Chronus

Suggestion

Hi, Chronus! What's up? In light of your interest and penchant for the illustration of architecture, you may also pay attention too to sub-articles such as Architecture of Madrid. There is life beyond the main articles. Best regards. Asqueladd (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am willing (I am happy) to discuss in good faith in the talk page about edits, not about editors.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: How am I going to improve the side articles if the main article is full of layout issues, like WP:SANDWICH? You don't own the article and you don't even understand the most basic principles of our style guide. And please spare me that kind of juvenile teasing. Chronus (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am open and willing to discuss any image both on an individual and on a group balance basis. But I need you to try. To try in the talk page, that is (so more users can join).--Asqueladd (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not "juvenile teasing". It is just that there is no other attempt of consensus. You should respect the effort and time editors spent in it bringing literally nothing whatsoever to counter it.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

For example, I want the rest of contributors to read you opening a talk page thread arguing for a compelling reason for depicting building facades over possibly more dynamic and illustrative options in the talk page. I would perhaps argue for a different stance in that thread, and we'll see where the thing goes, hopefully with more editors joining. And so that is how a new (hopefully strong) consensus is built.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd "More dynamic and illustrative" in whose opinion? In your? Please. And before questioning the type of image used, why don't you question the absurd positioning you put these images in? Crushing the text and making the content difficult to read in complete disregard of WP:SANDWICH. By the way, I already opened a topic in the article discussion about your behavior. This has to stop. Chronus (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Let's discuss for example the football image. I argue that a image of the depiction of the event (as in the footballers of Real Madrid and Atlético playing the socalled derby) is a better fit than a depiction of a stadium. 1) Because there is already an excess of buildings in the article, 2) because the depiction of a player dribbling across rival players is more dynamic than a building (you cannot argue this, can you?), 3) and because the selected picture illustrates both Real Madrid and Atlético at the same level at the same time.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd Are you not reading what I'm writing? Choose the image you like, my dear. But don't disrespect WP:SANDWICH. Will it be necessary to draw for you to understand? Chronus (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd By the way, the image I had put in the "Sports" section also showed an image of a Madrid Derby, only with a wider shot of the stadium as a whole. I don't think the two-player picture could get any more "dynamic" than that. Furthermore, this concept of "dynamism" is quite subjective. If you want to defend your opinions, at least rely on official project policies. Chronus (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is, and I am surprised you think it is. But I will make the case again in the talk page.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd I told you, leave whatever image you want in the sports section. It's amazing how you like to deviate from the main focus of the discussion, isn't it? Will your majesty allow the inclusion of the sixth image in the infobox and will you comply with the WP:SANDWICH says or will additional steps need to be taken? Chronus (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to have started this, mate. But I have to go to sleep and wake up very early. Bye.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd Of course, you've imposed your will once again, haven't you? Why not go to sleep rather than respond to criticism of your argument, eh? Have a good night of sleep. I'll be here when you wake up. Chronus (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I have to wake up at 3:45 to pick up a flight and work for 12 hours.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd I don't care, mate. If you're so tired, you shouldn't have started this absurd and pointless dispute. Chronus (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

@Chronus Please stop adding outdated images in the infobox and throughout the article at Mumbai. Joy goel (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joy goel: If there's anyone who has to stop something here, that person is you. The images I've added are of better quality and featured on Wikimedia Commons. Also, tell no lies, as the image of the Mumbai skyline I added is actually more current than any other image in the entry. Finally, you are not the owner of the article! Chronus (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chronus Please check properly that Mumbai skyline image you are adding is from 2020 its 3-4 years old, while the lower parel image that was there is from March 2023 and it is 4000/3000 pixels in quality i doubt you will find a better quality image than that of Mumbai. Joy goel (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joy goel The image you're talking about doesn't even show the city skyline (it only shows four buildings from a specific area of the city, whereas the image I added shows the full panorama of Mumbai) and since when is a photo from 2020 "outdated"? Your choice of images is poor and your "arguments" are embarrassing.. I will revert your edits again, as, again, you do not own this article. Chronus (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chronus the image is of Lower Parel its has all the tallest buildings in Mumbai be it world one, world view, trump towers, Marquise, allura, the image you are adding does not show any prominent skyscraper, again the lower parel image is much more recent and of much better quality. I will also revert your edits as you also don't own this page. We have arrived at these infobox images after several talk page discussions. Please discuss here. Joy goel (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joy goel The image I added simply shows ALL of the city's skyscrapers, unlike the lousy image you added which shows half a dozen meaningless buildings. I will report your regrettable behavior to the administrators. Chronus (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parisii.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Some advise, intended to be friendly

