User talk:Wham2001

Archives

For new visitors: Welcome! Please leave new messages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes (~~~~). If you message me here I will reply here; if you're not logged into an account I may leave {{tb}} on your IP address's talk page.

For returning visitors: Welcome back!

Note: My watchlist gets over 1000 edits per day so I don't look at it any longer. If you want my input in a discussion, please ping me or write something here. Wham2001 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter edit

The edit you just made to Jimmy Carter made the footnote look better, but it removed the link to page 45. You can see that in the footnote at the bottom of Talk:Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia. I don't have the skills to do this; would you please do it? Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @Maurice Magnus – fixed. There is a more elegant way to produce these links using Template: Google Books URL or something similar but I don't think it's worth the extra effort, personally.

If you frequently edit articles that use {{sfn}} and friends, may I take the opportunity to plug this script, which highlights shortened footnotes that either don't link to a source or link to multiple sources? I find it very helpful for reference gnoming

Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references for 1838 Mormon War

The references section of this article is very old. Many of the sources now have online versions available. If I'm careful to preserve the citations (the ones that are accurate; I've found a couple that do not say what is claimed and one that did, but was placed incorrectly in the article) is it okay for me to redo the Notes and References the sections into the bog-standard References section with the citations that give a reader the link to the online source when they mouse over the citation? The way it was done originally was excellent for 13 years ago, but it's very obsolete. Readers I see around me in the library, at internet cafés and at home don't really want to click through a note to a reference section. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two months later I guess this is pretty stale, but: in theory you should ask on the article talk page if you want to change the citation style in an article, but if the article is largely abandoned and you are doing major renovation work nobody is likely to care. You can also add gbooks links to sfns, btw. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

History of Christianity has been completely reworked and is nominated - again- for FA. Please take a look.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jen – I will try to find time to take a look, though my wiki-work is very limited by non-wiki-work right now. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Gerda! I hope you are singing something glorious for Easter

Wham2001 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Domingo

Hi User:Wham2001- I recently made significant edits to this page, and was just curious to know why you decided to reverse them? I wasn’t duplicating information that was already there, but was aiming to enhance the narrative that the page presents, including information that it is missing. I’d be grateful for more information on why this got removed. ThanksAde1a1de (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response @Ade1a1de – I've not had much time for Wikipedia the last couple of weeks. I reverted your edits because one of them duplicated most of the content of the article – see this diff. This is probably an obscure browser bug, because I see it happen to editors from time to time and they usually aren't aware. I suggest that you have another go at making the edits – I would have tried to unpick the bits that you'd changed myself but in my experience doing that with most of the article present twice is very difficult. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wham2001, thanks for your reply and no worries! Just to clarify (because I’m not sure I’ve understood what you mean), which edit was it that duplicated the article? And did that mean that I copied my edited version in without removing any of the original? I am intending to try and reinstate some of my edits, but that might be slightly harder now because some more recent work has been done on a lot of the sections. Thanks Ade1a1de (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – it was this edit at 13.55 on May 8. As you can see from that link a big chunk of text ended up in the article twice. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for this edit, I didn't look at the edit history and thought some funny business was at hand. Thanks again!

- Plasticwonder (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should apologise since I didn't notice that I was reverting you – I make so many edits of this sort that I don't remember most of the individual articles, sadly. But I think everything is fine now. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Comaford

Hi Wham2001, I am editing Christine's Wikipedia page, and noticed you removed some content that was deemed promotional, you also noted spaces where I needed to add citations. There are also 3 notices at the top of her page that I need to address. Would you be able to help me make the appropriate fixes to remove these notices?

Couple of questions: 1. I added citations for those that I could find, however there are 2 that I cannot find citations for, I will ask Christine and if she does not have a citation for these do I need to remove these sentences?

2. Is there any way I can reword those sections you removed so they do not sound promotional and then add it back to her page?

Thanks for your help with this. I want her page to be in good standing. 2601:CB:8101:E400:F569:2F47:4278:E766 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank-you for reaching out to me here. If you are employed by or closely associated with Christine then you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article directly. There is advice on dealing with conflicts of interest on Wikipedia here. In summary, you should locate suitable sources and then make edit requests on the article talk page – there are a number of editors who patrol such requests and they will discuss your requests with you and take action as appropriate.

