User talk:Gilgamesh~enwiki

Dust-up on referencing

Hi Gilgamesh, I noticed the dust-up on referencing style at Younger Dryas, and I have something that may help next time. I discovered it too late for a timely comment there, and I probably wouldn't have wanted to get involved in the middle of it anyway, but here's a compromise alternative to think about, that might keep everyone happy, or at least reasonably unruffled, if this same situation recurs: it's List-defined references.

I believe I understand why you like 'exploded' refs (one per line): it's because when placed inline, it makes it much easier to find what is article text, and what is citation wikicode, so you can modify the article without getting all tangled up. I remember a horror show at the 'Eric Zemmour' article, where I simply couldn't find the running text of the lead paragraph, because it was a contentious topic and had so many citations that it was almost impossible to find the words of a single sentence strewn with numerous embedded citations. The spaghetti code at Zemmour made Dryas look like a paragon of minimalist architecture. It was completely unreadable, unmanageable, and uneditable, until I converted it to LDR, and even though it's still ridiculously overcited, at least the lead wikicode is easily readable now in the code-editing preview window. (The trade-off is that the "References" section is way longer than it needs to be now, but it's all tidy and orderly and it doesn't intrude when what you want to do is to edit the lead paragraph.)

If you want to see the old horror show, have a look at the wikicode for the first couple of paragraphs at 'Eric Zemmour' from revision 1057491695 of 27 November 2021, and then compare that to now: Eric Zemmour. The LDR style used in the current version gets you what you want, I believe, in minimizing the WP:CITECLUTTER. I'm pretty sure the other editor you were scrapping with wouldn't mind this style either, because if you edit the current Éric_Zemmour#References section, you'll see it's all nicely organized, alphabetical, and in the 'tight' style he prefers.

If you find that that use of LDRs is an acceptable solution for you and might be a viable compromise for your discussion partner, I hope it may help you in future discussions of this nature. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jarom

The article Jarom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Belated invitation to join the Twenty Year Society

Dear Gilgamesh,

I'd like to extend this overdue but still cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Waters of Mormon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Waters of Mormon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waters of Mormon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

20 Years!

Congratulations! I wish you another 20 years of great contributions! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)