User talk:SashiRolls

For those who like to rummage, the been is here.

Just so you know, you need to have a (non-breaking) space between digits and SI units. MOS:UNIT has the details. So that American readers don't get too lost, it's best to use unit conversions, explained at MOS:CONVERSIONS. TL:DR – "50km" is best written as {{conv|50|km}} and all is taken care of. Schwede66 00:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66:, thanks for the info. While I think American readers should get with the program I'll keep it in mind if I summarize any further refs. Concerning your kinda bitey comment in this edit summary I actually payed €2 of my hard-earned wages to subscribe to Libération tonight and haven't looked at the fr.wp page. I do tend to copy things from one template to another as I read them and create ref templates and yes I did manage to botch one; I remembered I meant to go back to that but you beat me to it. I hadn't noticed I had typed "titre" instead of "title" and "site" instead of "cite" while writing a title and ref-template after reading the sources in French (nb: the French template is "lien web" not "site news" of course). I'll leave the en.wp entry alone now and let you finish. Sorry for messing everything up, I'm a bit tired.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I fixed the SI units. Might come back after a good night morning's sleep.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making wrong assumptions. My apologies. Libération was freely accessible to me, but maybe that was because I looked at two pages only. It is possible that you can get access to this newspaper via The Wikipedia Library; worth looking into to. Schwede66 05:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 July 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2024 Tour de France, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 23:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this about? Is this about the first edits to Vienne, Isère in 3 months? You, too can go to the history page and select the most recent edit and the oldest edit and compare them, like this. I did manage to get the addition to fr.wp added in only two edits (because the preview button is ergonomically located on fr.wp). :P As for edit summaries for minor edits, is there really, honestly, a need to explain that you are removing an extraneous period due to the difference in referencing style between the two wikipedias? You end up writing a novel to remove a comma. Also, you may not be aware, but you can keep edits marked as "minor" from showing up on your watchlist by updating your options. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly don't understand what "this is about", I would suggest comparing your contribution history to those of editors who consolidate their edits and provide summaries. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Leaving edit summaries makes the collaboration easier. Eric ^talk 00:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading, I assume the better English word is "disband" rather than "dissolve"... on the Vienne (Isère) page where I notice my substantive edits do indeed have edit summaries... Keep in mind that people's brains work differently and mine doesn't always work very well. When I make a non-minor edit I'll try to keep in mind that some people prefer explicit ES rather than the more common "ce" or "copyedit". I would appreciate if you would consider focusing your energies on more problematic things like this where the summary is clearly misleading. (admittedly I've already solved that specific problem...) Hope you're doing well. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vienne, Isère, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manège.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page H. H. Asquith, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard UK spelling of "dispatch" is "dispatch". Cf. ngram of British English only, showing that since the beginning of the 21st century even insular English has returned to the original correct phonetic spelling (borrowed, of course from Italian dispacciare during the period of Italian financing of naval exploration (Cf. Genoa & banking))... Feel free to revert your error. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, having looked it up in OED, it is from either Italian (i) or Spanish (e). As for "phonetic spelling" (an alien concept to English), OED gives duh-SPATCH as it's respelling pronunciation. There is no need for you to impose your preference. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Cambridge (§) and Oxford (§) give the pronunciation of Johnson's respelling as /dɪˈspætʃ/. Insofar as the OED also uses IPA, I'm not sure what this duh- is about... In any case, any further replies go on the article TP, not here. For me, the issue is closed. I will not dispute your local consensus spelling even if dictionaries and usage show the contrary...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 August 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Muhammad Yunus, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's very hard on the eyes striking code. I wish there was a script to easily do it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this, do you have a list of those socks? Thanks. Zero^talk 04:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned all four pseudos on the talk page (you can see the names in this diff). I'm replying there to BM, who says he did not count the first two (IW socks) because they were too recently discovered. BM told me he did not count the two further socks I mention in that comment because they did not have a sock-category on their UP. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was an undercount by the way. For another somewhat higher undercount, here are some stats (they may change - I may remove the logged ArbCom blocks). Note that the numbers change as sock edits are cleaned up, article deleted etc. I support your effort to add a note about the influence of dishonesty via sockpuppetry on the topic area. A single summary line is straight forward. It is justified in my view because the number of revisions exceeds something like the total of the lowest 180+ accounts listed in the stats. However, I do understand some of the technical challenges BilledMammal has to deal with if they want to combine counts under known sockmasters. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not around much any more at all, so I really appreciate your good work in flagging those accounts. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I should mention that I was not the person who identified the account, I just did the !paper work. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whichever; he's blocked (yet again, sigh). Sadly we're not staying on top of him as well as we used to though. JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my addition of Guy Philippe's new political party in the infobox. Did you verify the information first before deleting? Port-au-princien (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as I mentioned on your talk page, the info needs to be sourced. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added it back with a source. I'm surprised there isn't a single link to Le Nouvelliste in the references. Why do you think Haiti's paper of record doesn't consider this noteworthy? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]