Regarding what sources are suitable for use on Wikipedia, this guideline describes what is looked for in a suitable source. Essentially it should be reliable (i.e. from an origin known for high-quality, accurate and neutral work), independent (i.e. not associated with the article subject) and published (so that readers and editors can verify the information it contains). In an ideal case, the article should contain only information drawn from such sources, and should give weight to such information in accordance with the weight it is given in the sources; this is the kernel of the neutral point of view policy which is central to how Wikipedia works.

Finally, I would recommend looking at the Wikipedia policy on writing about living people. This is mostly concerned with ensuring that biographical articles are written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

Having said all that, I hope that the answer to your question 2 is now clear – we should work forwards from what the sources say, and you should summarise them and present the summary in an edit request on the article talk page.

Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked your copyedit (as you requested)

You asked me to check your edit on the 1995 Gdańsk gas explosion page and yeah it's a mistake. If you go to the original Polish page and look at the passage: "Kilka dni przed zdarzeniem zaczął wywozić z mieszkania jego wyposażenie" then you can look at the citations and it's 123-125, and 2018. So it was a mistake I made after writing a lot. Thanks for correcting and doing some other edits on that page. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 12:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great – thank-you for checking!

12:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC) Wham2001 (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN Changes

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in the Hands of the Cause article. The change of ISBN you made in the article, makes me wonder if the pages in the same book with different ISBN will have the same numbers. Thanks for your clarifications.Bineshgardi (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So there are two answers to this question. The first is: this is a potential issue, and for that reason I would not have made the edit I did under normal circumstances. However, the ISBN given in the article previously was invalid, as you can see by going to Special:BookSources/0-85398317, and so was probably transcribed incorrectly by the editor who added it originally. My impression is that, for relatively modern books, publishers do not re-typeset them when going from e.g. a hardback to a paperback edition and so the page numbers are usually unchanged, but obviously one can't rely on that. If you have access to any full-text version of the book (I don't) the best thing would be to check each reference and update the ISBN and all page numbers to a version that you know is correct.

The second answer, which I only realised after typing the paragraph above, comes from comparing the old, invalid ISBN (085398317, the dash is immaterial, bolding added for highlighting) and the new one (9780853982319). The first thing you notice is that they are the same except that the new one has a "978" on the front, an extra 2 in the middle, and the final digit is different. The "978" comes because the new ISBN is a 13-number ISBN, which is a newer standard, and the old one is a 10-number ISBN – each valid 10-number ISBN has a corresponding 13-number ISBN and the latter is a new standard will ultimately replace the older, shorter ones. The last digit is different because it's a check digit which guards against transcription errors and so the additional "978" on the front causes it to be different – there's an explanation of ISBN check digits here. And the 2 is missing in the old one, which was why it was invalid in the first place.

So TLDR: the new ISBN is the 13-number version of the old ISBN once its missing digit has been re-inserted, so they refer to the same edition of the book and hence the page numbers are still correct (assuming they were correct in the first place!)

Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I get it! Thank you for your prompt and educative response. Bineshgardi (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001 Hello again!

I found the book in question. It has 3 ISBNs, 0853982309 above the barcode, 9780853982302 below the barcode, and 0-853982317 on the jacket of the back of the book. The one that you offered (9780853982319) is no where in/out of the book to be found. very interesting. I tried the 4th one, and it worked. What are the other ones on the back of the book then?! Very curious. Thanks!:) Bineshgardi (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply – I have been too busy for Wikipedia for the last few weeks!

So these ISBNs go in pairs. 0853982309 and 9780853982302 are an ISBN10 and ISBN13 pair, as are 0853982317 and 9780853982319 – I've highlighted the overlapping parts again. So the first two ISBNs make sense. The third one is odd. If you ignore the final digit, which is a check digit calculated from the rest of the ISBN, it's essentially the original ISBN plus 1. As I understand it publishers often reserve ISBNs in pairs or threes e.g. for a hardback and then later softback edition, or for a printed and ebook edition. Reprints don't get new ISBNs, but reissues with different pagenation etc. can. So I can't see why a single volume would have two ISBNs on it, and the ISBN article doesn't give any helpful suggestions. It is of course possible that the publisher has made a printing error and put the ISBN for the softback edition on the hardback, or something similar. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! No matter when your responses arrive, they are always valuable, appreciated, and welcomed. Thank you very much! Bineshgardi (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Wham2001. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mz7! Wham2001 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Input on Theravāda Template for Charles Henry Allan Bennett

Hi Wham2001, I’ve proposed adding the {{Theravada}} template to the Charles Henry Allan Bennett article to highlight his Theravāda contributions (see proposal). Given your content and citation edits in 2021–2024, your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! AK108B (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!

