but please put back the paragraph that was there since 12 years or suggest me what is the most correct thing to do to put it back. Best wishes.As you can understand I am an inventor, not a wikipedia expert at all. MaurizioCarelli (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.