User talk:CapnZapp/Archive
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:CapnZapp. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Help Request
{{helpme}}
My problem is I don't like Wikipedia's default white background, and would like to read light text on a dark background. So I have just created an account.
To my dismay none of the Skins available offer light-on-dark. They're all dark-on-light designs.
So I tried to find myself around. I couldn't find any direct help on this, but after a while I found the Metawiki User Gallery. I tried to follow the instructions on how to create my own Monobook.css page.
Now I have two problems that completely stump me: 1) The user style I tried did weird things to my layout. I could not delete the css page, and blanking it didn't help. So I seem to be stuck with it. Please make my style return to normal! 2) What is the good way to read Wikipedia with light text on a dark background. I do not want to change any other part of the layout - only the colors.
It would really be helpful if the Skins tab on the user preferences had a link such as "don't like any of the above skins? Go here, or do this, to get assistance".
- Okay so 1) is solved - apparently it just took a while. I'm back to black on white. Now for 2)...
- Hi there! You were going about this the right way, somebody's just done it for you already :-D. Go to MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css. Copy all that text (inside the box). Paste it into your monobook.css page. Bypass your cache and you should be doing fine! If you need any more help, feel free to post here or on my talk page. Hope this helped! --omtay38 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Settlers of Catan edit
Hi,
Yes, I did accidentally delete the reference to the robber. I've fixed it now, thanks.
Replying to every thread on a talk page
Hi,
Regarding your recent edits to talk:Shareaza: you basically said the same thing in four separate threads, one of which had been stale for four months. While it hasn't caused a problem in this case, on some talk pages old threads are archived by bots, which skip threads with recent replies even if the bulk of the content is long-settled. In future, please consider limiting talk page responses to threads which are obviously still active; replying four times doesn't increase the weight of your argument and only makes it harder to close off old threads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Fudruckers and Idiocracy
Please read WP:Trivia and Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Practical steps.
This Idiocracy/Fuddruckers foolishness is unimportant and has no valid reason for inclusion. The only reason people have included it is because of the "giggle" association with anal sex. There is an ongoing issue of people trying to include the word "buttf*ckers" in the article, the Idiocracy reference is being used as an attempt to legitimize their vandalism. If you had taken the time to look at the history of the article you would have seen this. The request to leave out Idiocracy references is an attempt to make vandals think twice about being stupid, which does work to some extent.
The same thing has happened repeatedly at the Bennigan's article with South Park, again there is no valid reason besides an unimportant, passing remark or gag in a movie or television show.
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Let's take the discussion to the Fuddruckers talkie! CapnZapp (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
My deletion of your Dungeons & Dragons contribution
I deleted your addition of the role/class/power source table and paragraph from Dungeons & Dragons. I explained myself at Talk:Dungeons_&_Dragons#class.2Frole_matrix. I did want to say that I am being more conservative about changing this article than I normally would be because this is a Featured Article, a difficult rating to achieve. I appreciate how deeply frustrating it can be to have your carefully crafted contribution deleted. I hate doing it to you, but I believe this is for betterment of the article. I really do appreciate your contribution and hope you'll stick around the D&D cloud of articles to contribute! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Just wondering what you were doing on Graphic violence. How am I meant to provide a citation? --Dicttrshp (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Dicttrshp! Well, currently the page claims Ogrish and Rotten are notable among websites specializing in graphic imagery. I find it dubious that we can verify that claim, but rather than just removing that text, I wanted to give the authors (you?) the chance to back it up. Of course, if you can't find any reliable sources, please consider rewriting the text; perhaps omitting those two examples. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- They both have articles here, could that be counted as a reliable source? Thanks for answering, --Dicttrshp (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I rephrased the sentence. Can we agree on the new wording? CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say, I wasn't aware of the connotations "notably" had on Wikipedia. --Dicttrshp (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I rephrased the sentence. Can we agree on the new wording? CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- They both have articles here, could that be counted as a reliable source? Thanks for answering, --Dicttrshp (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Kuriki
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kuriki, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuriki (2nd nomination). Thank you. Noe (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Pipes inside
I have a problem. Two problems actually...
1) Where do I best ask question 2? :-) Here? Village Pump? Help Desk?
2) I'm at the The Tortoise and the Hare page, trying to add a good hatnote to the Zeno's paradoxes page, specifically the section there called Achilles and the tortoise.
Now, no matter what I try, I can't "hide" this reference (Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise) using a piped link. It simply won't work inside the hatnote template. What do I do wrong? As you can see, it works perfectly in the line above.
Specifically, I want to achieve the following result:
- This article is about the fable. For the algorithm, see Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm. For the paradox of motion, see Zeno's paradoxes.
but with active links, the Zeno link going directly to #Achilles and the tortoise, and of course using the hatnote (Template:about in this case).
The following does not work: ((about|the fable|the algorithm|Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm|the paradox of motion|Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise|Achilles and the tortoise))
How do I "layer" the pipe? That is, I need pipes within pipes?
Currently, I resigned myself to only pointing to the main page and not the subsection. Did I have to do that or is there a solution? Neither Wikipedia:Piped link or Help:Piped link has anything to say on this matter.
- I don't think you can pipe the link to a subsection in hatnotes. As for the other, you can ask your question here, or at the helpdesk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) Asking your question here is fine from a procedural standpoint, but you have to rely on that the handful of users who monitor the helpme category will happen to know the answer. The helpdesk will get far more eyes on your question. Thus, if you're asking something complicated that you don't think many people would know, the helpdesk is a better bet. The village pump isn't a good fit unless your question involves a change or modification in policy or guidelines, though there isn't usually any fuss over misplaced question related to using Wikipedia.
With regard to the piping issue, there's no need to actually use the template. The template is for ease of layout and consistency of formatting, but if it doesn't serve, just code it manually. Remember that what people see is of paramount importance, not how it looks in edit mode. So here's the code I think you want:
:''This page is about the fable. For the algorithm, see [[Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm]]. For the paradox of motion, see [[Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise|Zeno's paradoxes]]'' - --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! So the template is nothing but a shorthand, then... CapnZapp (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. This is also true of citation templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}. They are very useful for organization purposes, but if you can't get a proper result using them, just code it yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Link
Done as promised ([1]). Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As promised what? So far, you have communicated only through reverts of pages. Have you considered how unfriendly you come across as? CapnZapp (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- See the appropriate Talk page and try and address the issues. Thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which talk page? The Sorcery! one? CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. Try using the link and see.
Also, re: the "hard work" done by fellow Wikipedians, please note with regards to many FF titles, they are being redirected, as they are essentially trivia (see Wikipedia:Trivia sections). The current information is all in-universe (e.g. fan maps of solutions) and full of opinions, inferences and many unsourced statements. There is also unfortunately nothing more than be added to these articles as no such material exists. The notable entries (such as The Warlock of Firetop Mountain and House of Hell) have been retained as they are notable (the first title, and soon to be a feature film respectively), but most are only suitable as fan pages. At Wikipedia, articles strive to be encyclopedia standard. I am as passionate about Fighting Fantasy as the next person, but realize that the articles must be written in a neutral, factual fashion without any trivial details. Hence the redirects (There was an Article for Deletion discussion and this was the consensus), where relevant information such as an ISBN and links are retained. This also includes cover images, which can now be found at a link at Fighting Fantasy and List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. Many thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Further to this, there are additional comments re: your edits at Sorcery!. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- With re: to this comment:
In other words, I strongly oppose the idea that anything that can be condensed in list form should be removed as free text. That means that you should stop removing articles on individual FF game books, replacing them with redirects to that master list, if your only argument is that the list contains the core information. Wikipedia would be a poor place indeed if everyone followed that principle.
Please see my summary above. Where most of the FF articles fall down is on notability (see [2]), being largely the above mentioned trivia. Yes. I know you are passionate about the game system, but you also need to realize that these are not fan pages and as such must be encyclopedia standard. The articles are in the process of being brought to that level. Some information is unfortunately irrelevant and rife with trivia and opinion (e.g. your additions on spell work to Sorcery!) and as such have no place in the articles. The master list will have all relevant information, but it will be just that, revelant. If you want more, then by all means create a fan page. By the by, be careful about issuing ultimatums as they are invariably taken the wrong way (e.g. I must stop editing because you oppose the changes). Have a think about this, and then get back to me. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- As long as you realize that this is your opinion only, and not irrefutable fact, you will do great here at Wikipedia. Feel free to make changes, but as soon as they are contested you must realize you don't own articles, and you must argue for your opinions before changing things your way, preferably through reasoned Talk page discussion.
First off, you don't know squat about me, so please don't tell me you know I am passionate about the game. That, if anything, is irrelevant.
Second, please don't tell me about Wikipedia's 'encyclopedia standard' like I don't know that already. Stop talking down to me.
Third, please don't phrase it like you regret having to remove other editors' work ("Some information is unfortunately irrelevant"), but that you have to do it anyway, since your view of the information is objective and the only one that counts.
Finally. Stop reducing all Fighting Fantasy related information to a dry boring list. Thank you. Feel free to rewrite and condense, but try to keep the articles as free-flowing reader-friendly text.
Now then, CapnZapp (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you need to take a step back and think about what you are saying to fellow editors. It is coming across as rather condescending, and, to be honest, immature (see the first and four points in particular. Again with the emotional ultimatum). Think about what you said in each of your four points. Then have a think about the comments I made above re: the current state of Fighting Fantasy. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- By the by, I've been on and off Wikipedia for a long time, and have found that a simple Edit Summary usually does the trick. When needed, then I go to the Talk Page. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Fighting Fantasy
A discussion on redirects of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks is taking place. I notice you've had discussion previously with the user that made the redirects. The discussion is here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citadel of Chaos. Regards. Szzuk (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thebladesofchaos's talk page
Hello. I don't know if you're confusing me with another editor here, but this is just WP:BRD - Thebladesofchaos boldly replaced the entire article with a redirect, I reverted it and I've now opened discussion. It seemed more useful to do that on the editor's talk page, rather than an article talk page that the other editor might not have had on their watchlist. We certainly haven't been "communicating through the comments of your "undo" actions", as Thebladesofchaos has not reverted any of my edits. --McGeddon (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Thebladesofchaos has not reverted any of my edits" - that's great to hear! No problems, then. CapnZapp (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trotter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Non-existant Sandy Island Google Maps.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Non-existant Sandy Island Google Maps.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beketaten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Dialogue
Respect. 90.229.34.175 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, CapnZapp, and thank you for your contributions!
Some text in an article that you worked on Russell River, Queensland, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Russell River. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Russell River, Queensland at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—ШαмıQ✍ @ 21:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- CapnZapp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 2620:0:862:1:a6ba:dbff:fe38:fae1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NoahS24fgtp". The reason given for NoahS24fgtp's block is: "Spambot".
