Please add new talk topics in new sections, at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes will expand into your signature).

I will reply here, and expect you to be watching my user talk page, even if you are Nyttend.

Random style tip edit

Another styletip ...


To indicate approximately, the unitalicized abbreviation of the Latin word circa (c., followed by a space) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx.

Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Barnstars and such edit

  The Original Barnstar
I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

  The Photographer's Barnstar
To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

  All Around Amazing Barnstar
For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

  The Original Barnstar
For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  The Surreal Barnstar
For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Convict Lake
  The Photographer's Barnstar
For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

  The Special Barnstar
I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

  The Resilient Barnstar
For your work in standardising article titles in line with the now consistent MOS:JR guidance, I present you this accolade. Your continued work in this regard, and in others, has been appreciated. It may have taken years, but much was accomplished. RGloucester 14:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For an eternity of super-gnoming at WP:Requested moves to rein in entire swathes of article-titling chaos and bring them into order. I'm sure it can seem thankless work at times, so thanks!  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is said by many that A picture is worth a thousand words. Wikipedia articles are vastly improved and enhanced by the use of images. Dicklyon's user page displays just some of the over 500 images he has added to Wikipedia articles making the articles more enjoyable and interesting for our most important commodity, our reader. WP:Photography. He is a long-time veteran editor with over 137000 edits (58% in mainspace) who always uses the edit summary to clarify his edits and communicate his intentions to following editors. He also participates in various timely and important WP:Manual of Style discussions to improve what and how we do things around here. A trusted, productive and helpful editor that deserves recognition as an Editor of the Week.

  The Original Barnstar
I've started to note the many scholarly contributions of this author, beginning with editing of the Wikipedia Cintel pages. For images and vision, I've had a lifelong career in color grading for feature films, tv commercials, videos, etc. with telecine and other systems worldwide; as a musician, 'Human and Machine Hearing' will certainly be fascinating. Thank you to Richard F. Lyon for providing the PDF of this work to all.
Lingelbach (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Fighting the Good Fight Barnstar
For resisting those who would like Wikipedia’s capitalization rules to resemble a corporate brochure or a government press release —Wallnot (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This is for your really thorough clean up after the Armenian genocide move discussion. My watchlist is full of your edits since days. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thank you! Biggerj1 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

that's for these hacks:

  The Minor barnstar
SO MANY MINOR EDITS! Thank you for your work. -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
There we go again, commenting on the quantity of my edits instead of the quality. But minor thanks anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

New topics edit

Add new topics at the bottom please.

Redlinks edit

We have Rozelle Bay and White Bay (New South Wales), and Blackwattle Bay, but Johnstons Bay, between them, has no article. Need to fix...

And the new Me-Mel ferry could use an article. Me-Mel is also an alt name for Goat Island (Port Jackson) it says there. Dicklyon (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contact edit

Hello, how may i contact you for a creation of a page? SilentNotmad (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Specifically, the creation of a page for the artist Rudolf Burda. Thank you. SilentNotmad (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not my department. Try WP:AFC for advice. Or contact me here, any time, for further advice. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

USFL Draft RM edit

Howdy. The positioning & indenting of your question, is confusing. Are you asking me or SmokeyJoe? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Without a link to the question, it's hard to say. Probably SmokeyJoe though. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've moved my post, to avoid confusion. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see what I did. Sometimes it's hard to see an unindented new paragraph with no blank line, in the midst of indents. Dicklyon (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I haven't nay or yayed this one, and lean towards lowercase as I'm not sure if it was a major event like the NFL Draft has become (increasingly commonly recognized as a proper name by fans and the general public). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You missed... edit

Dance On My Own, in which, hopefully, someone dances atop a dance floor formally named My Own. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Andromeda Galaxy edit

Crux with clouds, from Cape Town in 2022
The Wannon River at Cavendish, Victoria
Flagstaff Hill Maritime Village
Vertical stitched panorama of Silverband Falls