I would encourage you not to engage with personal attacks, there is nothing to be gained from any further arguing with Becausewhynothuh?. See WP:BOOMERANG for advise on the subject. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cerebral726 I don't think I've made any personal attacks against this editor. In fact, I suffered personal attacks from him. I didn't understand. But thanks for the message anyway. Chronus (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry. Poor phrasing. I was saying to avoid responding to personal attacks. It's usually fruitless and just amplifies the issues. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cerebral726 Ah yes, now I understand. I even avoided answering that last message from him to breathe and think better about what to write. You are totally right. It's not worth arguing with that kind of editor. Thank you! Chronus (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You continue to engage with Becausewhynothuh? on their talk page despite two admins specifically requested that you stop. When an editor asks you not to post on their talk page, the expectation is that you will abide by the request. Regardless of your frustration, continuing to argue with Becausewhynothuh? is only exacerbating the situation. You need to stop now.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are currently aggravating the situation which is resulting in them making the comments. They wouldn't be making them if you weren't on their talk page making it all worse. Your comments are adding nothing to the situation and I will not take any action against an editor when another editor is stimulating the conversation in that direction which is resulting in those comments. Canterbury Tail talk 21:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo Okay, I'll post it here then. The editor has again uttered serious attacks against me ("toxic", "unpleasant", "aggressive", "uncivilized") and that's what you have to say? Is this standard procedure? What did I do wrong to be treated like this? Can the editor in question continue to abuse public space for me infringing? Just so I understand. Chronus (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked editors sometimes lash out due to frustration and anger. A certain amount of leeway is provided for them to do so because behind every account there is a human being, not a robot. You continuing to argue on their talk page when they are blocked and you are not does absolutely nothing to lower the volume. You are throwing fuel on a fire and that is why you are being asked to disengage. As I noted before, when an editor asks another editor to stop posting on their talk page, outside of mandatory notices, you should abide by the request.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo I just went to ask for some self-criticism, as I saw from his comments that he didn't take any responsibility for what happened and that he didn't learn anything from blocking applied. But I understand your point. I will no longer interact with the editor in question or edit that page. But if he tries to interact with me and provoke me, I will report his behavior again. Thanks. Chronus (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If you weren't gravedancing and winding them up those comments wouldn't have happened. What did you expect them to say? Canterbury Tail talk 21:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail What comments? Just because I asked him to do a self-criticism? Is this "gravedancing"? What did he learn from this blockade? He's posting teases right now against me. How do we still have to wait for "future actions" to take action? Chronus (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail Why the question? Do you think I disrespected 1RR? And how does that relate to what happened today? Chronus (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to check, but no you didn't do anything, you didn't violate any 1RRs anyway and the question was irrelevant, hence why I removed it. I meant no disrespect. Canterbury Tail talk 22:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail I didn't think you were disrespectful. It's just that you said this whole situation means you needed to ask about my restriction. So I was curious to understand why. Anyway thanks and sorry for anything. Goodnight. Chronus (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I thought you had reverted more, but upon checking better rather than just relying on an obviously faulty memory, that was not you and was my error. Canterbury Tail talk 22:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail After I received that restriction, I decided to continue respecting 1RR even after the restriction was lifted, haha. This way I avoid new future problems and avoid getting into new edit wars. Anyway, I apologize for having edited that editor's page. My intention wasn't to add fuel to the fire, but in the end that's what I ended up doing. Thank you for your patience and guidance. Chronus (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Things sometimes get heated, it happens. Sometimes you just need to step back and let it go. Don't be the one still carrying the woman. Have a good whatever it is where you are. Canterbury Tail talk 22:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I appologize

There might have been mistakes from my side. I am leaving this place as the admins have insulted my character. You know they have taken something very subjective and so I might move to court if they continue this. You have no faults, I'm sorry 25Aric (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@25Aric You only considered "apologizing" because your absurd complaint to the admins didn't have the result you were hoping for. Please do not edit this page and do not contact me further. Thanks. Chronus (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Mumbai

Regarding changes to the structure of the article, please see whether it can conform to WP:INCITIES guidelines, a specific one for Indian articles. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, Sports, Media, etc should have a separate section, not withing the 'Culture', per the policy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Policy? Since when does a Wikiproject recommendation have "policy" value? And, from what I could see, "cuisine" and "architecture" should really be within the "Culture" section. But anyway, go ahead and undo my edit. Chronus (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've mistakenly written 'policy', it should be 'guideline', it is treated as such in many articles. ""Cuisine" and "architecture" should really be within the "Culture" section" - That's true, which is why I only mentioned "Sports" and "Media". Anyway, the arrangement (before you started editing) wasn't per INCITIES either, so it needs correction and but possibly would require consensus before that since GA. I'll do it after sometime. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Ah ok. Now I get it. Anyway, I've edited the article again and left the "Media" and "Sports" as separate sections and out of the "Culture". I just kept the "Food" and "Architecture" sections inside "Culture". Thanks for the explanation and sorry for the edit. I didn't know this guide to Indian cities existed. Chronus (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I saw that. Thanks. Happy editing . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I honor you for working to resolve the dispute pending on the New York City article talk page. This type of dispute resolution is not too common anymore on Wikipedia. Kudos! TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pie chart of the religion in Mexico

Template:Pie chart of the religion in Mexico has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

schedule

[1]https://www.capital21.cdmx.gob.mx/noticias/?p=33415#:~:text=de%20septiembre%2C%202022-,Con%20445%20votos%20a%20favor%2C%208%20en%20contra%20y%2033,presidente%20Andr%C3%A9s%20Manuel%20L%C3%B3pez%20Obrador. 龙2000 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into New York City. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Cisplatine Flag

I'd like to ask you to stop reverting edits concerning the Cisplatine Flag, for the time being there's no official historical source for this flag and I suspect it is entirely false. The only sources circle back to Wikipedia and it would not be the first time an apocryphal flag is attributed to historical entity in Wikipedia (see Austria-Hungary), be aware. Thanks. Coquimbo58 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Coquimbo58: There is a source and it is in the file. Respect the WP:STATUSQUO before removing content. Chronus (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war

Just as a heads up, I have reverted your changes on the article which reinstated the execution videos. There was an earlier discussion which opposed their inclusion. Ecrusized (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized Ok, no problem. Chronus (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Sdkb ^talk 06:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)