From SuperHamster and SuperGrey, 05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.

Citation style for Napoleon article

hello there

About a year ago you made the citation style of short footnotes in the Napoleon article more consistent by changing sfn to sfnp. I have just discovered that many citations use harvp. There are 268 cases of sfnp v 193 Harvp. I would like to make all citations sfnp as this is the majority style. However, I am hopeless at source editing. Do you know a quick and easy way this can be done? Thanks in advance for any help.

Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the answer to that is no. I've converted the references that I can do quickly and easily, but the named references will have to be done by hand, as far as I'm aware, and that will be very boring given how long the article is. Personally I see {{sfnp}} and {{harvp}} as two elements of the same citation style – sfnp is more convenient but harvp provides more flexibility for e.g. including other text in the reference. But I can see why you would prefer to have just one or the other. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for doing that so quickly! My long term goal is to get this to GA status so I will convert the others individually as I check each reference. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible – good luck at GAN when you get there! It's certainly a topic that deserves a good article, but I can't imagine how many books you will need to work through... Best, Wham2001 (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

Collapsed sock request

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are also some historians who confirm that Egypt won the October War, pointing to the destruction of the Bar Lev Line and the successful crossing of the Suez Canal.

Please add in the "Aftermath" section: Military analyses differ: some believe that Israel won, others that Egypt won, while some consider the result to be inconclusive.

Trusted source:https://epselectric-egypt.com/en/news-details/9 XBOX1235 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request belongs at the article talk page, where I see you have already proposed the change and there is an ongoing discussion. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me on I Wayan Koster

Collapsed sock request

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Could you please bring back the good socks edit here? It's just a "poorly written content" issue, but the source is reliable 2400:9800:701:D60A:8882:C4A4:A9D4:8446 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe the changes that you think should be made to the article, complete with sources, at the article talk page. You need to gain consensus there and then make an edit request. I have no expertise in this content area so I'm not going to dive into the article to make changes based on a vague request here, particularly given how sock-infested the history is. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on your recent edit to the University of Michigan article

Hi @Wham2001, I noticed that your recent edit to the University of Michigan article reinstated a version similar to what I had previously proposed — summarizing multiple reliable sources in grouped citations (e.g., “flagship,” “elite,” “selective”). Your edit was reverted again by GuardianH, citing "ongoing discussion." However, the issue has been under discussion for two months, and at present, no other editor (including ElKevbo, who opened the 2020 HIGHERED REP RfC) supports that interpretation.

I’ve opened a neutral thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to get wider community input on these grouped notes, and whether HIGHERED REP applies to citation formatting in article bodies.

Since you’ve independently reached a similar editorial judgment, your perspective could really help clarify the matter for others. Would you mind briefly commenting there?

Thanks for your time, I truly appreciate your contribution and your balanced approach to improving the article. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this message doesn't really comport with the advice in WP:CANVAS to avoid Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.. I'm going to take that as my excuse to avoid engaging with the enormous wall of text on the article talk page. Good luck finding some consensus on what the article should say. Wham2001 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. My intent was only to let you know about the NPOV noticeboard discussion. The summary in my message was just meant to give quick context, since the talk-page thread has become quite long. Appreciate your time and the feedback. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, Wham2001. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
- There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
- There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
- This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

How to use Special:IPContributions
How automatic IP reveal works
How to use IP Info
How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content mtv

hello wham i removed the content bc it goes against my religious beliefs so pls delete again ~2025-34010-24 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored to comply with your religious views (or indeed mine or anybody else's). Wham2001 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple references to the same book but with different pages

Thanks for working on the Mozart Jupiter symphony. I am struggling with the referencing because there are a number of references to the same book but to different pages. You have replaced these with a single reference and a page range, but this misdirects readers as one of the references lies outside the range. How should I have dealt with this?

