User talk:FrozenIcicle

Welcome!

Hello, FrozenIcicle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just fix the links of Sebastian Stan's birthday. Amirfataei (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation links

Disambiguation links (or dab links for short) like the one you removed here are there to help the reader who came to a different article than the one they were searching for. They do not in any way imply that the linked articles cover the same subject. WP:DABLINKS has more information on the subject. Happy editing! Sjö (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I completely understand and I apologize for removing the link. My only concern is that the disambiguation link says "For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation." The wording implies that male circumcision and female genital mutilation are somehow the same thing and they are absolutely not the same thing. I know that link and wording were removed before for fear it could mislead readers and that's exactly what I fear now. FrozenIcicle (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "female circumcision" is a common synonym to FMG and it would be a disservice to tour readers to not guide them to the article that lies at the proper name. Also, IMO the dab link says something like "it's not called female circumcision, look for female genital mutilation instead". Be that as it may, content on Wikipedia is not removed for being offensive, see WP:NOTCENSORED. But if you want to discuss the dab link, the best place is on Talk:Circumcision where you can start a new topic to discuss this. Sjö (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for regularly archiving all the existing and new sources added to Tini. Its easily accessible and looks much better now. Good job! Sam \| he/him (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! FrozenIcicle (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faster way to archive sources

Hey FrozenIcicle. I don't know if you know this, but there's a faster to archive links. Simply click on an article's history and then click on "Fix dead links". It should take you to a page like this. Check on "Add archives to all non-dead references" and a bot will take care the rest. Erick (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't know that. Thank you so much! I just like to supervise references and watch out for references cited twice or more, and then fix them so it says "a b c" next to the references if that makes sense. But I'll give this a try. Thanks again! FrozenIcicle (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrozenIcicle You're welcome! It depends on the length of the article. The time is dependent on the length of the article. I tried running the bot for Rosalía and it stopped when it caught a black-listed website which I removed. It usually takes about 3-5 minutes. It also corrects references that are reused. Erick (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improving citations using the Citation Bat

Thank you for all the work you've been doing finding archived versions of broken links. I wanted to tell you about Citation Bot, which will fix {{cite}} references with certain problems. Just visit https://citations.toolforge.org/ and log in if necessary, and enter the page title(s) that you are interested in, separated by a | if more than one. You can also submit an entire category there by entering the category name (without the initial "Category:") in the second box. You can only enter one category at a time.

Also, the Internet Archive bot at https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php (the same one you can reach from the page history) allows you to enter several pages at once, each on a separate line, although not a category. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thank you so much for the further suggestions! I'll do anything to archive every Wikipedia reference. Quick question, does https://citations.toolforge.org/ work for archiving sections of large articles (those with 300+ sources) as well? There are many large articles whose sources I'd like to archive, namely that of Brazilian singer Anitta, but https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php doesn't let you archive articles with greater than 300 citations it seems. Any further help would be appreciated! FrozenIcicle (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archive links

Thanks for keeping an eye on dead links, but I did want to make sure you're aware that only dead links need to have the archive link added. Wayback Machine automatically archives all links that are added to Wikipedia, so you really only need to add the archive link if it ends up becoming dead in the future. When using the tool, there should be a button that says "Add archives to all non-dead references"; make sure that's not checked. Adding archive links for live sources just adds a ton of bloat to the articles (in terms of load time, ease of editing the markup, etc.). For example, in the Ariana Grande article, you 'rescued' 246 live sources (none of them were dead) and increased the size of the page by 20% with no evident benefit for the reader. Hope this explains things a bit! Grk1011 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for informing me! I know it may seem counterproductive, but I prefer to archive as many links as possible. Dead or live. I see it as beneficial and time saving to always have it archived if that makes sense. I just want to make sure Wikipedia links are always accessible. And I see tons of live references archived on here all the time. Such as the Wikipedia page for Elon Musk. Regardless, I will try to be more wary of it in the future. FrozenIcicle (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive automatically archives all news sites, and AFAIK they also automatically archive all links cited on Wikipedia, so the archive exists regardless of whether it's added to an article. Regardless of whether you do it on other pages, please avoid doing it at 2023 Israel-Hamas war; it's still a developing article and has hit technical size limits several times, as coverage continues. Archive links are the easiest thing to trim, and last time I had to spend half an hour taking them out to bring the page back under the limit, so please avoid this; thanks - DFlhb (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I just reverted your edit to Steve Martin for the reasons mentioned above a year ago. You added 10,286 bytes of text to the page in order to "rescue" 53 sources, of which 0 (that's ZERO, as in, absolutely none) were dead. Please do not do this anymore. It's more than counterproductive, it's quite annoying. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italians

Hi, unfortunately I also had to cancel your last edit because there had previously been vandalism by an unregistered user. Could you re-insert the sources with #IABot (v2.0.9.5)? I tried manually but it takes too long as there are too many sources. I apologize for the inconvenience. --LukeWiller (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hey! Of course, not a problem. FrozenIcicle (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... :-) --LukeWiller (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Novak Djokovic

Olá amiga Portuguesa.

I was waiting for Djokovic to reach 400 weeks, so that I could be like "Hey, 400 weeks, 400 bytes". But then you showed up, and added +48,000 bytes with archives of sources. You really could not have waited just one more week to do it, couldn't you? I was preparing for this moment throughout the past month and you just screwed up everything!

Estou muito chateado contigo; e em bom Português: Vai pó caralho!

