Paradoctor
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
"License Point" listed at Redirects for discussion edit
The redirect License Point has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 16 § License Point until a consensus is reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
CpX41's Sandbox edit
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have reverted this edit you made to my sandbox. While I appreciate the enthusiasm and welcome contributions to my sandbox, and can see your experience as an editor and good intent, I ask that you exercise a bit more caution with the formatting, a small change can really break the final rendering of the page. If you need to contact me, the best place to do so is on my talk page. Thanks! CpX41 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please review WP:USERNOCAT. It lists other ways of suppressing content categories in user space. One of them has to be applied. Paradoctor (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see your reasoning, however, I want to point out explicitly that your new edit has negatively impacted how the page is rendered again. I recommend that you make use of the preview button in the source editor before publishing changes to ensure your edits are displayed as you intend them to and possibly review it after you have published your changes, this is especially important outside the main article space. I would advise you to use commenting out categorization or replacing it with a placeholder as a method of suppression, since that has a lower chance of unexpected side-effects. Thanks! CpX41 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I recommend that you make use of the preview button
- You realize this makes you look like an arrogant twit? I don't know how far your IP work extends back, but your user page appears to indicate that you're not a complete n00b. You should know better than to talk to experienced fellow editors like that.
- I'm well aware of the alternative methods. I don't use them because they don't catch all cases, and are sometimes harder to reverse for the user. You don't like what the template does? Understandable. WP:SOFIXIT. Had you observed WP:USERNOCAT in the first place, we wouldn't even have to have had this conversation. 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Paradoctor (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can see some frustration here, and my intention was not to offend you with my suggestion, if I did, I apologize, it's not a big deal, and I would appreciate you taking the heat out of this discussion. I have already addressed the issue and I do not wish to continue or escalate this discussion as it's resolved, let's move on. Thanks! CpX41 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your edits after I posted my reply above. Apology accepted, no harm done. For future reference, I found this bit from WP:FOC very helpful:
comment on content, not the contributor
. It's hard for things to get personal when nobody talks about persons. Paradoctor (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)- I find that things escalate very quickly when they get personal, so I stay away from it where I can. People will always disagree, and the advice of WP:CIV works very well outside WMF projects and even offline. Otherwise, I do my best to understand all sides and draw some conclusion at the end when it's settled. CpX41 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw your edits after I posted my reply above. Apology accepted, no harm done. For future reference, I found this bit from WP:FOC very helpful:
- I can see some frustration here, and my intention was not to offend you with my suggestion, if I did, I apologize, it's not a big deal, and I would appreciate you taking the heat out of this discussion. I have already addressed the issue and I do not wish to continue or escalate this discussion as it's resolved, let's move on. Thanks! CpX41 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see your reasoning, however, I want to point out explicitly that your new edit has negatively impacted how the page is rendered again. I recommend that you make use of the preview button in the source editor before publishing changes to ensure your edits are displayed as you intend them to and possibly review it after you have published your changes, this is especially important outside the main article space. I would advise you to use commenting out categorization or replacing it with a placeholder as a method of suppression, since that has a lower chance of unexpected side-effects. Thanks! CpX41 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Your revert edit
Hello Paradoctor,
you undid my edit on TR. Could you give a further explanation as I couldn't find one with your shortcut? Thanks! Ankermast (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course. MOS:DABMENTION:
If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic.
- If you can find some source(s) supporting adding a mention of the initialism TR to Transrapid, then do that. This will then permit restoring your edit. HTH Paradoctor (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Additional information at WP:DABABBREV and MOS:DABINITIALISM. Should've led with that, sorry. Paradoctor (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Why I submitted it (Internationale der Kriegsdienstgegner/innen) for deletion edit
The user in question made a lot of vandalistic edits, and his username literally had the word "semen" in it. I don't think he intends to contribute. Waylon (was) (here) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- That does not justify indiscriminately speedying valid edits. At all. Paradoctor (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)