Have you seen it from Australia? If so, envious. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, haven't looked. When does it rise or set? Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Don't know. The page said dark skies make for better viewing. Ask the locals, unless some of them have never seen it. Binoculars may work in cities? I recall on a Paris visit I found that many Parisians had never visited the Louvre (on a similar note, watched a lunar eclipse occurring in Seattle on TV and the saddest thing was that there were cars still driving on a street in the background but had turned their lights on). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I found "It's best to find Andromeda in fall in the Northern Hemisphere". It's toward the north, and wrong time of year, so I probably won't see it. But Crux is nice. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
As the fantasy star of the film Dumb and Dumber I sometimes take on too much of the character. I meant the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, which apparently isn't that much of a sight even when see in dark skies. I've never seen Andromeda under dark conditions but would like to. Crux, on the other hand, that must be nice viewing. Good photo, must have been thin clouds for stars to shine through like that. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here are more pix from down under. Dicklyon (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The LMC should be quite high in the evening this time of year. I'll try to get a view, maybe tomorrow. Dicklyon (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your image of Silverband Falls is very nice, and hopefully you will add it as a second image on the page when you return (the existing image shows the "Silverband" effect, which probably emerges full bloom with a heavier water flow than what you experienced). Doing so would continue to define you, if I may, as a constructionist. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've placed the image on Silverband Falls, would that size and placement work well? A nice illustration for the page if it sticks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I think 300px wide makes it too big. Typical thumb width is 220 or thereabouts I think, and letting is use the user's default is more normal. I tweaked it around a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did get to the see the LMC, and got a photo with a faint fuzzy blob that might be it, not worth sharing. Thanks for the tip. I should have brought a real camera and tripod. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then my mission here is done (in this section at least). Glad you saw it. Faint fuzzy blob, I think that's the formal name. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Panoramic view of the Tower Hill maar in Victoria from the north-side scenic lookout
Kennett River walk

February 2024 edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  

Your comment at RMTR is beyond the pale. Normally, it might land you a warning, but you were recently blocked for another personal attack against the same editor. So, to make this clear: it is okay to raise questions about another editor's conduct at an appropriate venue. It is okay to contact an admin, privately or on their talk page, to ask for an outside assessment of another editor's conduct. It is never okay to level personal attacks against another editor, no matter how vexatious or frustrating you may find their opinions or procedural actions. I implore you to consider whether you want to continue down this path, as further incivility may well result in an indefinite block or community ban. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

(by talk reader) @Theleekycauldron: Saying someone is being obstructionist doesn't sound like a personal attack to me. I rebuke editors who think any voiced criticism is "beyond the pale". Your words do injustice to the phrase, itself. Please revert your block. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
How is a comment on a user's behavior a personal attack? This is nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
A post at ANI that reads "[User] has been editing disruptively in this area, as evidenced by these diffs" is a legitimate comment on another user's behavior. Constructive criticism of other editors' behavior is indeed part and parcel of the system. Calling other editors "obstructionist" because they disagree with you is a personal attack, especially in the context of a grossly incivil comment on their talk page that you never apologized for. @Chris troutman: I do not, in fact, think that any voiced criticism is "beyond the pale". But editors who raise concerns about the behavior of others are required to comply with our policy on decorum, no matter the venue. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Chris Troutman. Calling an editor obstructive is well short of an attack. Tony (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did apologize, and GoodDay accepted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
indeed you did :) I've updated my comment accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
:) to you, too. Dicklyon (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In particular, GoodDay had said he'd stay out of the uppercase/lowercase question. Instead, he just reverts moves that change case, saying that an RM is needed. I'm always happy to open an RM if someone says they disagree with the result of my move, but that's not what's happening here. He doesn't disagree, just obstructs. So I said so. How is this incivil or an attack? See the discussion he started about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#NHL Conference Finals moved to NHL conference finals. Nobody has given a reason to prefer uppercase, and several there have supported the move to lowercase. It's just obstruction, given the recent long discussion and clear consensus for a similar result in another league with no different issues. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not a personal attack; it's critical of behavior ("being obstructionist" is an action taken, not a viewpoint, mental capacity, motivation, personality, protected class of any kind, political, religious or other indentity/association, etc., etc.). There may have been a better way to phrase it, but WP's actionable meaning of "personal attack" has a clear (albeit lengthy) definition at WP:WIAPA. Saying that an editor's action is "obstructionist" does not fit any aspect of that definition. The only clause of any potential relevance is "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"; however, after extensive discussion has already demonstrated that the upper-case cause on this is not supportable by relevant P&G (MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS) and sourcing, then thwarting moves that bring them into compliance with the P&G would appear to be describable as obstruction[ist] self-evidently, i.e. by-definition, so no diffs would be needed. (And what would someone diff? That GoodDay made an unconstructive WP:RMTR request? We already know that, since Dicklyon's comment was a reply to it).

Other ways to phrase Dicklyon's objection are various, but someone is apt to take offense at their (or in this case someone else's) action being criticized no matter how it was phrased, and "someone was criticized", even "someone was offended", does not equate to "someone was personally attacked". If we were required to do a noticeboarding with diffs every time we objected to something an editor was doing/saying, WP productivity would totally grind to a halt, and 95% of our activity would consist of fighting at noticeboards. We routinely just hash things out informally in talk pages (or, this time, a talk-equivalent process page), with the understanding that various actions, statements, or patterns will sometimes be objected to.

Catching up a bit, I've read the wikiproject thread, and what stands out to me is that no one has presented evidence or other rationale in favor of capitalizing (despite being repeatedly asked to), simply insisting on RM process for its own sake, and not addressing the fact that related discussion has already happened at length and concluded in favor of lower-case. Several respondents there (the venue most likely to support capitalization despite MOS:SIGCAPS and MOS:SPORTCAPS) are firmly in favor of the lower-case moves and even of them being manual moves. So, there does not appear to be any actual "controversy" in WP:PCM terms, only an unshared argument to drag things out via lengthy process that consumes editors' time. This is not what we're here for. All of our P&G are applied by default; an exception is something for which a case must be made, and treating one's topic of interest as if the exact opposite applied is highly likely to turn disruptive.

PS: "Beyond the Pale" is indeed a phrase people need to stop throwing around; it has a long, contentious ethno-political history that is highly sensitive to a lot of people (not just one, already linked above, but two nationalities of them).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ummm, per WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links would be considered a personal attack. While certain venues are preferrable, other venues are no excluded by the policy? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you're asking for evidence of the obstruction I was referring to, it's these:
  • [1] and [2] Reverting my changes, solely on the basis of no RM done, without opposing the substance of these case fixes.
  • [3] Reverting change to disambig page, leaving it in an inconsistent state
  • [4] Requests at WP:RMTR to revert my moves, without mentioning a reason to prefer the capitalized form (which is exactly where we were when I wrote the removed personal attack "GoodDay is just being obstructionist about progress that involves page moves", not as a personal attack, but as a characterization of these edits).
If he had said "I think these should be capped, because ..." or something like that, then we'd have something to discuss at an RM discussion. But neither he nor anyone at the discussion he started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive84#NHL Conference Finals moved to NHL conference finals has given a reason to prefer caps. It's all just procedural obstruction: "Not without going the RM route." After a month of discussion at the RM at Talk:NBA conference finals, I thought we had hashed out all the relevant issues and arguments, though we would point out different data of course. That discussion seemed to me like it served to make these others clearly within the consensus to follow MOS:CAPS. So why does he want to discuss all that yet again? There's no remaining controversy. I don't get it. Also note that at that wikiproject discussion, several editors (Hockey project members, I presume) defended my moves as correct and appropriate. I'm wondering if that's why the RMTR revert requests have not been done yet. Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was not specifically asking for diffs etc but providing them only proves the point I was making. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GoodDay: did you think my complaint about your obstruction of move-related progress was intended as a personal attack? Did you take it as such? Dicklyon (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not a reasonable block IMO. I have asked Theleekycauldron on their page to undo it. Bishonen | tålk 10:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC).Reply

Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. This was a very reasonable block, particularly given that Dick has already been blocked in the past for personal attacks against this very same editor. Making personalised comment such as labelling someone you disagree with "obstructionist", in a venue which isn't specifically intended for discussing user conduct (i.e. WP:AN/I), counts as casting WP:ASPERSIONS in my book, and has no place in conversations that should be focused solely on the content questions at hand. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I generally agree with you Dicklyon on capitalisation questions, and I think you really do good work on the project, but as per the advice I offered last week, you're rapidly running out of rope here. This latest incident, coupled with yet another move of draft pages that had previously been controversial (Talk:NHL conference finals) just leaves me tearing my hair out. You need to do better, otherwise an indefinite block really is just around the corner, sorry to be blunt.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Not an admin, but I have the blocked user plugin on, wondered what Dicklyon had done to get blocked, was surprised it was related to the ongoing capitalisation issue, and concur with others that this block was quite unreasonable and needs to be vacated. SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes Dicklyon, I was annoyed that you called me an obstructionist & are describing me as such, again on your own talkpage. An apology from you, would likely help shorten your block, IMHO & also, I'm not seeing any consensus for your unilateral page moves, at WP:HOCKEY. PS - That being said. I recommend in future, you go the RM route. The NBA is not the NHL or KHL. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • This is the fourth time you've been blocked this year, and we're not even three months in. How do you not realize that your efforts to lowercase sports articles are controversial?! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The block has nothing to do with page moves. Don't let that stop you grandstanding a bit, though. Primergrey (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Its from personal attacks which he made due to opposition to his undiscussed page moves, which is the reason of several of the previous blocks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Only one of the blocks was directly for page moves, but two were for personal attacks while discussing page moves based on capitalization, and the last was for edit warring at WP:CENT to add a listing for a RfC concerning capitalization and proposing page moves. "Nothing to do with page moves" would be too much of a stretch, page moves for capitalization seems to be the locus of this entire dispute. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Getting blocked for a PA indicates exactly nothing about the issue being discussed when the (supposed) PA occurred. Obviously. Primergrey (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think if you were to open an RM at Conference Finals, an RM at NHL Conference Finals and an RM at KHL Conference Finals? There should be no problems or complaints, from anyone. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

GoodDay, please give Dicklyon some space. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll do an RM when I'm unblocked. Maybe nobody will complain about the extra wasted editor time that will entail; or maybe they will, as sometimes happens. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've referred this block to this administrators' noticeboard. Dicklyon, if you have anything you'd like to add there, please put it here and I'd be happy to paste it over. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll just stay out of that mess. I think it's a lame block, but I'm not in a rush; busy with other things. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The irony is the block may well expire before the AN thread concludes. I like your aplomb. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The real irony is that now that the block is lifted, I find myself staying in a hotel without working Wi-Fi or cell service; don't want to edit from the pub, as that has led to trouble in the past. Also that of all the lovely photos I've taken along the Great Ocean Road today, they're all probably places with already too many pix on WikiMedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, got internet again; took my birthday off. Maybe I'll start an RM... Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you should take a break from things that cause you trouble. Your focus and devotion to capitalisation seems disproportionate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for noticing and acknowledging my "focus and devotion". Not so much to capitalisation (as some) as to correct capitalisation. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
😀 SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Joe, I did a few dozen routine case fixes. Let me know if you see anything approaching controversial or troublesome, please. Dicklyon (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but I don’t follow your edits. Your devotion to correct capitalisation is impressive. It reminds me of User:Giraffedata/comprised of. Such devotion leads to trouble, even if you’re right. I am not sensitive to capitalisation. I do note that sometimes correct capitalisations is startling and seems wrong. I may resist, not the least because I don’t believe that “correct” English exists.
Its great that Wikipedia is increasingly valuing civility. You’ve attract attention, so you need to be extra good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed! ... he's making a list and checking it twice... Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
And I hope GoodDay was right above where he predicted "I think if you were to open an RM at Conference Finals, an RM at NHL Conference Finals and an RM at KHL Conference Finals? There should be no problems or complaints, from anyone." I figure I could do those three, or do a multi-RM with all three, or do just one at a time, and no matter which way I go I can imagine someone complaing; but I think the one-at-a-time route is safest, given the complaints that different leagues have different issues, and the experience at the USFL draft RM that had two leagues in one discussion, so I've done that for now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I referred to the RM at Talk:USFL Draft in the past tense, assuming it was closed by now. I just noticed it's still open (with you still being unclear on your position). I don't understand why closers seem reluctant to read the consensus on such things, but there it is. Dicklyon (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey edit

You have a problem with how I execute an RFC that's fine, but don't be bringing up past topics on an RM because you're frustrated. Lower your tone, come back to the RM when you have a level head. Conyo14 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, the point was just that we wouldn't be needing that RM at Talk:NHL Conference Finals#Requested move 1 March 2024 if you hadn't messed up the RFC by removing "Finals" from it after it already had pretty good support for lowercasing that. And you're the one who brought up that past RFC at the RM, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Finals would not have worked out, trust me. It was easier to lower the scope. If you want to go after the Stanley Cup Final/Finals, good luck, but that will not have my neutral or support. Conyo14 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for March 5 edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palpable purpura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S. aureus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page moves edit

Hello, Dicklyon,

I see on your Talk page you say you'll have a discussion at RM about these moves from Finals/finals when your block is over but instead you just did massive page moves to the page titles you prefer. Did you not think this would raise questions? Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did this one on March 1, closed on March 9: Talk:1992 PBA All-Filipino Conference finals#Requested move 1 March 2024. I extrapolated the consensus only as far as the other PBA finals. Seems OK? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also did this one on March 1, closed on March 9: Talk:NHL Conference Finals#Requested move 1 March 2024. I haven't started looking at what all the implications of that one are; looks like nothing else to do? Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Liz: Let me know if this all seems OK or not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
In that case, consider at least including a link to the relevant RM in the move reason. —Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The moves are justified by WP:AT as the edit summary says. The RM is not directly applicable, just established that the PBA is not an exception. No RM is needed where there's no possibility of an objection, as here, where the few editors who care about the PBA have already seen what's going on. And pasting in links when there's so many articles to move is a pain. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Technically, I agree the policy should be a sufficient move reason. In practice, we know that some have not found that sufficient. Expand the cut and paste text, assuming you were already using that to add the "MOS:AT" reason. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That reason comes from the multiple-choice pop-up at the Move UI that was modified not long ago. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Liz: I did not think this would raise questions. Did it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've done nearly 2000 edits since my unblock 11 days ago, with no feedback but this. I guess that means I'm doing OK? Dicklyon (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mixed caps edit

What is the rationale for the mixed capitalization of NBA conference finals Most Valuable Player award. Would it not be lowercase per MOS:EXPABBR? —Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was pretty unsure on that one, but it seems that "Most Valuable Player" is often the title of an award, and I wasn't ready to take that on. It's only about 2/3 capped, per n-grams, so a case could be made to lowercase it. More generally, there are a lot of "xxx Award" titles where Award is clearly not part of any proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking again at the article, I see it's about two awards, one for each conference, and each with a proper name of its own, so I agree there's no reason that Most Valuable Player should be considered a proper name here. Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Similar case with NCAA basketball tournament Most Outstanding Player.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also floated whether Academy Award for Best Picture was correct, but ngrams shows capping, not sure if its deemed "substantial". Then there's the Main Page currently capping standalone "Best Picture". Right up there with blurbs on tennis tournaments using standalone "Men's Singles" and the like.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, there's a ton of questionable capping in awards of all sorts, but that one I wouldn't mess with. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Makes sense. At least needs to pass ngrams test (a drawback of MOS being a slave to usage)—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dicklyon, you've maybe got someone more lowercase radical than you. Did you actually want to test if "Academy Award for best picture" would fly (or do you lowercase academy award?). After the MVPs (or is it mvp) the Nobel prizes might need a good going over too, and let's see if "World series" is really seriesous or not. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe not more radical. Anyway, the "best picture" part has never been anywhere near consistently capped in sources, though it's moving that way, probably with propulsion from us. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nice Academy Award ngram. The trend started well before Wikipedia was around, the mid-1990s onward sets the uppercasing model. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, it probably wouldn't be about, "Academy Award for Whatever". It would be about lowercasing "At the Academy Awards, Some Movie won best picture." Primergrey (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
If that's not enough of a percentage for uppercasing then that wording containing "consistency" needs modification, if not in MOS then in commonsense usage (of course it's enough to uppercase Best Picture, to do otherwise would be substantially out-of-step with the most recognized form). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
How is whether or not to cap a word a "commonsense" decision? Primergrey (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
2022 Best Picture? I've never been to Namibia, but I got this picture of it.

Hey Dick! You take a lot of photos. What's the Best Picture you've ever taken? Primergrey (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd have to make it by year, and get an academy to vote. How else can I tell? Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a darn good photograph. Maybe for the cover of your photograph book. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality of notifications to relevant groups edit

