Archives

Archive 1

For older messages, see User talk:Cunado19

Hello, I have seen you using sfn format a lot on Baha'i-related articles (and I have been trying to do likewise), but I've run into a problem with it and was hoping you know a solution. I changed the "Further reading" section at Baháʼí Faith to feature academic introductory books. So far I have included four, but there are at least two others that I believe deserve to be included: Smith's 2008 introduction and Stockman's 2020 book on the Baha'i Faith, Violence, and Non-Violence, both published by Cambridge University Press. Those books are also in the references, though, and if I add them to the further reading section, the citations show an error that they have more than one possible referent. Do you know how to include the book in both places without this issue? Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		I've been working on references lately including switching to sfn style and I realize now how much time the work you've done on articles related to the Baháʼí Faith must have taken. Much appreciated. Gazelle55 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes it is sometimes difficult but makes it much easier to work on pages. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Thank you for your beautiful work in this area. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baháʼí Faith/archive1 at your convenience? Cheers, Nutez (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Cuñado:, the sources about the relationship between Baha'i and Utopia are easily found. Utopia is not an insult. Geysirhead (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the inclusion of a sidebar on utopia is unrelated enough to be clutter. Of course, you can take it up on the talk page, but I think including a link in "see also" is about the right level of inclusion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Bahá'u'lláh fall under the category of WP:CENSORSHIP. No matter how many people think something needs to be changed, we never change it because of their religious sentiments. Consensus cannot enable censorship here. Any further reverts will be met with a complaint to adminstrators. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your edit here seems to have introduced a stray </ref> tag in the lede of the article. 2A01:CB22:100:5600:D40F:5A27:7578:3832 (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cuñado. Could you add the required cite for "Holt 1977a" to the references section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out and I'll take a look. This is a very hard thing to do and I'm not surprised if I make a mistake. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just disengage for a bit. I try to follow the advice of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, personally. You're a talented, hard-working, editor; and I want you to know that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Many thanks for the much-needed edits to improve Ali. I wanted to note that sometimes some parts of some sentences in the article are borrowed from different sources, and these multiple sources are then lumped together at the end of the sentence. To the best of my knowledge, this is not uncommon in articles about natural sciences and engineering. I've tried to avoid this practice as much as possible but it's inevitable at times. Please be conscious of this when you remove citations from Ali (and in your earlier edits). Thanks again for your help. Albertatiran (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albertatiran Thanks for the feedback. I know it's only an essay, but I adhere to WP:OVERCITE and try to make the article more readable and reduce the total number of citations, especially for non-controversial things. I tried to reduce citations that were 3 or 4 deep, but I also tried to remove lightly used references to reduce the overall sources. There is also a problem that the article has a few sources that are relied on too much; Madelung is cited about 80 times, for example. If you have any advice feel free to share. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali was/is a very controversial figure :) I agree with you that Madelung is cited too often. This is a good point, and I try to reduce the reliance on Madelung in the ongoing revisions. That said, his work is arguably the most authoritative source about succession to Muhammad and particularly the caliphate of Ali. Removing lightly-used sources is also a good idea when it can be done safely. I'll also keep that in mind going forward. Thanks again for contributing to Ali. Albertatiran (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are still working to clean up the citations at the Muhammed article. I've installed User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js as suggested by user:DuncanHill and it has identified a raft of problems, most of which seem to be references that are no longer used. I guess the most significant one that needs attention PDQ is that Peters (2003) has multiple definitions. I see that there are many citations of work by Peters so you may find it in the course of making those "harvard referenceable"?

Great work so far. For your next task, the Augean stables could do with a good clean. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Maynard Friedman, thanks for the encouragement. I hope to convert most refs to the sfn template and organize how the refs are displayed. I also just installed the script but I need to figure out how to use it. I've found that it's difficult to work on articles when they get this cluttered and disorganized, so I hope this allows for easier editing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing I think it does is help identify weeds that can be whacked with a clear conscience, giving you space to deal with the more difficult cases. You don't have to "use" it, it just highlights the items that need attention. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a cautionary note. I notice that if an article has "further reading" that uses {{cite book}} to format the entries nicely, the gadget flags them as unused citations. All that glisters may still be gold. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the entries in "Further reading" should have |ref=none added at the end of the cite entry. That makes it so the sfn pointers won't land on them or create multiple cite errors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM, that was just what I needed. (The sources section of one my GAs was lit up like Times Square.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see the closure of the recent RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Topic 1: What principal reference? (MOS:GENDERID 1st paragraph), which states that there is a clear consensus to amend that paragraph of GENDERID to Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words... (changes in bold). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making bold changes to GENDERID. As you are aware, having made contributions to it, there is an RfC on the wording of the guideline that is in the process of being closed. Please let that closure finish, and then depending on what consensus is found for each question we can then discuss any further changes that may be necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from leaving a template since you are an experienced editor. That means, though, that you should know better than this. You are now at 3RR in a designated contentious topic area and have quite clearly failed to abide by the instructions given at Template:POV: Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. I removed it because it is unwarranted for the reasons I stated (the dispute has already been publicized at NPOVN), and while you may wish to continue discussion, there is clearly a rough consensus against you, with fully 6 experienced editors disagreeing with you. In this context, adding such a tag reads as highly WP:POINTy, which is ironic since you've also been wantonly accusing others of "activist" editing. I therefore ask you to self-revert and perhaps take a step back from the discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hi Cuñado. I mentioned you (not by name) at NPOVN, so I'm required to notify you. All I said is that you added a neutrality tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like several extremely active editors on this page are WP:NOTHERE and your frequent referring to other editors as activists needs to stop. If you believe that other editors are editing in bad faith or are NOTHERE WP:AE and WP:ANI are the venues to discuss that. If this behavior continues you'll be banned from the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this warning has been logged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Subh-i-Azal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bāb. 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) 07:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]