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Kansas City Chiefs

Kansas City Chiefs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Standard Chinese, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrozenIcicle, could you please stop fiddling with/"updating" the {{Use}} date templates? That's not what you're meant to do. Remsense ‥ 论 02:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They need to be updated every once in awhile. FrozenIcicle (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...What? No they do not. The point is to show the editor when the convention was set or changed. Remsense ‥ 论 02:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then for big-name topics or articles at least, why are the date templates often updated every once in awhile? FrozenIcicle (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anyone would think to do so. If anything, it gives a misleading idea that older consensuses aren't as well-established as they are. Remsense ‥ 论 02:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, mea culpa. The parameter |date= is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor or bot checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and, if any inconsistencies were found, fixed them to comply with this template's date formatting preference. I was just totally wrong about this, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens. You're doing great. Keep on keeping on and being an awesome and caring Wikipedian. :) FrozenIcicle (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You as well! Remsense ‥ 论 02:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, the editor has to actually check the date format usage, and not just change the date in the template. I have reverted your edit, along with two others pointlessly adding archive URLs, to Christmas market. If you want to go back and properly use the "Use dmy dates" script, or manually fix the dates to comply, then feel free. I leave it as a learning exercize for you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is what I did pointless? Months and dates in the date format should be updated at least semi-regularly so when archiving or adding new information, it gets formatted correctly and you're not left with "Retrieved 2007-04-03" etc. I see the date formats (and the months/years it was done so) be updated all the time on big-name events and famous people. What's the problem? As for archiving, why WOULDN'T you want as many sources as possible archived? Readers should be able to access the original sources always. And you never know or can predict when a link will be susceptible to link rot. FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, FI. My comment here was mainly about date format templates, but the "pointless" bit was adding a bunch of wikitext to ref citations that do not need to be there. They provide no additional functionality. The links to the cited source still go to the cited source. When and if the source URL ever goes dead, then we can (and should) add the archive-urls but only for the dead links.

What I think you (and many, many other editors) don't understand is that the sources are already being archived, automatically. Your addition of many bytes of wikitext has no effect on getting as many sources as possible archived. The only effect it does have is the needless additional length and complexity of the ref citation wikitext.

Now about the date formats: first of all, the CS1 and CS2 templates already automatically display dates according to the {{Use xyz dates}} template, if present, no matter what the last-checked date is. This means that changing the dates, and even changing the format of individual dates within the {{cite something}} templates makes no discernable difference to our readers. However, dates in the middle of the article's prose, as in "Al Baker was born in Acme, Utah, on 23 January 1934..." should be periodically checked and adjusted to match whatever template has been applied. There's a script to do that, even. And that script adjusts not only any non-compliant dates, but updates the last-checked date in the template.

What I was mainly complaining about was your changing the last-checked date in the {{Use xyz dates|dates=March 1992}} template, without actually doing the checking. It's kind of lying, if you see what I mean.

I hope this clarifies things for you. If not, please let me know here (I'm watching your page). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat understand. But everything you just said somewhat feels like a bunch of jargon. Or rather, my brain doesn't comprehend the difference between using that WP:MOSNUM thing and just updating it on your own. I've seen people update the date format template saying "fixed this using WP:MOSNUM script, and then I look at their edit, and they literally do the exact same thing that I do, the only difference is I don't use all this fancy jargon and links. I just say what changes I made as they are. Also, by archive, are you referring the Wayback Machine? Because there's been quite a few times where I've had to archive references on my own and I go to the Wayback Machine or Archive Today etc. And there's NO archived copy of the article I'm looking for and the link is dead so it ends up being lost forever. One more thing, going back to the date format. I do believe it needs to be updated every 2 years or so. I'll give you an example, I recently archived references on the article for 2007's 30 Days of Night and forgot to update the date format (was last set in 2016 I think) before I archived the sources. So they got archived but I ended up with "Retrieved/Archived 2007-07-30" etc. instead of "Retrieved/Archived July 30, 2007". That only changed when I updated it to the current year and THEN the reference dates got formatted accordingly. At the end of the day, I'm just a girl trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I don't edit war with anyone, I don't vandalize people's pages, I just mind my own business and do my best to follow the guidelines (which seem to constantly be evolving honestly). FrozenIcicle (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing only the date in the {{Use xyz dates}} template has no effect on the displayed date formats. None whatsoever. The changed formatting you see is because you yourself made a manual edit to change|date=2007-07-30|access-date=2007-07-30 to |date=July 30, 2007|access-date=July 30, 2007. (And this is some days after you changed just the template date, which supports my "none whatsoever" statement above.)

These manual changes wouldn't have been necessary by the way, if you had run the script I mentioned. The script changes the formats throughout the page, in both the prose and the citations (although there are ways to selectively exclude some kinds of dates), it updates the last-checked date, and it removes things like |df=mdy, which had an effect on the displayed format as it was. These codes are still there, of course, although they now have no effect (besides cluttering the wikitext).

A nice side effect of using the script is that it adjusts the entire page in one fell swoop, leaving only a single entry in the Revision history, instead of the ten edits your changes cost you.

And on your last point, I can commiserate; there's an awful lot to know and understand about editing here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I had a memory flub. Didn't know I was on trial here. But there HAVE been other articles where I've used the Archive Bot to archive sources before I updated the date format and dates that weren't fixed already in the editing section were not corrected to be consistent with the date format set if that makes sense. Regardless I'll bookmark that script and try to use it the next time I need to fix a date format and make everything consistent. FrozenIcicle (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]