Hey Dicklyon,

I'm reaching out because of this edit, in which you added several move request discussions to the ongoing capitalization discussion lists. I wanted to remind you that it's very important to keep notifications to groups entirely neutral, unlike your edit here. You know better and you know that your commentary was unnecessary, inflammatory, non-neutral, and entirely unhelpful. The notification was clearly biased and, when a notification is biased, it may be considered canvassing. Please read the "campaigning" point under WP:INAPPNOTE and keep notifications to groups neutral and without personal commentary moving forward. Additionally, the issue has not and cannot be settled by one discussion because there is merit to each individual argument that "Draft" may be a proper name in some contexts. We can't do one mass analysis of sources for every sports league in existence at once and then claim that the issue is settled, we need to evaluate it on a league-by-league basis for leagues of a certain size. That's why previous move discussions have failed and that's why it's not nearly as obvious or "settled" as you implied. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll be more careful to keep my feelings out of the notifications. By the way, out of those many dozens, so far only one has been opposed, on the basis of a "web search". So now we have to go through that nonsense again. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proper move and close procedure edit

Hi, you've recently performed quite a few moves described as in accordance with MOS:AT but you've done so preempting a RM discussion, that has since been raised on the WP:RMT board. You've also indicated that you've moved a bunch following a recent discussion here but there is no {{old move}} template on the talk page of that article to be able to confirm the outcome of the discussion, or to be able to reference it in future move discussions. In the future, please ensure that you are not moving pages preemptive to closing the consensus discussion and then when you are closing, you follow the protocol listed out WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions or the simple instructions on WP:Simple RM closing instructions. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also just a note that if you're involved (which has a much lower threshold as defined at WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions, then you may not close and move the pages yourself following the discussion. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 19:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you be more specific? Which moves were potentially controversial, and why? And I haven't closed any RM discussions in recent memory. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's one I changed back per the ngrams, National Signing Day. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, one from 2 weeks ago, where the n-grams show it has never been consistently capitalized in sources. I hadn't noticed the move back. I'll do an RM. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The one raised on the noticeboard was Canadian college drafts (1956–1969), so anything regarding the capitalization as you've raised on Talk:CFL Draft#Requested move 27 March 2024, or in any of the other RMs you've opened, you can't make the moves and you'll have to leave it to a closer.
If you are eager to help out by moving pages, I would invite you to help tackle the backlog on WP:RM/C, given of course that you don't close discussions that you've become involved in and you follow the guidelines I've linked above. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which noticeboared are we referring to? Did someone think Canadian college drafts should be treated as a proper name? Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MicrobiologyMarcus: Oh, I see, you were referring to a request at WP:RMTR. The move of the plural-named page had been done a day before the RM you're talking about, and should have been uncontroversial, since plurals are not proper names. No matter, we can fix it later. Dicklyon (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re the RM process, it's generally best to skip it for things that are uncontroversial, since the process is so backed up, as you point out. Some of recent ones took 2 to 4 weeks. The trouble with these sports drafts is that the fact that every one closes in favor of lowercase hasn't convinced anyone that the controversies have been settled. So I did the big RM. Dicklyon (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Page moved to draft edit

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently contributed to, Passbolt, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to Draft:Passbolt (software) where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. --Ahecht (TALK
) 14:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I merely fixed a link to a miscapitalized redirect. It's not an article I care about. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pied noir edit

FYI, PJ Ellsworth, while claiming to be neutral, was calling the pieds noirs an ethnic group and linking to a MoS section that says that capitalization of ethnic groups should follow English capitalization rules. While also claiming that "chair" is a name, I guess in a reference to COMMON NAME. That is what that was about, with a side of "this is English not French", and "stable version", although possibly I read in an unintended subtext there. I don't want to attempt to explain in the request what he meant, after complaining that he was explaining to me in the request what *I* meant.

Hopefully that is helpful. It is good to know that COMMON NAME would also lead us to lower case but I think that I should let other people talk over there. I did put the RM in "Article alerts" at WikiProject Linguistics. Are there any other Wikiprojects that should be notified? I did not find a MoS project. The RM was already listed at the Algeria, History, and Ethnic groups Wikiprojects.

The point about ethnic groups centers on the fact that Algeria had been a French colony, but it was also a notorious haven for English, Dutch, Italian, Greek and Albanian pirates in its precolonial period, when it was an nominally an autonomous Ottoman ie Turkish jurisdiction, and also took in huge numbers of Spanish Jews in the Inquisition period. See Regency of Algiers Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, if he's arguing for caps, he's been invited to say so. We'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
nod. I care a lot more about the under-representation of Algerians in the historiography of Algeria than I do about this, though it is probably hard to tell that from my vehemence. I went to school in France, where they do teach grammar, and some things are hard to hear, is all. Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for April 16 edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacopo Zoboli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply