|
|
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
Thank you! :) ~ Tom.Reding & his 200-some-odd lines of regex (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
There's nothing quite like cleaning up a good, 'ol-fashioned clusterfuck. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply Barnstar awarded
A barnstar for you!
Another barnstar for you!
Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: {{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
The AWB Barnster
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply Congrats on joining the million edit club!
A barnstar for you!
ADobos torte for you!
You have used your gifts well, Padawan
7&6=thirteen, thank you :) And I really should take the test, but I can't be bothered while editing...perhaps that is or should be one of the questions?? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply A barnstar for your efforts
A barnstar for you!
I see we both have OCD. I had no choice but to give you this barnstar. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
A Barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
For improving Navseasoncats
|
Greetings Tom.Reding, After your previous assistance, my article is now available on Wikipedia, it is confirmed. And that inspired me, now I wrote more articles which are exist in other languages, but they are not confirmed yet. Can you please check them out for confirmation this time too?
Thank you very much I appreciate it -Film Contributor
Film contributor (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi Tom.Reding, a couple of months ago you helpfully made an adjustment to the Module:Category described in year to add lichens. Since then, I've been populating the categories, and plan to continue doing so, as part of a long-term project to make article for all lichen species (especially those published after 2000). I was wondering if there would be a simple way to have the total number of articles in the subcategories displayed on the "Lichens described in the xxth century" page? I ask because every couple of weeks I manually add up these subcategory numbers to keep track of my progress, and I realised that there's probably a simpler way to do this that I'm not aware of. I think a "total articles" count would probably be useful for all of the "Module:Category described in year" iterations. Is this desirable/doable? Esculenta (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Tom,
I apologize for overwhelming your talk page with notices but I feel obliged to inform editors when a page they have created has been tagged for deletion. And it looks like you created the majority of categories in Category:User pages with authority control information which were recently emptied (see discussion on Template talk:Authority control).
There is no need for you to do anything, if the categories remain empty for a week, they will be deleted. Of course, feel free to remove these notices from your talk page when you return to edit Wikipedia so you can see more urgent messages. And thank you for all of your work with templates! Liz Read! Talk! 20:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I hope you are well. Please review Mehran Ghafourian's draft. I made some changes. If the article is rejected again, write the reason. Thanks for your following up Amir ghpro (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I added a history section. You removed it. What do I need to do to fix it? Thanks, Konroy Konroyb (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
You have previously edited Cardiff Arms Park. An editor has decided to split the article (yet again). I would like to know your view on the new edit....see Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park#Article_Split_(again). SethWhales talk 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Tom.Reding: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RV (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Two years! |
---|
Hi Tom.Reding! Looking forward to hopefully seeing you at Sunday's wiknic. At Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/DC/Wiknic_2023#Different_location_for_the_wiknic? I raised a question about location — I'll copy it here for convenience but if you could answer at that talk page that'd be really helpful. Thank you!
Apologies for the late suggestion: How would folks feel about doing the wiknic at Dupont Circle instead of at Rock Creek Park? Dupont would be easier to get to for folks on the train. I originally chose Rock Creek Park because I was worried about the crowd getting too big (last time I hosted a CentralNotice'd event hundreds wanted to come!), but it looks like there have only been a small handful of signups, which makes Dupont plausible! I'll notify everyone who's expressed interest — please let me know if you have a preference one way or the other. Looking forward to seeing you all!
Please don't do this, the line feeds break the infobox in this specific setup. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
what is the fix for the red errors in Category:1863–64 in association football? looks like a large blow up in Category:Pages with script errors. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Philosophical poets, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
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) 22:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi,
I've noticed that the redirect page "Televisions" points to "Television". In every case that I checked, it's actually being used as the plural of "Television set", which is understandable, since television as a medium isn't normally pluralised. I'm bringing the matter to you because you were the last person to edit the redirect page, and because I'm inexperienced in these matters. Any thoughts? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nokia divested itself of the industries listed below to focus solely on telecommunications."
Hello, Tom.Reding. Thank you for your work on List of minor planets: 626001–627000. User:Herpetogenesis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Fabulous work!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Herpetogenesis}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Both articles are now about cardiac stenting - and PCI. I took the DES article on as a personal project and it has been fleshed out to include PCI and I have also attempted to follow best practices in the layout and structure for a GA type of article.
I am exploring how to merge the articles, they are so very similar but the DES article is I think a child of the CS article.
Just testing the waters - I think they can be rolled into one document - within the GA framework as described on the DES article tp.
Your name was on one or the other articles , and you are an experienced editor - so just politely reaching out.
Thoughts, ideas, how to?
Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Tom.Reding :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was wondering why Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects had dropped by about 1,000 since I last checked it, then I saw Special:Diff/1188437036! Thanks for adding that - I have little to no experience in the subject area; but, on the face of it, it makes sense to me to separate the non-Wikidata-linked minor planet redirects to Category:Minor planet object redirects missing QID (as you’ve done). Now to do some more work on fixing some unlinked Wikidata redirects
All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
AtAsthenotricha amblycoma, you added a blank line after the taxobox, which I had asked for at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_48#Mass_cleanup_edits?. The other part of your edit was putting {{Commons}} and {{Wikispecies}} before {{Reflist}}, which I had not understood to be one of your proposed WP:TREE cleanup. There are many WP:TREE articles with templates for Commons or Wikispecies links that do not have corresponding pages on Commons or Wikispecies.
Would it be feasible for you to check whether Commons/Wikispecies pages exist in your WP:TREE cleanup efforts and remove the interwiki link templates when the pages do not exist rather than just reshuffling where the templates are placed? Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates, so on small pages with no, or an empty, EL, the templates end up at the top of the references section.
I don't know if you've spotted that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 3#Template:Back to top was procedurally closed a few days ago in favour of a TfD you indicated you'd be opening, but it doesn't appear you've done that yet. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why are yo making changes like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_621&diff=0&oldid=920463840? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
|mf=y
or by default, depending on the template. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Use the parameter |date= for the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found." ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Template:R from category navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Category redirect. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlastertalk 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please stop engaging in WP:MEATBOT edits like this and this, that make no practical changes to the article from the readers's perspective and fix no actual broken code from the editors' perspective. There is no point whatsovever to twiddling with the "Use [xxx] dates" template's date-stamp when no dates' formats were corrected, nor replacing template redirects with the actual template name. All this does is annoyingly hit people's watchlists with pointless changes and waste all our time examining them. This problem is why we have MEATBOT. It is permissible to make non-destructive but not actually helpful twiddles of this sort only if they are made in the course of other changes in the same edit that are actually substantive. (e.g. this was fine since it subtantively fixed a MOS:DASH error in the course of making twiddles that were otherwise not objectively useful). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
sacrifice[ing] quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity"; I'm doing the exact opposite, checking each edit that is itself checking hundreds of templates to be in their correct location as per WP:MOS/Layout. I decided to start at the shallow end of the "Use [xxx] dates" templates pool, with pages with relatively few, or 0, of these mistakes. Even so, I'm watching for frequent unintended results that need to be accounted for. I suppose I could make a WP:BOTREQ for the pages with 0 other fixes, and they will likely be addressed by other editors by the time it gets approved, so 6 in one hand vs. half a dozen in the other.
substantive" - the edits are substantive because, if nothing else, they update a tracking category.
and fix no actual broken code from the editors' perspective" - the point of confirming that a page still follows an old date format (see right above @ #Confusing edits), is to allow editors to easily find the pages that do need date fixes.
But I'll address pages with more complex fixes to avoid confusion.Thank you. If the edit in question does something that is actually necessary for WP:P&G compliance, repairs an actual technical error, or improves the content for readers, then no one is going to object. As for the other bits:
sacrifice[ing] quality in the pursuit of speed or quantityis not the only criterion. In particular, bot-like editing is by definition editing that is like that of a bot, and bots are not permitted to make such non-substantive changes (by themselves) per WP:COSMETICBOT. If you think you've discovered a loophole, you have not. (Various editors going around making trivial and costmetic edits of this sort have been topic-banned or blocked when they don't stop. It's not like I just made this up out of nowhere. I had to change my own cleanup-editing habits to compensate as a result, because I used to do stuff about the same as what you are doing.) There is no reason to update the tracking category if nothing at the article has changed; there is absolutely nothing wrong with an article that has
{{Use DMY dates|October 2018}}
in it remaining in the Oct. 2018 category, if none of the dates in it were non-compliant. So, that is non-substantive. The fact that editors might like some kind of distingishing between two categories of articles (or articles that could be separately categorized by some criterion but are not yet), based on some formatting in them, is not a matter of broken code or other errors in the page code. That sounds like you are looking for some other kind of tool or process, and one might need to be created (e.g. automated analysis of date usage in an article and adding a tracking category when one is found to have a mix of date styles). But it is not a reason to go around changing hundreds or thousands of articles in ways that affect neither readers nor any editors other than you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
affect neither readers nor any editors other than you" - other editors I see operating in this space are Dawnseeker2000 & SSSB, which I believe I am assisting. If I'm not being helpful, please let me know. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply