Content deleted Content added
m Reference to broken doi:10.1.1.30.1652 using Template:Cite doi: please fix! |
TonyClarke (talk | contribs) Unusual/extreme dialect of Smalltalk?? request for assistance and clarity. |
||
Line 3:
A reference was recently added to this article using the [[Template:Cite doi|Cite DOI template]]. The [[User:Citation bot|citation bot]] tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the [[Digital object identifier|DOI]] [[doi:10.1.1.30.1652]] has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the [[CrossRef]] database. Please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite+doi%2F10.1.1.30.1652&preload=Template:Cite_doi/preload/nodoi&action=edit complete the reference by hand here].
The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, [[User:Citation bot 2|Citation bot 2]] ([[User talk:Citation bot 2|talk]]) 10:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
==Extreme/unusual dialect of Smalltalk -?==
I removed the 'vague' tag after I edited, but the 'unusual dialect of Smalltalk' phrase which is there now suggests vagueness also. What was so unusual or extreme about this dialect? If we can put info in about this then I think we can avoid the 'vague' tag, otherwise it needs to be re-inserted. Suggestions welcome.
[[User:TonyClarke|TonyClarke]] ([[User talk:TonyClarke|talk]]) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
| |||