Rconroy (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rconroy, the references that I inserted use the {{sfn}} template. I gather that you're using the visual editor. If you click on any one of the references that are generated using sfn you should get a message that reads "Template; generated from: Sfn". If you then click on the "edit" button you get an interface where you can enter the correct page number or page range for each of the references. Looking at the visual editor now I see that the sfn references don't work properly in the preview, but when you save the page you should find that the references separate to give a different page number / range for each one.

If you can't get it to work, let me know what the page number / range should be for each one and I can fix it myself. My personal advice would be to switch to using the wikitext editor instead – it has a bit of a learning curve but is more flexible and doesn't hide the details of what is going on under the hood, so to speak. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks – I used the visual editor for years, but hadn't thought of getting back to it to fix the references.

Rconroy (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campobello Update

Hi I am trying to update the Campobello Page and add tourism as a specific section. I am not sure what the issue is? Nbking24 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aldous Harding

Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to fix my mess. I simply forgot I was in the midst of editing, when I got distracted. I restored my edits and finished them. The only problem, as far as I can see is the url-access in cite news (Template:Cite news allows it). Do you know how? MenkinAlRire 16:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank-you! I hope you didn't find my edit summary too rude! I was simply struggling to work out what was cited to which source adequately. Re |url-access=: you had made an unobtrusive spelling error which I have fixed and now it works

Best, Wham2001 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you say, I just heard your frustration speaking. As I saw the open edit window a couple of hours ago, I was shocked by all the fat red font and immediately tried to fix it, like you, I suppose. Yesterday(?), I wasn't sure yet if to incorporate notes, so identical refs would go with a single ref name, and quotes extra. Also there was some irritation, because some refs I first used in de.WP, so I had to translate them properly (I guess, there is tool for it somewhere).

A year or so ago, I assembled a comprehensive lot of articles and had begun to structure them. But now this job is way off-topic for me, and I am difficulties to concentrate in general at the moment. I would like do get the article somewhat finished (before a new album attracts new attention), but I realize it would have been better to use the sandbox.

Since you have archives here, 2001, is not your birth date, I guess. Wham2001 really sounds like 1980s tool, one of the first power drills with air percussion or something like it. But you probably just like George (and Stanley). Best wishes, MenkinAlRire 17:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my Wikipedia experience is that one finds what looks like a reasonable and interesting task, and only after getting started does it become obvious that it's unmanagably large, by which time one is in too deep to stop entirely. I don't remember clearly how I got started working on reference errors – I think I wanted a few weeks off before doing another day-of-the-year back in, hmm, May 2020.

I had to look Stanley up, I'm sorry to say, and that led me off down a hole reading about Roy Lichtenstein and ultimately somehow the Coverdale Bible. Nobody's ever called me a "1980s tool" before but it's a pretty accurate description. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you could laugh about it, like I just did. I wasn't sure about the impact of the double-entendre, so I felt pretty adventurous. But obviously it went down the right pipe. (I expect you got Stanley ->2001 right.) Best, MenkinAlRire 18:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that I landed on the Wham stadium instead, where Acrington Stanley play; so a double-entendre in two senses, perhaps. I read the book of 2001 some time ago – back when it was set in the future – but saw the film only recently. Taking them the other way round the book must come as rather a disappointment. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Hi @Wham2001, I want to let you know I've reverted one or more of your contributions because they do not seem constructive. If you think I made a mistake or have questions, you can leave a message on my talk page. Please note that continued vandalism may lead to restrictions. Unforttely (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unforttely (a) You haven't reverted any of my edits and (b) while I understand that you are annoyed by me having reverted your work, you would be better off taking my advice into account before editing again. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false source so it has been removed. Unforttely (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prothom-alo is false source so it has been removed. Unforttely (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I follow – which article are you talking about? Wham2001 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault, it's not you, it's someone else. Unforttely (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks for clearing that up. PS: I tidied up the reference that you just added to East Pakistan – you need to have a <ref> before the reference starts and </ref> after the ref ends. It's easiest to use the button in the editing toolbar instead of adding references manually, in my experience. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try my best next time, Thank you for the advice. Unforttely (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for correcting the errors in the Battle of Kapetron article. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

Wham2001 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Wham2001 Kartal1071 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]