Archive

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I had to add back the things you dropped and neglected to fix. CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that a fix, not did I neglect them. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Huh ? CapnZapp (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You recently removed a "decline" from a review with the edit summary "rm submission declined, wasn't (re)submitted for AFC review".[1]

The decline is from 12/28.[2] The previous submission was on 12/15.[3]

Did I miss something? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

You're welcome! CapnZapp (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just a head's up, I just realized that I don't care. - wolf 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This attempt at trolling is really tiresome, Wally. CapnZapp (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

User: Darkwarriorblake: The time for reasoned discussion is over. You have lost all credibility with me. CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoned discussion was had, you just ignored it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [4] 2) still no acknowledgement my edit was reverted, now instead insulting me by calling it a "correction" [5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But consider me duly notified, I guess. Again sigh. CapnZapp (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@TobeFree: @CapnZapp: Aren't there laws in three US states (Florida is one I am sure of I don't remember the other two states}} that make naming of rape victims illegal ? Sahir Shah 13:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]