User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

Reference fixing

Can you take a peek at Shit flow diagram and perhaps figure out why some of the sfn templates aren't linking to the sources, like Peal 2020? Any help would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to make and revert a couple of edits, I'll explain in a moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

So you either have to use all the authors in the cites (upto the first four), per my first edit[1], or if you don't want to use that you can setup the |ref= field using {{sfnref}}, per my second edit[2].
A couple of other things. The ref must match the cite exactly, so 'Blackette' will never match 'Blackett' (I checked the linked article, it should be without the 'e'). Also the "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance" cite should always use the |ref= field, if you put "Sustainable Sanitation Alliance" in the |last= field someone will come and remove it (as it's not a proper author). As most editors don't have the error messages on they won't know that they have broken the ref (it's a very common reason for broken links). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I meant to say, you can just revert to whichever version of my edits you like - they both work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Nice to get a chuckle out of being reverted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish used {{sfn}}, it wasn't very effective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

My first essay (maybe)

Hey, I tried my hand at an essay about (mostly) reliable sources alleged to have some sort of prejudice against persons or groups. Do you mind taking a quick look if I missed or misrepresented a community consensus on the topic? FortunateSons (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

What is meant by 'hateful' can be ambiguous. A biased source with content that an editor or group hates will usually be found reliable, but content that is written in hate is usually found to be unreliable (except for the attributed opinion of it's authors).
I personally feel that the Telegraph is a appalling newspaper that publishes hateful content and is as reliable as bridge made of cheese, but my great distaste of its bias doesn't make it an unreliable source according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However a neo-nazi website writing about "the Jew" isn't reliable, as hate is something that blinds people to reason and facts. The line between someone's personal distaste of a source for it's bias, and that source's bias being so profound that it affects the source reliability can be a difficult thing to judge. The two examples I gave are easy, but as the difference gets smaller the judgement gets harder (that's why RFCs exist). I would suggest avoiding "hateful" and instead focus on bias (including a link to WP:RSBIAS won't hurt).
I'm unclear what you mean in point 5, it could use some clarifying. Publishing conspiracy theories generally does impact reliability, but I don't think that's what you mean (or at least I'm unsure what you mean).
It might be a good thing to add an exception about sources that explicitly support violence against named individuals, such sources would be covered (and excluded by) WP:BLP rather than WP:RS.
One final point about WP:Hate is disruptive, you have the point a bit backwards. Your essay says "holding such views is disruptive", but the point is the opposite. Holding such views isn't disruptive, editors can be racists, but they can't express racist views on Wikipedia, as that will cause disruption. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, as long as editors aren't disruptive they can hold whatever personal opinions they like (they just have to keep those opinions to themselves).
Good luck with your essay. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s incredibly helpful, thank you very much! I’ll make those changes as soon as I can! FortunateSons (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump

Mobile, desktop site, android, Chrome

Ok, so I'm guessing you use both mobile and desktop and see a performance issue on both. I don't know what "desktop site" is, but I'll hazard a guess on the following:

• Mobile, Android.
• Desktop, [operating system], Chrome

Now if we could just fill in desktop OS, and I'd suggest two bullets (and two signatures) instead of one. That would be peachy. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I use Chrome on an android mobile phone to edit using the desktop site. The entry I added was correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh. We can hope the guys at VPT know how to read that and interpret it. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I hope they can, otherwise they could try reading Cullen328 essay, User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. They've been using something similar for the last decade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You could theoretically edit on a PC using the mobile site, if you were some sort of masochist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

artificial intelligence

Shaun C Samuel brain on code 1221 68.201.194.20 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

On the Dubious Nature of Galusha Marion Cole’s Birthday

Greetings,

I’m not sure how I should address this matter, but inasmuch as you are the first to truly contribute to the article in this respect (which I had established as a subject of discussion previously; but alas! I received no responses), I would endeavor to heed your suggestions.

In essence, I have observed sundry retrospective sources scrutinize Mr. Cole’s claim (though I don’t recollect such being the ascription in any source of reliability); however, seemingly their sole form of substantiation is by means of a particular detail referenced in his FindAGrave entry.

So, I am not sure what precisely to do… Solo4701 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

If there is some doubt as to his birthdate it needs to be addressed in the article body. At the moment it's says "supposed" at the top of the article, but no explanation is given of what doubts there are about the date. It's ok to state that different sources give different dates, or that sources question the birthdate. But at the moment there nothing to explain why the birthdate is "supposed". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright... hope the current arrangement will suffice!

Thanks for informing me! Solo4701 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)