Accept reason: I've cleared the autoblock. There appears to be a glitch in the system. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Wikimedia Foundation IP addresses causing autoblocks. Elockid (Talk) 19:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
RE: Gravity (film) Scientific Accuracy
I'll check it later (I haven't seen the film and I don't want spoilers). Feel free to revert me. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gravity (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Snows and hatnotes
In reply to your question posed elsewhere... WP:NAMB explains, perhaps not very clearly, that we don't add a hatnote to an article like The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) because (in theory) no-one looking for one of the other senses, such as the story, would have got there accidentally. There's a disambiguation page at The Snows of Kilimanjaro (also reachable from Snows of Kilimanjaro by a redirect). This reasoning ignores the likelihood of someone landing on the page for the 2011 film by doing a search in Google etc and picking one of the search results, then realising it's not the story they're looking for, etc. It's been discussed a few times, but for the moment that's the rule: no hatnote on a disambiguated article like this to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page. I hope that helps - I'll be interested to see what sort of reply you get elsewhere! PamD 13:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping out. Could you direct me to where "It's been discussed a few times"? I am not questioning your explanation of the NAMB policy, though I cannot see it myself. Perhaps I can understand alternative ways to accomplish the same thing (namely, giving the reader a helpful links to other works of the same name); perhaps the NAMB policy language can be changed to be less abstruse. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Fixing_NAMB was fairly recent and gives the flavour of the debates... best avoided, I think.
- Try to think it through: if someone is looking for the short story, how would they have come to the article for the film? If there's no likely route, then there is no need for a hatnote to point to the story, or even the disambiguation page. That's the established argument, and "They might have found it via Google" has never carried much weight.
- What I think is far more important is to make quite sure that every single article which has a title with a disambiguator, like this one, is linked from the base title (in this case The Snows of Kilimanjaro), either because there's a disambiguation page (dab page) at that title, or by a hatnote on the article at that title which either leads to the disambiguated article or to a dab page which includes it. An alarming number of articles don't have those links, so are not easily found - thwarting the reader, and making it likely that another editor will create a duplicated article because they didn't find the first one. This is one of my hobby-horses,and while stub-sorting etc I'm always on the lookout for disambiguated titles which don't have the appropriate access route. (Maybe I'm a stereotypical retired librarian here ...?) PamD 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PamD: You might or might not be interested in what I wrote here. I hope you don't feel I'm dragging you into something undesirable. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited You Bet Your Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Gravity
Hi
That was a bit naughty of you: "Bad: not waiting for anyone to have time to participate in the discussion before going ahead to make changes.". Not really, BRD sort of needs a change (and then a change back lol) to get things under way :¬)
"Bad" would have been 2x reverts, a hissy fit, an argument, and some bad words bandied about! Chaosdruid (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
P.S. If you did not agree with me, then why would you have reverted my edit? Reverting it means you disagree.
- Hello Chaosdruid. Since you yourself suspect your proposed changes might be contentious, I thought it a good idea to revert you and ask you to hold off changing the article until such time you have achieved consensus on the talk page. I would like to thank you for letting this process continue.
Okay then, to move the discussion forward, I must confess I am confused.
To me, it appears you back up your proposed changes in wildly varying ways. First you talk about WP:FILMLEAD, then that it's down to "produced by". You also involve other editors, as well as a lot of spurious facts.
I'm no expert on film articles, but I would think WP:FILMLEAD is clear enough - the nationality of production companies are not relevant for the film lead; the attribution from reliable sources is, and most importantly, if the film's nationality is singularly defined. (My emphasis).
In other words, please show us that sources agree the movie is "singularly" British and I suspect your proposed edits will go through without any more discussion. :-)
However, I suspect you will find that sources (please remember you can't pick sources and specifically that you will need to include major US ones) can't agree on the film's nationality. In this case we should follow WP:FILMLEAD: "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." Here it's important to remember if enough sources define the film as American, then that attribution should remain as part of that later coverage.
This also means that I would like to ask you a favor. Please consider stopping your usage of what I can only label as irrelevant or misleading facts (such as what the director thinks, the highly selective findings of a random Wikipedia editor, or where various production companies are based), at least until you can show us those facts are indeed relevant to Wikipedia policies.
I could be wrong, and if so, you have my apologies.
Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing spurious. You may need to re-read. As for your comments on what you consider "irrelevant" and "misleading", I suggest you adopt a less judgemental attitude. What the director thinks the film is is very relevant to me, just not to you. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Camilla Läckberg
Camilla Läckberg is fervent propagandist of a lesbian relationship and a non-European immigrants at Sweden. It's as fact as she is a Swedish crime writer. (Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender literature. Classical and medieval literature. Poetry. Camilla Läckberg).85.141.208.53 (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for alerting me to your vandalism. CapnZapp (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- : You are right always. Everybody is a stupid but not you. Only you know everything about everything including Camilla Läckberg. But she still is fervent propagandist of a lesbian relationship and a non-European immigrants at Sweden. So do you?85.141.209.152 (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Colours BSIcon.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Villa I Tatti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoffrey Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
RE: BOLD
My friend, I did do that and someone (Corvoe) reverted it. I had to personally go to their talk page and get them to post a message on the talk page explaining their thoughts.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Valkyrie Red: Well, I still feel you're not quite calibrated for Wikipedia if you somehow feel wronged you "had to" talk to your fellow contributors in order to get their opinions... Plus, try to avoid engaging the person when you could argue against an opinion. Being reverted simply means someone dislike your edit, not that they dislike you. *insert smiley here*
- Personally, I often explain/motivate my edits on the talk page - this all but forces other parties to respond, since if they nullify your edits without participating there, they're made to appear as if disregarding core practices of building consensus.
- By taking the discussion to an editor's talk page, you often make things much more personal than necessary. Just a friendly hint! :) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just a friendly hint, stop talking to me, k?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RFD for Serene Branson
Hi CapnZapp, I've brought your request to delete the Serene Branson page to RfD here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_3#Serene_Branson. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Clickbait article
I've removed your "unreliable sources" tag: as far as I can see, the only source that might have been questionable was the one from Facebook's press release blog, and I believe that's covered by the primary source exemption that allows primary sources to be cited as evidence for a person or organization having made a particular statement. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. I've just seen your comments on the talk page, and will respond to you there. -- The Anome (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Denmark-Norway
"You don't get to change how history is written" Don't be so quick to snap on me, son, if you actually knew history you wouldn't be trying to act like a superhero or whatever your game is. I forgot the source, it's not that hard to simply just tell me. You might want to translate this text if you don't read Danish or Norwegian, the point is though, 1: the colonies were indeed Dano-Norwegian and 2: if you want to talk about "what everyone knows", I know the colonial empire deteriorated after 1814 due to a lack of resources, much because Norwegian resources were traded for food and other goods from Denmark to keep the Empire going - don't you also know that?:
http://www.forsvaretsmuseer.no/nor/content/download/10903/77091/file/Den%20dansk-norske%20Fl%C3%A5ten%201510-1814.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.231.182 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Until you have discussed the change on the respective talk pages, please do not change the practice of referring to these colonies as "danish". Do not change "danish" into "dano-norwegian" without reaching consensus first. CapnZapp (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Akalabeth: World of Doom
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Champions of Krynn
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Computer Gaming World
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Curse of the Azure Bonds
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Death Knights of Krynn
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Enchanter (video game)
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Eye of the Beholder (video game)
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Eye of the Beholder II: The Legend of Darkmoon
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- King's Quest IV
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Knights of Legend
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Legacy of the Ancients
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Manhunter 2: San Francisco
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- MegaTraveller 2: Quest for the Ancients
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Might and Magic II: Gates to Another World
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Pool of Radiance
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Pools of Darkness
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Secret of the Silver Blades
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Star Trek: The Promethean Prophecy
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Tangled Tales: The Misadventures of a Wizard's Apprentice
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- The Bard's Tale II: The Destiny Knight
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- The Magic Candle
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
- Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss
- added a link pointing to Scorpia
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Annoying IP editor for Gravity (Film)
IP editor places link insisting that Helmet Mounted Display doesn't exist and worse, the URL citation goes to the entertainment page of a media source. Thanks for the thanks, I think we'll have to keep an eye on the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Basic Role-Playing
- added a link pointing to D20
- Sorcery! (video game)
- added a link pointing to CYOA
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC). This invitation is based on your being a registered editor that has edited MOS:FILM and film articles.
(Notification per WP:CAN.)
Can you help with a personal attack?
User:Pyxis Solitary isn't using my name, but the note added to this editor's user page on Feb. 4 — just two days after you and others advised us to avoid each other — is clearly referring to things on my user page. It's childish and petty, and bottom line, it's just plain wrong not only to make a personal attack like that but also to be "clever" and attack the other editor using insinuation. I ask for your help or at least your advice: Is it OK for that editor to do this? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- No I can't help with a personal attack. Please take the matter through the appropriate procedures, such as WP:DR. Personally, however, I wish to remind you of the first advice over at the WP:NPA page, namely: "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it." In this case, my best advice is to recommend you to simply forget about having visited Pyxis home page at all.
- Now, since you specifically asked me, I have given you a brief answer. Please do not discuss this issue with me any further. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Olsen Gang
Jag ser ingenting på talkpagen som tyder på att den svenska titlen inte borde vara med. Vad menar du?★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- In English please. Patience, Padawan. CapnZapp (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. But it's fun to get to speak in your mother tough sometimes. :) ★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- No worries - I realized it was my own fault. I didn't consider that adding Babel templates would be taken as an invitation. I realize now that is the obvious implication. CapnZapp (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah I kind of took it like that. It's fine though if you prefer to converse in English.★Trekker (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- No worries - I realized it was my own fault. I didn't consider that adding Babel templates would be taken as an invitation. I realize now that is the obvious implication. CapnZapp (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. But it's fun to get to speak in your mother tough sometimes. :) ★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I started a new discussion on the talk page, feel free to chime in.★Trekker (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Source for David Faustino
Stop reverting. It's a sufficient source for what it sources. I am not going to get into an edit war with you. Further reverts could result in disciplinary action. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Can I ask you to discuss this at the article talk page instead of here? This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the article. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk Corrupt Bargain
Think I fixed it. Appreciate the headsup. jengod (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
WFRP
I've moved WFRP to WFRP-FM. WFRP is now a disambiguation page which you can expand. —Guanaco 04:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great! CapnZapp (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Burgle (surname)
A tag has been placed on Burgle (surname) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
- disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems i had started an edit on Common sense (disambiguation) before departing for Chamonix and Berlin, so i got EdConf when i tried to finish it! Looks like good work on your part.
While i've taken to heart the points you made, i'm about to save; i'll then address, at Talk:Common sense#Books, something perhaps related to what you mentioned in a summary re its article. I expect your view on it to be valuable for my thinking.
--Jerzy•t 02:02 & :07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi!
On 12 August 2017, you reverted an edit of mine (see above link). Wikipedia sent me your comment:
Reverted good faith edits by Black Walnut (talk): Relay=recieve and pass on; rely=depend on, trust. (TW)
Thank you for explaining your rationale.
I agree with the meaning of these words in the English dictionary. However, from the existing text in that same article, I understood that the word "relying" has a technical meaning in OpenID. I should also say that I don't know OpenID -- I came to this article to learn about it. The article says:
Technical overview
[..] A relying party (RP) is a web site or application that wants to verify the end-user's identifier.
The paragraph, which I thought wrong and had changed, currently says (italics are mine):
Phishing
Some observers have suggested that OpenID has security weaknesses and may prove vulnerable to phishing attacks. For example, a malicious relaying party may forward the end-user to a bogus identity provider [..]
The above paragraph uses the term "identity provider". This is an OpenID term. The paragraph also uses the term "relaying party". If I understand this correctly, the term used in OpenID to speak of this party is 'relying party' (see Technical overview, above). Given that this paragraph already uses OpenID terminology and given the similarity of the words "relaying" and "relying", I think it more helpful to the audience to consistently use OpenID's terminology, rather than the corresponding English words. This ensures a user won't get confused into using the wrong term.
If you agree with me, I leave it to you to reapply my change.
Thank you,
--Black Walnut (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Yes, that consideration escaped my notice before. I suppose you could put quotes around any technical term that otherwise could be mistaken for regular english as in this case: "relying party" instead of relying party. I'd recommend against adopting specific technical terms if it can be avoided - articles are to be written in English for non-experts, after all. CapnZapp (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I see a problem with that idea: the article uses that terminology (relying party, all lower case) everywhere. This instance is the only deviation.
I partially agree with you: jargon should not dominate nor be used without introduction. Nevertheless, humans create specialized vocabularies to facilitate, not to hinder communication. Specialized words, once introduced, enable more succinct explanations. This facilitates understanding.
So, I believe that an article which attempts to explain a specialized matter, especially if it endeavours to cover the domain's jargon, is bound to use that jargon after defining it.
Double quotes get awkward if overused. In this article, almost every sentence includes jargon. So, if we followed your proposal, almost every sentence would contain 1 or more double quoted words.
How do you feel about title-casing jargon words in the article? I.e. we change it to Relying Party. We'd have to do that for all technical terms introduced by the article.
Look it over and tell me what you think.
--Black Walnut (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- At this point I really think we should take a step back and look at the overall article quality. To be honest, this is probably where we need to remind ourselves of MOS:JARGON, our Manual of Style's section on technical language. In short, my answer is: don't do it. Any article with that kind of highly-specific technical language is a poor quality article. You shouldn't feel compelled to keep using the jargon introduced by a previous editor. It's quite possible the article was once created by a simple copypaste of OpenID's user manuals. In that case, what really is needed is a complete rewrite, discarding the existing explanations. My best advice to you is: If you don't feel capable of explaining the article subject without using highly specific language, then don't and leave it to another editor. But I'm certainly no expert myself. Good luck CapnZapp (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The article's talk page supports your view that the article should be rewritten. Personally, I thought the article lacked concision and focus, so I don't disagree. I lack the time to undertake a rewrite.
I reread MOS:JARGON. I still believe that you were wrong to undo my edit (relaying -> relying). That single instance of the word "relaying" is inconsistent with the rest of the article. It confused me, and I had to reread the article. Hence my edit. As an incremental change, I think it was beneficial.
You remain unconvinced, so I am dropping the matter.
I will say this: the OpenID standard uses unfortunate vocabulary. Many standards do. But an article on OpenID that avoided that vocabulary would be unhelpful.
--Black Walnut (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
November 2017 part 1
Please stop adding unsourced content to Jailbait. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017 pt 2- Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Jailbait shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- You and your warnings are clearly out of line, and I have reported you to the ANI noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#User Jytdog jumps the gun. If you have something to say to me, say it there, not here. CapnZapp (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Incident archived, link updated. CapnZapp (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Charges against Rose McGowan
I appreciate that the charges have not been substantiated. However, she is well known and Wikipedia policy is for the inclusion of allegations for such people.i.e. "WP:BLPCRIME This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. AND "WP:PUBLICFIGURE WP:WELLKNOWN In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
Example: allegations and charges against Harvey Weinstein.
Please can you reinstate the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is not the proper place to discuss the article Rose McGowan. If you post your comment to its talk page, I will reply there. CapnZapp (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High Admiral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord High Admiral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Top-of-page template tags and lack of policy therefor
I noticed your posts here. IMHO, it's bad enough that Wikipedia set on a trend of plastering template tags appropriate for the talk space in the article space, but now it's worse, that these template tags include a link to a faux-policy page that warns "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first". When was there ever consensus reached on the issue of these blighting tags being appropriate in the article space, when the talk space is the proper place for such tags? Is this something we can ever move up to the higher levels of decision-making, like ArbCom or whatever? Robert K S (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. Your link into the archive leads to a conversation between users SilkTork and Fuhghettaboutit, not me. Anyway, it sounds like you would be better off discussing there, not here. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
|
The Invisible Barnstar | |
| Not a service award I'm afraid, but this barnstar—for users who make significant and helpful contributions to the project, but have kept to the background without seeking recognition or reward for their work seems particularly apposite...Many thanks for everything you do here! —SerialNumberParanoia/cheap shit room 10:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC) |
On BRD, edit summaries, see also and correct links
Hi CapnZapp,
First, WP:BRD is pretty much standard practice. You made a bold edit, I reverted you - but instead of discussing it on the talk page, you reverted me again. It's common courtesy among well-established Wikipedians to come to a consensus that way.
Second, we don't discuss through edit summaries. Further more, yours has a inappropriate tone - I have a "lofty" standard? I assumed good faith and explained in my edit summary why I reverted your edit.
Third, WP:SEEALSO is quite clear in its wording. "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. (...) Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous", italics my emphasis. See also sections are for, well, tangentially related articles. And if you like to add a link to a see also section, make it clear to the reader why it's there. Instead, you just added the link BFR without context. Speaking of which...
Fourth, BFR is a disambig page. You probably meant to link to BFR (rocket).
I'm not opposed at all to having a sentence or two about a technology mogul and his rocket, sourced and all, with a link to the article on BFG. But please don't do a half-assed job. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- First off, you need to choose: good faith or half assed. It's one or the other. If you feel an editor is doing a good faith addition that still doesn't meet your standards, improve it, don't revert it. I've met enough gatekeeper editors to have tired of reapplying my imperfect work over and over again until it's perfect to some invisible standards. Instead I'm calling out the behavior as unconstructive: if you feel the editor's idea was sound, only the implementation was not good enough, bring it up to your own standard instead of shooting down that editor's work, thank you very much. CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- That I'm not opposed to adding the link is not the same as thinking it is a sound idea. I've cited several standard editing guidelines. Your reasoning for adding it in the see also section was in an edit summary and there's no context for the reader to understand why BFR is there, so WP:BURDEN applies as well. If you like to add to an article, it's up to you to prove why.
- "Shooting down an editor's work"? You added BFR. A total of seven characters. If you had run-ins with other editors before, don't take it out on me. Also, take a look at your own editing attitude. I haven't reverted you back. The article still just links BFR. Are you expecting me to do editing for you? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
TV series' nationality
Thanks for the various constructive criticism. I do see where you are coming from, and it may well be that I am overly coloured by having read through past talk where the outcomes of the current approach have been gently queried, and seen the sorts of responses they got. I was also thinking that, since the current MoS was clearly written in good faith from the standpoint of normal referencing - it's the added examples that led off down a different path - the less the textual change to current policy the better (the wording of an MoS is usually worked over; editors are often both reasonably and unreasonably protective of it). You do appear to be suggesting a radical re-write, which in my experience people are less willing to do. Although if you have an alternative solution in mind it would certainly be helpful to pitch it into the discussion? It may well be that the issue does need to go beyond the project, as to be fair you have already indicated. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hello again (now it is my turn to hound you;). I believe I have come up with a proposal along the lines you earlier suggested; having taken a bit of time to work through this, I can now see that this is a much more sensible approach. Thanks for the pointer. MapReader (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck. And edit:
Maybe it's the programmer in me, but you accidentally left the multinational case undefined - exactly what I imagine you wanted to avoid! See for yourself:
A series's nationality, if singularly defined, should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, and identified in the opening sentence.
Stripped down, this sentence becomes: IF singular THEN definition ELSE ???
What you need is: SET Definition. IF singular THEN mention in lead sentence ELSE later mention
Contrast:
A series's nationality, if singularly defined, should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, and identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced.
with
A series's nationality should be derived from reliable sources, not the nationality of individual production companies. Identify it in the opening sentence, unless the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation. In such cases, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced.
Sorry for being such a nitpick, MapReader. I didn't want to derail your discussion over at policy, so I thought to restrict myself to here. CapnZapp (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't done any programming since BASIC in the 1980s, but I don't see the problem here. I read my text as: If singular and referenced, X. If not singular or not referenced, Y (Y being refer to national interests later). For national interests, make sure nationality is referenced, not assumed. If I am missing something, please shout... MapReader (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Don't you see that you make the definition conditional on the grammatical number of the nationality! The definition should unconditionally establish the method for arriving at production nationality. The grammatical number should only influence its presence or absence in the lead sentence. Br CapnZapp (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, thanks. I think the problem can be solved most simply by moving the 'if' clause later in the first sentence; as no-one has yet commented, I made this small change to the talk page for MOSTV. I also notice, having produced the proposal from first principles based on your input, that what I have put forward is very similar to what the film editors already do, as here, which has to be a point in its favour? Kind regards MapReader (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Don't you see that you make the definition conditional on the grammatical number of the nationality! The definition should unconditionally establish the method for arriving at production nationality. The grammatical number should only influence its presence or absence in the lead sentence. Br CapnZapp (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Please
Don't do things like thisthis. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (fix Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC))
- Jytdog, I presume you meant my revert of your changing the talk page? I am asking you to keep your edits to your own comments. Please do not change the comments or their context of other users. You do not get to decide how and where I choose to discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- When I first commented, I too had created an independent section: i caught that before I saved it and was able to simply continue the conversation we had already started. I just did the same. There is one conversation that started a year ago. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog: I don't wish to continue old discussions, so I started a new section. Please respect that (feel free to join in). Anyway, you certainly do not have the right to delete talk sections created by others. I trust you will let me continue my discussion with Ebyabe now. CapnZapp (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I commented there first; pretending like I didn't already comment there, is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wrote the following as a response to your earlier "you are being nonresponsive to that" version
- First off - are we agreed on the not-editing-other-users thing?
- Then, yes, I will be happy to engage you in constructive ways. All I ask is: Please tell me what Age of consent is doing right that Jailbait is currently doing wrong? The graph is here, and I want to add it here. Tell me how to incorporate the graph in a way that is satisfactory to you and I shall be happy to rectify those deficiencies. I am not ignoring you, I just chose to start a new discussion in favor over old ones. Now if you will allow me to reconstruct my discussion with Ebyabe, then maybe we can continue discussion there instead of here. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I commented there first; pretending like I didn't already comment there, is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog: I don't wish to continue old discussions, so I started a new section. Please respect that (feel free to join in). Anyway, you certainly do not have the right to delete talk sections created by others. I trust you will let me continue my discussion with Ebyabe now. CapnZapp (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- When I first commented, I too had created an independent section: i caught that before I saved it and was able to simply continue the conversation we had already started. I just did the same. There is one conversation that started a year ago. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Awareness that discretionary sanctions pertain to MoS and its talk pages
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.My allusion to a slow train to Hell at WT:MOSTV is in reference to this. While I recently tried to get the discretionary sanctions lifted from MoS and its talk pages, ArbCom wouldn't hear of it [3], so we're stuck with them. Any drive-by admin can randomly block or topic-ban anyone they feel like for a comment like "bully" at an MoS talk page. PS: I hate this menacing-looking template (I've tried many times to get it changed), but ArbCom still requires that it be delivered to the talk page of any editor who appears to be unaware that DS pertain to a particular topic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so your response when called out for boorish behavior and asked to tone it down is to bring on the full fear-mongering arsenal. There's no need for pretense, I realize you believe this template is your best friend. Instead let me thank you User:SMcCandlish, it means my message is getting across to you. CapnZapp (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure what any of that means, honestly. I went out of my way to indicate where we're actually in "sharp agreement" at the page in question and why being verbally hostile to me in the same thread seems senseless. Here, I've suggested a real reason not to go that direction because there are "sharks in the water", and I even pointed you toward where I'm trying hard to get the sharks out of the pool, to no avail (I've been trying for years, actually). You can spin whatever you want to spin, or just accept it at face value. One thing none of us can escape accepting is that people disagreeing with us and criticizing an idea we present and the reasoning for it isn't a criticism of us personally. The advice to "address edits not editors" doesn't work well if someone won't see that the distinction exists. Please stop taking everything contrary as a personal assault on your honor. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- More positively: User talk:MapReader#WT:MOSTV. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
New Jönssonligan
I've made a draft for the upcoming movie. If you feel like you can feel free to work on it as well. :)★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not up to date with developments I'm afraid. CapnZapp (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. There isn't much out yet. But I'll try to update it as soon as I find anything.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Flow aka "Structured Discussions"
I had answered you over @MediaWiki, but I'm banned there because I was too outspoken against this imho useless gimmick and the proselytes, who push it. So I'm telling you here where to go for feedback about that:
Here on this wiki ther is wp:Flow, but it's completely uninstalled here an enWP because the community rejected it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Language Templates
Hello, I noticed that you made a request regarding modifying language templates to Wikipedia_talk:Babel. I am not sure if you are still interested in doing so, but I have made such an example for you, posted at the section in the link. It is not perfect but if you still wish to display your language with added information, that may be a way of doing so. Cheers from the other side of the globe! -Techhead7890 (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! I will have to think about it. CapnZapp (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trainz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DCC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to A Discovery of Witches, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not more the aforementioned article again; it remains the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you disagree, do not keep moving the page from its original location- file an RM and gain a consensus. -- AlexTW 04:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Awards
Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear CapnZapp,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. I came across your comments on the page: Wikipedia talk:Service awards. Since I can't place this in your profile, I hope you will. There is a page on Wikipedia with info regarding this award: Wikipedia:Ten Year Society and also an icon: Template:10 Year topicon.
Also, note that per the page Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons), you are entitled to an incremental service award at 4500, 5000, and 5500 edits. Thanks for all of your contributions over the last 10+ years!
Best regards, Zcarstvnz (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Your comments on another editor at Talk:L'Anse aux Meadows
I never noticed those until just now. From the section heading to the content they are completely inappropriate and I've removed them. I've put names in section headings before in my earlier days and now know that's a bad idea. You certainly shouldn't use one article to discuss edits at another, and you should try not to personalise a content dispute. There are plenty of ways to deal with content dispute, including noticeboards, WP:DRN and WP:RFC. If you really think an editor should be sanction, there's WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for removing the "Biographies of living people tag" from the talk page of the article on toothpaste. Vorbee (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Warhol's Dracula
Good calls on the article. I should have had more tact. I've double checked the Curti book and it has more specific information that the Italian prints refer to the Italian editor, but not elsewhere. Per the confusing and misleading production credits of this film production, its not really clear who did it, and I think listing it in the infobox would be misleading. I've tried to explain it in the prose. I've also clarified the gross, but removed it from the infobox as its specifically an Italian domestic gross. What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Civilization
Apologies, I didn't realise you had reverted an earlier bold attempt to merge that. I would ask you please to reconsider though... It's an open and shut case, there is no reason to maintain two dab pages for the same term, and holding an AFD open for a week is really a waste of time and effort. — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:INCDAB suggests that we merge and keep the redirect. However, the partial dab seems to have some support, and an experienced editor has nominated the page for discussion, so we should probably discuss the three options briefly and seek consensus for one. Certes (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology, Amakuru. Thank you, Certes. If you want to make changes to the Civilization disambiguation structure, I'm not necessarily opposed to that, provided you first discuss at talk or at the very least make a full set of "clean" (unbroken) changes to all pages involved. So far, all efforts have been unilateral and/or incomplete. If you want details, all you need is ask (though please not here at my personal page). Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Change on Wikipedia:Edit warring
Hi! I made that change because MOS:GNL says: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." I don't think clarity is lost by the change, and it makes the first part of the sentence ("their preferred version") consistent with the second part of the sentence ("their edits"). I don't see why MOS:GNL shouldn't apply in that case. Would you mind reverting or explaining your reasoning? Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 18:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I see you too found the WP:MOS talk page; as you are experiencing there - no, it's far from clear-cut. As for the specific edit, please instead discuss article-specific queries on each article's talk page: at Wikipedia Talk:Edit warring in this case - this is my personal talk page. (Unless I've missed something none of this is about me as an editor). Thanks though for discussing the issue. Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Seasonal Greetings!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
|
Hello CapnZapp, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Evie (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evita (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Reply from Ben
Hi - you left me a note about considering to become a wiki user. Thanks for the thought. I really enjoy editing writing of all kinds. I joined wiki as a registered user a long time ago. I tried to cancel my user account after several years of frustrating experiences with other editors. Edit wars by proprietary editors especially. The nerd who wrote the "florida everglades" article for instance, and the little group of nazis running the "autism spectrum" page, are two examples.
I also find the wiki editor software to be clunky, and have not learned all the little tricks some other editors have. I got threatened with "blocking" for "vandalism" the other day, by someone who just didn't like my edit. I don't know how to defend myself. I also found it difficult to get help from senior editors to protect myself from edit warring. I'm not even sure if this message will get to you and you'll know who it is from. There is no "chat" function.
Without anyone to lean on for learning and protection, I just walked away. I also am in a concussion recovery, so I shouldn't spend much screen time anyways, and I get headaches from trying to do trickier stuff like add citations or pictures. Unless wiki makes it easier to edit, and provides simple mentorship protection to editors, I'll never come back as an editor. I just try and fix obvious mistakes in articles I come across, and if I inadvertently get run over by edit warring goons, I just walk away.
So thanks for the offer. I just keep my head down and use my English skills to help out where I can. peace and love best Ben 184.69.174.194 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
All male Antiques Roadshow
There is a photo for Hilary Kay, but I thought it wasn't really clear enough. What do you think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with your decision to keep looking for a better photo without the clutter of other people. CapnZapp (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
P&O Cruises
Hi, re your comments about the previous fleet, I restricted the list to ships actually operated by the company named. For ships operated by by its predecessors, P&O, P&O Orient and Orient lines see the articles on those companies. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you - much clearer now. If you feel confident the list is complete, feel free to remove the expand template. CapnZapp (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Cheers, I think I've done it now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lac La Biche, Alberta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Refs for Sunny Lane
Hi CapnZapp. Two years ago you added some references to Sunny Lane. I'm guessing someone removed the tv.com ref as unreliable. TheRichest.com is unreliable as well. I'm unable to find any information about ("Celebs Named: 10,000+ Celebrities' birth name" by Burt Vance, page 122) at all: no books by that author, nor any books with similar names and authors. Any idea what it is supposed to be? --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- My best suggestion is to google "Sunny Lane Holly Hodges" and see if you still find a credible source. If you don't, well, the information will have to go away. Sorry I can't remember how and where I found the Vance book ref. CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Probably not sock puppetry
My guess is that the three 2001 IPs are the result of one person using different computers at one facility (a university?) and in no way an intention to convey that these are different editors. I suggest focusing on the content - at the Talk page - and not worry about the phantom horde that disagrees with you. A knowledgeable third editor is already participating, so please work it out there (without me). David notMD (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, User:David notMD. Please note I wasn't primarily concerned with sockpuppetry. That is, of all possible violations that particular one wasn't on my radar (can you even be accused of sockpuppeteering when you only make anonymous edits?) My main concern was how to deal with an IP editor that might or might not be one person and might and might not be a troll without going into an edit war with an unknown entity. Discussing with ever-new IP addresses that might not even be read didn't sound like fun. For example, I considered (and then un-considered) asking for page protection - at the very least this would have forced the IP editor to register an account with which further interaction would then feel much more worthwhile. Hopefully your intervention is enough. CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi CapnZapp! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
- Hi, CapnZapp. Since this message is also pertaining to the Teahouse, I thought I'd just add this here. Your newer thread on automatic invites is much more a question on the operations of the Teahouse than a "how-to" question on Wikipedia. As such, it should have been on the Teahouse talk page (WT:TEA) than in the forum itself. Just an FYI for future reference. John from Idegon (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi CapnZapp! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Bendor Grosvenor genealogical sources
You reverted my edit and referred me to the talk page where you wrote something,but have yet to respond to my reply on the talk page?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I kept you waiting User:12.144.5.2 - I really have nothing to say that I believe you will consider constructive. I can only suggest you try accepting Wikipedia for what it is rather than getting frustrated by policies that very likely will not change. Feel free to ask the Help desk or at the Teahouse if you have questions regarding policy. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I consider passive acceptance of policies that I regard as directly harmful to be complicity in that harm.In doing research one does exactly the opposite of what you are recommending...the sources that are not inclined to be precise are the ones to be disregarded in a verification process.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I'm the closest thing to objectivity this place has. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Referencing
Good changes in Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but please complete your references. Examples are in other references. Cheers. Errantius (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Errantius! I belong to the wikipedia school of thought that says "better bare references than no references". In other words, I'm one of the many editors who might not contribute at all if bare urls were rejected. Hope you respect my position. Cheers and best wishes, CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
LINDA FIORENTINO
I have been trying to have the section about Anthony Pellicano corrected or removed in it's entirety. It states that I had a prior relationship with Anthony Pellicano which is blatantly false. You cite http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051401982.html as the source. Even if you use that source material no where in Del Quentin's article does it state that Pellicano was a "prior boyfriend". It merely states prior relationship albeit a false statement. I was never contacted by Del Quentin Wilber. To assume that prior relationship equals romantic is sexist. You wouldn't write that about a man who had an alleged "prior relationship" Regardless it is stated as fact with no supporting evidence.
This is currently under review at the Washington Post and will be corrected in their archives. For now I ask you to at least rewrite the section and remove the words "prior boyfriend." Also on the Pellicano page you repeat that same mistake. I do not know how else to fix this problem so thought you could help. I am not sure why this is surfacing after 10 yrs and has never been posted. It should not be this difficult to correct and I am not sure why you and other editors are so determined to perpetuate a lie. thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Fiorentino Really (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've asked for administrator assistance. Hopefully you'll get the help you need. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Colours BSIcon.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
where to discuss
my experience affects the general issue, because not all of us use talk pages the same way, DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- With respect, User:DGG, you conforming to the same guidelines we all abide by, is a completely separate issue. The ONLY issue I have raised over there is "should the rule of thumb stay 75K?". So unless you're ready to argue why we should increase the WP:TALKCOND limit for everyone to, say 1 megabyte, I see no particular applicability of your case. Me posting messages on your talk page has nothing to do with this. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Enough
I don't know what specific edits this is in response to, but regardless, it's uncalled for. Let me hit you with another rule of thumb: don't template the regulars, especially when the template you use implies that they're new to Wikipedia when they've been around as long as you have, for twelve years and counting. Keep discussing things on the WP talk page, but stop messaging EEng directly like this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:Writ Keeper If you had spent a second to look at his talk page (or my contribution history) you would have seen that I did try the personalized friendly tone first: [4]. It did not help - he persisted in sniping the discussion. The next step is to build up to the level 4 warning template and then report him, just like any other user. Or, obviously, have him stop his disruptive behavior, which would be infinitely better. (It's certainly not the case that our policies prohibit "templating the regulars" - for one thing I'm sure you know you linked to an essay) But maybe what you're trying to say is there's no need to hold off reporting him? In that case, I would be interested to hear your argument why admins won't just dismiss the complaint on grounds of not warning the user properly first. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- CapnZapp, for what it's worth, there is no requirement that a warning template be applied to count as "properly warned," and if you did open a complaint, your normal talk page discussion would have been sufficient. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- What Creffett said: the only time one has to
build up to the level 4 warning template
before reporting is if you're reporting them to AIV, and I really hope you know enough about our processes and the difference between editing disputes and raw vandalism to know that that would be bad. ANI, which presumably is where you would report them, only asks for you toConsider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page
; nothing about the escalating warnings, and certainly no hard requirement for it, and certainly nothing about using condescending templates first. So cut that out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Street or road name
The archiving at Talk:Street or road name, which you did, has somehow become incorrect. Please help, because I have no experience with Wikipedia archiving.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:Dthomsen8: Thanks. Just an anon making a mistake, easily reverted. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
"Gpedia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gpedia. Since you had some involvement with the Gpedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Raegan Revord moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Raegan Revord, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Citrivescence (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Citrivescence There has been a mistake, since the article clearly meets all requirements. Please undo your action at your earliest convenience. CapnZapp (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: Hi, I didn't make a mistake. The WP:GNG requirements have not been met because the references do not offer significant, in-depth coverage of the actress, and many of them are not considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. She will meet the WP:NACTOR when she has at least two leading roles. Please note that you can move the article back whenever you like, but if you do not improve the references, it is likely to be deleted. Citrivescence (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Citrivescence You made a BOLD action. You are contested. Please undo your move. Now is the time to take it to discussion. You are free to add a
{{refimprov}}template to the article, and explain your grievances the regular way. You could even start a RFD if you absolutely must, etc etc. - What you are not entitled to is unilaterally and without warning removing articles from mainspace as if Raegan Revord was some poorly crafted trash article, and I need you to stop doing that. You come across as overbearing and unfriendly to users whose work you consider to be trash, not worthy of even a regular talk discussion! Now since I cannot undo your action I need you to undo your move and stop creating extra work for your fellow editors. This is the second and last time I'm going to ask nicely. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: I am a new page reviewer. It is my job to follow a flowchart regarding articles in the queue, which I did. It is you, in fact, using boldface type, who comes off overbearing and unfriendly. Nowhere did I call the article "trash." You do, actually, have the option to move it back to main space, but as I said, it could be sent to AfD. Citrivescence (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:Citrivescence You made a BOLD action. You are contested. Please undo your move. Now is the time to take it to discussion. You are free to add a
- @CapnZapp: Hi, I didn't make a mistake. The WP:GNG requirements have not been met because the references do not offer significant, in-depth coverage of the actress, and many of them are not considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. She will meet the WP:NACTOR when she has at least two leading roles. Please note that you can move the article back whenever you like, but if you do not improve the references, it is likely to be deleted. Citrivescence (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Citrivescence: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#misuse of Draft space CapnZapp (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
(deindent) Please let me know if there's an undeletion request for the article. Since I personally asked, it wouldn't be considered canvassing. Intuitively, I can't believe that people argued that she isn't notable enough for an article. I was looking to see how she didn't have an article despite a major role. There are articles for MANY actors with lower roles than her role on a hit show. I know that's not a usable argument. The article needs to be done RIGHT with SOLID (I mean featured article level) major sources to convince people with such strong conviction against what was presented previously. There has to be interviews and featured articles about her in major magazines like People, Time, etc. Do it right or don't do it at all. I don't have time now but it'll be a high priority when I do. Royalbroil 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Raegan Revord
Hello, CapnZapp
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Citrivescence and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Raegan Revord, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Speedy deletion nomination of Tales from the Loop (disambiguation)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Tales from the Loop (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
- is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Winesburg, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello CapnZapp
You left a comment on my talk page letting me know I did the COI incorrectly and I was wondering if the change I made now fixed it. I applied the template to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmanheim1 which i think is the talk page of the article im working on. I am not sure if this is all I need to do since this is my first wiki article and the temple that is offered is what i included. If you could please let me know if I need to add anything else I would greatly appreciate it! Fmanheim1 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Responding at your own talk page CapnZapp (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced content in film leads
I left a comment in my reversion of that unsourced reception information I removed from the lead of Gravity (2013 film), but I thought you may also be interested in this recent discussion about film leads: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Reception details in lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- A very cursory look at that long, rambly talk section didn't find any binding conclusions, so not sure what your point is, wallyfromdilbert... My point, on the other hand, is that instead of bluntly losing the information (which very well might have originated in the body of the article and then moved up by a GF editor), address the specific issue. If you don't like it in the lead, the proper resolution must logically be to move it out of the lead. (This time I have done the work for you.) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- You apparently missed this language that was added to the MOS as a result of the discussion: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews." Further, WP:V is already a policy, and there is no reason to add the unsourced content back into an article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that it should be included, not restoring some sort of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH elsewhere in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you acting as if templates such as citation needed don't exist? You seem to argue us editors should just instantly remove anything without a rock-solid source, which is absurd. You made an edit, I reverted you, then it is time for you to take it to discussion. Stop throwing policy at people that oppose you, and take it to discussion. And you're way off with your "burden" nonsense: you come across as having a disruptive gatekeeper attitude. Instead let's take it to discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- You apparently missed this language that was added to the MOS as a result of the discussion: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews." Further, WP:V is already a policy, and there is no reason to add the unsourced content back into an article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that it should be included, not restoring some sort of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH elsewhere in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Edits
Thank you so much for your help CapnZapp!! I appreciate you adding the Template for me because I was not sure where it was supposed to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmanheim1 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Np :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gravity (2013 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. See WP:BURDEN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. I did not "add or change" anything, you removed something. You were reverted, and now you need to take it to discussion. See you over at Talk:Gravity (2013 film)! Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, you need to follow WP:BURDEN and stop restoring unsourced material into an article. That is a policy, not a guideline or essay. You can be as pissy as you want being wrong, but you are still wrong. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- You made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you need to discuss. It really is that simple. Have a nice day! CapnZapp (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN is a policy, while WP:BRD is not. Per policy, you need to not restore unsourced content into articles. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- You made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you need to discuss. It really is that simple. Have a nice day! CapnZapp (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, you need to follow WP:BURDEN and stop restoring unsourced material into an article. That is a policy, not a guideline or essay. You can be as pissy as you want being wrong, but you are still wrong. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring at Gravity (2013 film)
Consider this your only warning for edit warring. I don't care who started it or who is "right". If you continue, you can discuss it with a few admins. Maybe they'll agree with you and you won't be blocked. I'd suggest not finding out.
There is now a topic on the article's talk page. I recommend you use it. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I understand a busy admin such as yourself could easily miss it, but my entire point was to get Wallyfromdilbert to move to the discussion table, rather than templating me or bludgeoning me with policy, so you will certainly get no objection from me, SummerPhDv2.0! I will shortly engage over there. Again thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The Lord of the Rings reunion
Hi. I saw the edits you made in the actor pages about the reunion, and I found out that you wrote that the episode of reunited apart was published on June 1, when it was May 31. Also, you used IMDb as a source, and that's not recommended. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This revolves around a series of edits starting with [5] CapnZapp (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also please don't convert citations to external links. Such links should not typically be included within the body of an article. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'll stop and leave it in your capable hands. CapnZapp (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also please don't convert citations to external links. Such links should not typically be included within the body of an article. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Monty Don's American Gardens moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Monty Don's American Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Monty Don's Japanese Gardens moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Monty Don's Japanese Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monty Don's Italian Gardens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellagio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Monty Don's American Gardens moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Monty Don's American Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk 11:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Monty Don's Japanese Gardens moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Monty Don's Japanese Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creepTalk 11:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sonja Wigert
Hi. Please do not add unsourced content to articles. The burden is with YOU to verfiy everything you add with reliable sources. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Perry Mason (TV series)
When you targetted Perry Mason (TV series) to Perry Mason (disambiguation), you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. The change broke 1,278 links (that's 5.5% of today's count of bad links to DAB pages), which will have to be checked and fixed manually. Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Narky Blert Had you looked at my contributions you would have seen me starting that job already. You are welcome to help. CapnZapp (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Why not IMDb?
Please do explain why IMDb is not serious. Just as good as books, which get freely cited.
Lots of foolish things get into books and magazines.
And in this case, the similarities are obvious.--GwydionM (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, GwydionM and thank you for asking. While the basic movie information (such as casting) is considered reliable, most additional sections of the IMDB site is not, since they are based on user submissions (and thus are no more reliable than blogs), per WP:RS. The specific essay (not a policy in itself) explaining which parts of IMDB are good, and which parts isn't can be found here: WP:IMDB/BLP. Have a nice day, CapnZapp (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC) This revolves around a set of edits that start with [6].
- But I've already explained, it isn't a blog. The site vets all submissions and would not allow rubbish. That makes it as good as a blog.
- Still, on past experience I expect common sense to be ignored in favour of the Wiki subculture.--GwydionM (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, as the linked essay explains the Trivia section is user submitted. I did not say it was a blog, I said it is treated as no more reliable as a blog.
- If you wish to change the way Wikipedia treats a specific source (like IMDB) you're welcome, though my talk page is (of course) the wrong venue. But first you should consider that you might simply be wrong here, GwydionM - before you go down the rabbit hole of "wikipedia subculture" conspiracy theories, please consider the alternative explanation where Wikipedia's decision is instead based on IMDB trivia sections frequently being found to be unreliable, and that Wikipedia's decision is, after all, based on common sense. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Still, on past experience I expect common sense to be ignored in favour of the Wiki subculture.--GwydionM (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is not going to change. And I have other things to do.
- But you might have said from the first that this was a Wiki policy.--GwydionM (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- As soon as you made me aware you believed IMDB was a good source, GwydionM, I responded with
if you believe IMDB trivia is a good source, ask over at my talk, and I'll direct you to the relevant policies explaining why it isn't, and in fact is far from.
Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- As soon as you made me aware you believed IMDB was a good source, GwydionM, I responded with
Not worth my or the community's time
Thanks. Never seen such WP:OWNership over a hatnote before when the reason for the removal was explained bluntly by myself, and I wasn't responded to in any way which stated why the reverter disagreed other than quoting the guideline's vagueness, but whatever. The Old Guard (magazine) is for a subject which has a very low level of notability, so I don't have any desire to waste the community's time on such a trivial matter, nor do I suspect there to be adequate participation by the community on such a unnotable subject's talk page because honestly, the chance of the community caring enough for there to be a discussion with consensus formed is next to none. So, feel free to WP:OWN that page because for some reason, you see controversy in a trivial matter and have yet to explain any rationale behind your stance other than stating the passage at WP:NOTAMB doesn't back up either of our edits. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Sourcing and burden of proof
CapnZapp, at Wikipedia as you know, all content must be verifiable. In this edit of 07:43, September 17 2020 at Garden-path sentence you added content without providing a source. After it was removed, you reverted, restoring the unsourced material without explanation, tagged it, and added this comment on the talk page:
I'll add back my addition with a [citation needed] tag and let's see what the community can find for us.
But that is not how things work at Wikipedia. When you add unsourced content and it is removed, the burden of proof is on you to source it: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." In this case, that is you. Please add citations to reliable sources for this content. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited La Dernière Vague, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Garden-path sentence
Hi, CapnZapp, I welcome your good-faith efforts to improve Garden-path sentence, including your explanations of certain examples in the article, and how they work. Please keep Wikipedia's principles of original research and verifiability in mind when making your changes. Unfortunately, no matter how good or how helpful your explanations to a reader, it's simply not acceptable to add your clarifications, unless they are based on the content you find in a published, independent, secondary, reliable sources. This is how we make sure that the encyclopedia is not based on the random opinions or ideas (no matter how good!) of our editors, but strictly based on the published sources. That's why I removed your unsourced content a second time. You're welcome to put it back a third time, but please, only with citations to reliable sources this time, if you do; okay? Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm copying your comments to the appropriate page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing what the appropriate Talk page is for what kind of commentary. Per Wikipedia guidelines described at WP:TALK, an article Talk page is for discussing the content of an article and how to improve it. A user Talk page is about notifications of various types, providing advice, information about how to edit, and so on, as well as to issue notifications and warnings about user behavior. This section has nothing to do with improving the Garden-path sentence article; all such discussion should be confined to the article TP. This section is about clarifying or reminding you of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research, and related policies and guidelines in the area of sourcing at articles, since you seem to have either forgotten, or not understood why your content was removed as unsourced, even though that's what the edit summary said. That's why this discussion is here—it's about you and the way you edit, and whether you do or don't understand and properly follow editing policies; it's not about how to improve the content of some article, therefore, is out of scope for an article talk page. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing what you want - which apparently is to discuss everything except the actual concerns - with what I want, which basically is to ask you to either help out or step aside. If you read the top of this very page is says it right there: "Welcome to my talk page. Please note I take the right to answer your messages where I like at any given moment. Have a nice day." So you'll simply have to suck it up Mathglot but I'm choosing to decline your invitation to discuss the topics of "where to post" or "what to post". Instead I'm going to keep discussing the content of an article and how to improve it, and I'm going to do it at the article's talk page. Especially note the "and how to improve it" part. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's your talk page, so at your invitation, I'll step aside now. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing what you want - which apparently is to discuss everything except the actual concerns - with what I want, which basically is to ask you to either help out or step aside. If you read the top of this very page is says it right there: "Welcome to my talk page. Please note I take the right to answer your messages where I like at any given moment. Have a nice day." So you'll simply have to suck it up Mathglot but I'm choosing to decline your invitation to discuss the topics of "where to post" or "what to post". Instead I'm going to keep discussing the content of an article and how to improve it, and I'm going to do it at the article's talk page. Especially note the "and how to improve it" part. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing what the appropriate Talk page is for what kind of commentary. Per Wikipedia guidelines described at WP:TALK, an article Talk page is for discussing the content of an article and how to improve it. A user Talk page is about notifications of various types, providing advice, information about how to edit, and so on, as well as to issue notifications and warnings about user behavior. This section has nothing to do with improving the Garden-path sentence article; all such discussion should be confined to the article TP. This section is about clarifying or reminding you of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research, and related policies and guidelines in the area of sourcing at articles, since you seem to have either forgotten, or not understood why your content was removed as unsourced, even though that's what the edit summary said. That's why this discussion is here—it's about you and the way you edit, and whether you do or don't understand and properly follow editing policies; it's not about how to improve the content of some article, therefore, is out of scope for an article talk page. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rock, Paper, Shotgun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Walker.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Villa Doria Pamphili, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arup.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gunilla Jonsson and Michael Petersén, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KULT.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks
Re: [7]. Please don't accuse others of harassment without substantial evidence. You should immediately apologize to User:Magnolia677 for your comment there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Note:This user is talking about me correcting a third user of doing the same thing I've asked Piotrus to stop doing. CapnZapp (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I take it you are refusing to apologize to another user for a baseless accuation of harassment? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's a misunderstanding. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I take it you are refusing to apologize to another user for a baseless accuation of harassment? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Cabinet Entertainment
- added a link pointing to Pathfinder
- Conan the Barbarian
- added a link pointing to Pathfinder
- Eric Ladin
- added a link pointing to Flight director
- Pickaninny
- added a link pointing to Melanesian Pidgin
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Templtae Archives
If my sandbox version gets reimplemented, the bot parameter already adds the [[User:{{{bot}}}|{{{bot}}}]], all that really means is that you type the name of the bot rather than any other wikilink. This is just to make it easier for anyone to add this stuff... If it gets re-added I will update the documentation for these changes. Terasail[Talk] 10:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Citation formats
An edit like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/949671484/952450781?title=Peter_Madsen is something I would expect from a newbie. If you can't be arsed to run Citer or reFill, could you at least drop the faulty inclusion of a language tag inside the ref tags? Sam Sailor 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Ditto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/984492340/984493672?title=Peter_Madsen Sam Sailor 16:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Weekendavisen
In regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/981066811/981424964?title=Murder_of_Kim_Wall Weekendavisen is certainly not a tabloid. Sam Sailor 17:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Black Theatre Co-operative
I'd suggest the name under which they were notable in the 1980s might be more worthy of the redlink, no? It's also the registered company name, for what it's worth.
Also, you might be interested in the conversation that's just started on my Talk:, where someone was (understandably) querying why I was creating a bunch of redlinks. I'd be interested in your thoughts 😊 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"Picture requested" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Picture requested. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Picture requested until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
US intellectual tradition in political reforms
Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).
If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. Wiki-fencing on Talk pages notwithstanding, I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.
So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.
But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
MOS discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks User:NinjaRobotPirate but I already knew. Why do you think I started off with a talk discussion instead of a bold edit? (And no, you don't need to tell me this notice is required before sanctions can be instituted. I have no intention to make any edits before consensus is reached) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Raegan Revord
In case you're interested, I wanted to let you know Raegan Revord of Young Sheldon's article is currently at User:Alden_Loveshade/Raegan_Revord. I hope to see it return to main space. Responsible edits are welcomed there. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020
Regarding your repeated removal of a relevant see also at The Queen's Gambit (miniseries). Since your bold edit was reverted, please now establish consensus first, otherwise this is edit warring. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- You really need to stop viewing disagreement as edit warring. Also, you do realize your clumsy revert also removed the brief annotations that was added since? Please add those back. CapnZapp (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- My problem with your edits is not the disagreement. My problem with your edits is you repeating the same edit in spite of the fact that you are aware that there is no consensus for it. And that is almost the definition of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I had to add back the things you dropped and neglected to fix. CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't consider that a fix, not did I neglect them. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- I had to add back the things you dropped and neglected to fix. CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- My problem with your edits is not the disagreement. My problem with your edits is you repeating the same edit in spite of the fact that you are aware that there is no consensus for it. And that is almost the definition of edit warring. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Queen's Gambit
You're going after User:YoungForever a little too aggressively. She's one of the good guys, she ought to be on our side. What we should probably try to do is find a source raising similar concerns that is more widely accepted. How about this one? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Monty Don's American Gardens
Hello, CapnZapp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monty Don's American Gardens".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Monty Don's Japanese Gardens
Hello, CapnZapp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monty Don's Japanese Gardens".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop
Please stop reverting my edits to bump your edit count. Your comment is nonsensical, and the edit is not defensible. Lexein (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Huh
CapnZapp (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Lexein here. Your edit summary on The Queen's Gambit does not make any sense either. nyxærös 10:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Unless you specify which edit(s) you are talking about Lexein & Nyxaros, don't expect a response. CapnZapp (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Lexein here. Your edit summary on The Queen's Gambit does not make any sense either. nyxærös 10:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
AFC
You recently removed a "decline" from a review with the edit summary "rm submission declined, wasn't (re)submitted for AFC review".[8]
The decline is from 12/28.[9] The previous submission was on 12/15.[10]
Did I miss something? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- That second AFC was an "empty" AFC and the appropriate action - had I caught it in time - would have been to revert 103.154.54.87's edit as a test edit (since that IP user has made only that single edit, no reason to assume vandalism). While I have nothing against Modussiccandi's decision I felt it unnecessary to saddle the draft with a second decline since it doesn't bring anything new to the table. CapnZapp (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!
I don't know how to leave messages on here, so hope you see this! 70.23.34.152 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Sarah
- You're welcome! CapnZapp (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- You know better than to template the regulars. (To anyone reading this: by "other editors" Wally means himself). CapnZapp (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Brigette Kahn
CapnZapp, I don't really understand how Wikipedia works systematically, so I don't know how to summon you to a talk page for an article, but the name of Toryn Farr is relevant. Non-notability is not relevant to article contents per [[WP::NNC]]. She has been identified as such in multiple different works (not just Tales of the Bounty Hunters), and the name of the character she played, even if it's not in the original film, is entirely relevant information to include in the article. She's even identified in the article's sources! Hppavilion1 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My disappointing reply
Anyway, see you at the inevitable talk or merge discussion after this initial sparring match is over. Hopefully I don't have to say "told you so"...
This will not happen as I will be avoiding Queen's Gambit articles and other articles where you are active. Your domineering, battleground behaviour derailed the Afd process and made the evolution of a consensus impossible. You have repeatedly shown a disrespectful attitude to other editors. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- First off, it was made clear to me the consensus was only allowed to revolve around "delete or not delete". Once the prospect of reaching a consensus to delete had evaporated, what was there left to discuss? I fully agree with you and your reasons to start the AfD, and I am not disappointed in you, just the way some users use (or rather, not use) the AfD process. CapnZapp (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Archiving
Hi CapnZapp, about the archiving, I wanted to address your concerns; The bot you added is still there, and manually archiving won't affect it, (that is... if the bot is working at all. Sometimes there's issues). There is already an archive listing and search box at the top the page, so no need for a duplicate. Those "external links notifications" were discontinued back in 2017. They can actually be deleted, but I just leave them with the page when swapping to an archive. Anyway, we certainly don't need to keep them. As for the table of contents, they are automatically added only after there's a third level-2 section header. As for "eating" the toc, you would get the same result anyway, even if the page were archived by a bot. That said, if you want one there for some reason, you can add it manually, and I did that on the page to show you. If you have any questions, just lemme know. Have a nice day - wolf 17:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm asking you to not manually archive pages where the bot is active *especially* on the same day I set up the automatic archival bot. I especially would like to ask you not to intervene with the argument "the bot might not work" - instead please assume I know how to set it up correctly. Thank you. The archive listing and search box at the top are something you added when you added the talk header, so *you* created the duplication. Please don't use that as as an argument to revert my fixes. (Of course there can be a talk header. It's easy to instruct it to not show any archive index and search box). I don't care about those external links notifications, I just partially reverted you to comply with the archival settings I just set up - leaving four sections, which...
- ... in turn ensures the TOC. So, I don't need to manually add a TOC, and you don't need to do it for me.
- In fact the next time you see someone adding bot instructions you don't need to do anything besides leaving the page alone! Please do so for 24 hours to let the bot do the work it has just been set up to do, before considering any further action. Thank you.
- Now then, the big question: why did you revert my fixes, User:Thewolfchild?! CapnZapp (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a heads-up, now I've restored it all to how I first intended it. The TOC will appear as soon as a fourth section is added (not three) - and remain there (since the archive bot's instructions prevent it from archiving to below four sections). Please let us now both leave the page alone for the time being (without discussing first). Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, the *big* question is why you would get so bent out of shape over the archiving of a low traffic, start-class talk page, claiming I interfered with your settings and "fixes"(?), and then go on to edit-war so you can what... put back the archive box that interferes with the page layout and text of the top thread, then go on and add a couple of pat-yourself-on-the-back, bogus-threads, just to artificially create a TOC, that there's simple markup for, and then top it all off with this rant, complete with talk-page-screaming. That's the big question. - wolf 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just a head's up, I just realized that I don't care. - wolf 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay then CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just a head's up, I just realized that I don't care. - wolf 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, the *big* question is why you would get so bent out of shape over the archiving of a low traffic, start-class talk page, claiming I interfered with your settings and "fixes"(?), and then go on to edit-war so you can what... put back the archive box that interferes with the page layout and text of the top thread, then go on and add a couple of pat-yourself-on-the-back, bogus-threads, just to artificially create a TOC, that there's simple markup for, and then top it all off with this rant, complete with talk-page-screaming. That's the big question. - wolf 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a heads-up, now I've restored it all to how I first intended it. The TOC will appear as soon as a fourth section is added (not three) - and remain there (since the archive bot's instructions prevent it from archiving to below four sections). Please let us now both leave the page alone for the time being (without discussing first). Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to ask Thewolfchild to think about caring again. CapnZapp, you've been making this nannying of talk pages your self-appointed business for far too long now. The above incident (at Talk:Hull_classification_symbol) follows close on the heels of a bizarre time-waster at Talk:Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Please_note:_no_manual_archiving_is_necessary, which in turn comes after an even more bizarre series of threads at
- WT:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_13#guidance_on_talk_page_size
- WT:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_13#Article_talk_page_size
- WT:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_13#User_talk_page_size and (my personal favorite)
- WT:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_13#Rule_of_thumb.
You've been wasting people's time all over the project with this kind of stuff for a year now, apparently because you're butthurt over the idea of any rule or limitation that applies to everybody else but not me
(as you said at the Twenty-Fifth Amendment link I just gave – though honestly I can't really make heads nor tails of what you mean by that) plus some weird idea that manual archiving is evil (see same link). It's long overdue for you to cut it out. EEng 09:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I nominated Publius (publishing system) for deletion
If you are interested, please comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publius (publishing system) (2nd nomination). Anton.bersh (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Necromancer Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GSL.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have already left this template on your page before. I would assume you would be aware of this core behavioral policy. If you do not have something to contribute to a discussion other than attacking another editor, then you should not be contributing at that time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- To anyone reading this: Wally knows far better than to template the regulars, or falsely create the impression this is a neutral warning message from an uninvolved third party. CapnZapp (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Personal attacks violate a core behavior policy for editing here. If you consider yourself a "regular", then you should already understand the core policies. Here is a summary of Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which includes helpful links to articles such as WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. If you need more help, there is also the Wikipedia help desk. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- This attempt at trolling is really tiresome, Wally. CapnZapp (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Big Sky Rail
Template:Big Sky Rail has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright discussion
Hi there. I just wanted to respond in regards to a comment you made on User:Fabrickator's talk page and tagged me on. You made a comment about maybe being clearer on a copyright violation and about archive copies. I think you're missing some context here. There was a huge discussion on the External links noticeboard, that Fabrickator was involved with, where the consensus is that Archive.org can be used for webpage backups, but that they clearly do not have copyright permission to store full copies of books etc for free full public viewing. In fact Archive.org is embroiled in court cases on this very topic that it is very unlikely they will win. General consensus is that these books on Archive.org are clearly uploaded by random users and are very clearly in breach of copyright laws, Archive.org (or Open Library) doesn't have the rights to them and all such links should be removed. Fabrickator was involved in these discussions, and was fully aware of them, but then put a link into an article linking to a fully copy of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on Archive.org (or open library), something that any reasonable person (never mind one actively involved in a discussion about this very topic) would think is a copyright violation. That is what lead to the warning. Hope that clears things up. Canterbury Tail talk 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You don't know what you're doing
- You're adding a reference that says nothing that isn't in the Variety reference already present.
- You're adding a bare link to a featured article
- You're adding a link in the middle of a section that is sourced to a different ref
- You keep using a different date format to all the other refs in a Featured ARticle
- Despite the date being updated to the right format and the current date it was last accessed, hence access-date, you keep putting it back
- You're doing all of this under the guise that I didn't explain what I was doing, when I clearly fucking explained it twice to you
- Don't continue to educate me on editing when you can't even figure out a date format Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- User: Darkwarriorblake: The time for reasoned discussion is over. You have lost all credibility with me. CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- The reasoned discussion was had, you just ignored it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- User: Darkwarriorblake: If you can't contain yourself enough to realize when the time for talk messages is over, let me tell you: now. Let ANI handle this issue. CapnZapp (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- You should delete your last embarrassing message at ANI in the hope that without it discussion will peter out. Yes someone was rude to you but they were substantively correct and you were substantively incorrect and stubbornly refusing to understand that people care about that is not good. Basically your post is an enormous sign that says "WP:IDHT, please block me". --JBL (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your goal is here. If you are genuinely concerned about my continued presence here on Wikipedia, I have not edited the actual page since making my ANI report, and unless some admin quick to anger wants to punish me for criticizing the reception ANI is giving people, I genuinely don't see that I have taken any objectionable actions severe enough to merit a block.[a] In fact, that discussion has not even started as far as I'm concerned. That a couple of the ANI participants already decided I'm guilty without even hearing me out is their business. However, if you genuinely wish to discuss those editing contributions of mine, those that led up to the outburst from that other editor - as I said, I am willing to discuss.[b] CapnZapp (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Just to start off the discussion[c], and why I maintain I was not trying to agitate Darkwarriorblake but instead acted in good faith:
- I added a reference that actually did give more details than what the Variety reference already present provides, and indeed was re-added back by another editor shortly after Darkwarriorblade's outburst.
- Yes, I added a bare link to a featured article. So what? Unless the rules have changed since I last looked, WP:BAREURLs are allowed. In fact, as I state at the top of this very talk page: "I subscribe to the school of thought that considers all references welcome contributions to Wikipedia, including bare URL references."
- "You're adding a link in the middle of a section that is sourced to a different ref" - no I was adding a reference to a sentence that wasn't referenced, sandwiched between two sentenced that did have references.
- "You keep using a different date format to all the other refs in a Featured ARticle" Yep guilty as charged.
- "Despite the date being updated to the right format and the current date it was last accessed, hence access-date, you keep putting it back" This is the core of the issue. I noticed the date for the reference didn't feel right. It was set to 2003, the year the source was publicized. But that was six years before the reference was added! So I hunted down the edit that did add the reference, and set the last-accessed-date to the correct year: 2009. The reception of this edit was: 1) a revert that did not even deign to acknowledge it was a revert [11] 2) still no acknowledgement my edit was reverted, now instead insulting me by calling it a "correction" [12]. Note: if he wanted to correct my edit, if the format really was the issue here: he would have changed access-date=2009-10-11 to access-date=11 October 2009. But he didn't - he reset the date to today's date (at least it was today when the edit was made). That's not a correction - that is not accepting my edit. When I explained myself (and asked for each of my edits to be reverted separately, so I wouldn't have to face any more of these unaddressed reverts) I said "this was introduced by the 00:06, 11 October 2009 edit by JeffBillman" to explain why I set the date to that date. I did not get another chance to explain myself, and the editor certainly did not bother to ask me. Instead he threw a bucket of profanity at me (see above). At that stage, not only did I lose my appetite for civilized discussion, I decided that an ANI report would be the only way to show that editor the unacceptable nature of his actions. I am sure I could have done better myself, and since this is not ANI, anyone reading this should feel free to point out exactly where.
In short, I believe I am in the clear here, and that his outburst is not only unacceptable, but also completely out of proportion to the one and only clear-cut transgression I committed (remember, all I did wrong was to use a proper date format recognized by Wikimedia, just not the one he preferred) Instead, what I think was going on here is that I had the misfortune to encounter an editor with an inflated sense of article ownership with a criminally short fuse. However, unless I'm mistaken all editors are equal: being a prominent contributor does not mean you own an article, and it does not mean you get a pass when you violate Wikipedia's core policies. CapnZapp (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ I mean, obviously I understand I might be pissing someone off. However, if the mere act of posting stuff that others disagree with and get agitated by were a blockable offense, surely half the Wikipedia editor corps would have been blocked a long time ago...
- ^ In fact, that discussion has not even started as far as I'm concerned. (Though I start it myself just below) That a couple of the ANI participants already decided I'm guilty without even hearing me out is their business.
- ^ and to post my version of the story before anyone thinks to block me, should it come to that
Prosciutto cotto redirect
I don't know what you mean by "stealth revert" -- I assume you have the redirect page on your watchlist.
I don't understand the logic of pointing prosciutto cotto to prosciutto: the only thing the prosciutto article says about it is that it is not prosciutto cotto -- it is certainly not a "sub-topic".
On the other hand, I agree that the ham article should cover prosciutto cotto more explicitly -- in fact, I said that in Talk:Prosciutto. The fix for that is adding material to ham, not pointing prosciutto cotto to an inappropriate article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I have added info about prosciutto cotto to the Ham article and changed the redirect to go to Ham#Prosciutto cotto. --Macrakis (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021
Re this, your comment was unnecessary given that the proposal was withdrawn weeks ago. Please drop the stick and let it go. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 13:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
DNAU
Thanks for reverting Template:DNAU. I didn't notice this was a recent change. There is still a discrepancy at the User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo; ten years is a long time, but it's not "indefinitely". I went down this rabbit hole because I wanted to preserve a thread that's 16 years old. My preference would be to somehow fix DNAU so that the default really is "indefinitely", but either way the documentation and the behavior should match. GA-RT-22 (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- I changed the wording from "indefinitely" (which indeed is incorrect; Wikipedia is much older than ten years) to "a long time" which is sufficiently descriptive while still vague enough to encourage interested users to "see the template documentation for details about its use and function" for details. Since your good faith documentation change was how I caught this change, I thank you. I suggest you first ask yourself what purpose is served by keeping active such an old discussion. After ten years it is hard to see any utility in keeping the discussion open - are you sure you cannot transfer the information from the talk page to the actual article? CapnZapp (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks. I knew you'd ask that question! This is for Talk:List of automotive superlatives. The top thread there is a couple of "Rules" that were apparently supposed to be sticky. That page had been manually archived in the past, but hadn't been archived in a long time, and I wanted to set up auto archiving. But I didn't want to think about the Rules thread, I just wanted to do the same thing the manual archivists had done in the past, but automatically: Preserve the Rules thread, archive everything else. It's gotten completely silly at this point because obviously I've spent far more time figuring out DNAU than it would have taken to just think about, and probably discard, the Rules thread. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Avoiding an edit war at Bhavana (actress)
Hi CapnZapp, please keep WP:EW and WP:ONUS in mind at Bhavana (actress).
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. I am joining in the efforts to keep trolls from removing well-sourced information from the Bhavana page. I realize you feel compelled to post this boilerplate text onto my page, User:ToBeFree, but you really come off as an uncaring bot here. If what you meant was to say "I understand your edits, CapnZapp, but the Discretionary Sanctions leave no leeway for spam patrol - you will be sanctioned if you violate the Arbitration Committee's decision. Please combat vandals to BLP pages with caution." you really should have said so with a personal message (which I just provided you with). CapnZapp (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- But consider me duly notified, I guess. Again sigh. CapnZapp (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
If that was my opinion, I'd a) actually have said so and b) long have removed the content. Neither has happened. I primarily wanted to make sure that while I warn Sahirshah for edit warring, they don't get an impression of me taking any side. I have noticed that you are not the only person favoring inclusion of the content, and not the only person restoring it after deletion. I hope semi-protection eases the situation a bit. Thank you for your request at WP:RFPP, and all the best. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- oh, and regarding "vandals", nah, I have not seen a case of intentional damage to the encyclopedia in that edit war yet. No malice, just understandable disagreement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) While staying neutral is generally admirable, in this case it is obviously misguided (something you would clearly have seen if you looked even briefly at the particulars) only earning you one editor's (me) ire. I am not involved in an "edit war". I am just the latest editor to revert trolls from removing well-sourced information about Dileep's involvement in a well-publicized sexual assault scandal. Please be a bit more careful before you template the regulars next time, User:ToBeFree! Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you and will keep the advice in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers and do keep up your efforts at improving the project! CapnZapp (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Please be a bit more careful before you template...
The template in question is a Descritionary sanctions notice, a BLP one in particular. Everyone who edits within the topics that fall under the said discretionary sanctions automatically are subjected to it. Editors are required to be made aware by the policy and it does not matter how regular one might be. ToBeFree doesn't have any misguided intentions. I was actually thinking of notifying both you and Sahir Shah of a possible edit warring, but ToBeFree beat me to it. I would do exactly the same as he did. It is unfortunate that you would also be seen as a party to edit warring in this context, but since this seems to be a long-term issue, I wouldn't recommend a rever-revert-revert chain. Hope it clarifies :) — DaxServer (t · c · m) 14:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)- I guess thanks for writing a personalized note. Other than that there is nothing to add that hasn't already been stated. CapnZapp (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers and do keep up your efforts at improving the project! CapnZapp (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you and will keep the advice in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| For keeping trolls off article on Bhavana. Hemantha (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
May 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Norway Debate, you may be blocked from editing. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- First off - I know you're not a newb, so we both know you're trying to troll me by templating the regulars. But that just doesn't work on me. Sorry. Second, I find it amusing that you slap templates onto my user page the very same day you tell me to stay off your own user page. All in all, I'll give you a C for effort. However, we both know that when you have no better arguments than boilerplate you've already lost. Take care, User:No Great Shaker. CapnZapp (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good grief. NGS Shakin' All Over 22:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if this reaches you in time, but do try to undo your own 3RR violation, User:No Great Shaker CapnZapp (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Other than that I don't know what to say. You ask me to stay off your talk page but have zero compunctions visiting mine. Oh well CapnZapp (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. You really try to punch below the belt, don't you User:No Great Shaker? A CIR complaint, eh? Well, we'll see who's competent enough to steer clear of any 3RR block, shall we? CapnZapp (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good grief. NGS Shakin' All Over 22:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Henry Stanley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Home for Incurables.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Mass spamming of Cleanup bare URLs template Moxy-
16:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
FIDE Congress moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, FIDE Congress, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- All sources are at the target pages. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Setting up auto-archive
Hi CapnZapp. Sorry that you took my action [13] to indicate something other than what I wrote. If you could help set up auto-archiving, I'd appreciate it. - Hipal (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm in no rush, but let me know if you're not interested. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have enough time at present. But you could do worse than to browse the help at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo, especially the line: "If you are unsure what code to use, a suggestion: go to #Example 2: Incremental archives and have a look at its copy paste section." CapnZapp (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Dido Belle
i have new information about her if you want to add the information to her wikipedia page.
Recently Mary Hamilton letters and diary have been published online. Mary Hamilton was Louisa Carthcart's cousin and close friend ( Louisa's mother was Jane Hamilton), Louisa at this point was the second wife of David Murray, Lady Elizabeth's stepmom. although Mary Hamilton was Great Granddaughter of 6th Earl of Abercorn, she was strangely improvished but still really well connected and educated, she was also the much loved Governess to the young princesses.
throughtout Mary Hamilton diary and letters, she visited her cousin Louisa at Kenwood several times, she met all the family member and describe them with good detail, all except Dido. she mentioned everyone even the one who wasn't present at Kenwood at the moment. so this might give clue to Dido's further awkward situation Wentwort12 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- clue scattered throughtout her letters, one time Mary went to church with the Murrays, and the Murrays from Kenwood were already there except Dido. ( Lady Elizabeth, Lady Anne and Marjory, Elizabeth half brother).
- regardless there was not a single mention of Dido, despite she visit Kenwood, eat and dine there, etc. this in itself is quite strange as Mary Hamilton was a very observant and highly intelligent person. Wentwort12 (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia/reusing deleted material
Please refer to WP:Copying within Wikipedia, specifically the section on reusing deleted material. The article you created Slumber Party '57 is clearly a copy of a previously deleted version of the same article, whose deleted text you obtained from User_talk:Fastily#Slumber_Party_'57. In such a case, you are required to, at the very least, provide attribution to the original author of the text. Bennv123 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- You can provide attribution using a dummy edit summary. I would do it on your behalf but I do not know who the original author of the text is. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Slumber Party '57.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Slumber Party '57.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
AFC order
For someone who claims to know nothing about how things run at AFC, you sure want to do everything you can to not follow its procedures. When AFCH "cleans" the page, it puts it in the correct order - {{AFC submission}} templates (both pending, declined, and rejected), then comments, then the draft text. If you want to change our system, start a discussion, don't barge in trying to act like you know better than someone who has been with the project for almost a decade. Primefac (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- My aim is for a reader of the Revord draft to immediately see why the draft is declined. And this was good enough for months, but suddenly here you are, Primefac. Not only did I start a discussion, I started two and participated in a third. If you are so proficient in AFC procedures, how about actually helping? I know for a fact you are aware the reject was in error and should have been a decline, and that decline should have had a note explaining the specifics, right there in the template that the user sees without having to scroll or switching to talk pages. How about showing off your mad AFC skills by actually fixing this? Thx, CapnZapp (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am waiting for multiple discussions to reach a consensus. You are correct, I personally do not feel that rejections are suitable for stopping tendentious resubmissions, but the Project allows it so I go with it. I do not care enough to attempt to change that particular consensus.
- As a minor point, your AFC comments never stood "for months" where they were; the first one was shifted after three weeks, and the second time it lasted where you placed it for all of an hour. It only got moved to the draft talk once it started becoming a threaded discussion, which is not the point of an AFC comment. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
It only got moved to the draft talk once it started becoming a threaded discussion, which is not the point of an AFC comment.
Sure, okay. However, my initial{{AFC comment}}was meant to specifically supplement the most recent reject or decline with, in my opinion, critical information to the Draft:Raegan Revord reader in a highly visible spot. Since I can't (shouldn't?) change the actual AFC submission template, a comment right below it is the second best thing. The fact others responded to it does not mean it deserves to lose its visibility, right there at the top of the article (draft). Your motive for participation appears to be different than mine. My aim is to preserve a highly visible commentary to the far-too-terse reject reasoning. Every comment I've made at those various other talk pages should be interpreted with this goal in mind. In short, I'm not involved with AfD. I just want this page fixed. <rant>Of course, I wouldn't mind if your procedures were propped up to avoid similar cases in the future, but with replies such as this one from User:Curb Safe Charmer, I have given up on that. I would have thought the way multiple reviewers have multiple times failed to add notes makes an obvious case for shoring up your instructions, but obviously everything is already fine... /s Okay, whatever.</rant> Now I just want the Revord draft fixed, and I see no reason why you and I can't fix it while we wait formultiple discussions to reach a consensus
, User:Primefac. For instance, if the reason the comment stayed at the top for weeks was because nobody ran this AFCH script, then let's not run the AFCH script? Of course, if you can point me in the direction of where I can learn how to modify the{{AFC submission}}template to be in compliance with CSC's aforementioned instructions, that works too. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Raegan Revord (December 8)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raegan Revord and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Concern regarding Draft:FIDE Congress
Hello, CapnZapp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:FIDE Congress, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:FIDE Congress
Hello, CapnZapp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "FIDE Congress".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about User:CapnZapp. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |