Archives

Index Archive 1

Hello, CapnZapp, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Russell River, Queensland, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Russell River. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Russell River, Queensland at any time.Template:Z128 MadmanBot (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapnZapp. You have new messages at Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi's talk page.
Message added 21:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—ШαмıQ✍ @ 21:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CapnZapp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

2620:0:862:1:a6ba:dbff:fe38:fae1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NoahS24fgtp". The reason given for NoahS24fgtp's block is: "Spambot".

• Blocking administrator: Elockid (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I've cleared the autoblock. There appears to be a glitch in the system. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Wikimedia Foundation IP addresses causing autoblocks. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it later (I haven't seen the film and I don't want spoilers). Feel free to revert me. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gravity (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your question posed elsewhere... WP:NAMB explains, perhaps not very clearly, that we don't add a hatnote to an article like The Snows of Kilimanjaro (2011 film) because (in theory) no-one looking for one of the other senses, such as the story, would have got there accidentally. There's a disambiguation page at The Snows of Kilimanjaro (also reachable from Snows of Kilimanjaro by a redirect). This reasoning ignores the likelihood of someone landing on the page for the 2011 film by doing a search in Google etc and picking one of the search results, then realising it's not the story they're looking for, etc. It's been discussed a few times, but for the moment that's the rule: no hatnote on a disambiguated article like this to point to any other usage, or even to the disambiguation page. I hope that helps - I'll be interested to see what sort of reply you get elsewhere! PamD 13:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out. Could you direct me to where "It's been discussed a few times"? I am not questioning your explanation of the NAMB policy, though I cannot see it myself. Perhaps I can understand alternative ways to accomplish the same thing (namely, giving the reader a helpful links to other works of the same name); perhaps the NAMB policy language can be changed to be less abstruse. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Fixing_NAMB was fairly recent and gives the flavour of the debates... best avoided, I think.

Try to think it through: if someone is looking for the short story, how would they have come to the article for the film? If there's no likely route, then there is no need for a hatnote to point to the story, or even the disambiguation page. That's the established argument, and "They might have found it via Google" has never carried much weight.

What I think is far more important is to make quite sure that every single article which has a title with a disambiguator, like this one, is linked from the base title (in this case The Snows of Kilimanjaro), either because there's a disambiguation page (dab page) at that title, or by a hatnote on the article at that title which either leads to the disambiguated article or to a dab page which includes it. An alarming number of articles don't have those links, so are not easily found - thwarting the reader, and making it likely that another editor will create a duplicated article because they didn't find the first one. This is one of my hobby-horses,and while stub-sorting etc I'm always on the lookout for disambiguated titles which don't have the appropriate access route. (Maybe I'm a stereotypical retired librarian here ...?) PamD 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: You might or might not be interested in what I wrote here. I hope you don't feel I'm dragging you into something undesirable. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapnZapp. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 14:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited You Bet Your Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

That was a bit naughty of you: "Bad: not waiting for anyone to have time to participate in the discussion before going ahead to make changes.". Not really, BRD sort of needs a change (and then a change back lol) to get things under way :¬)

"Bad" would have been 2x reverts, a hissy fit, an argument, and some bad words bandied about! Chaosdruid (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you did not agree with me, then why would you have reverted my edit? Reverting it means you disagree.

Hello Chaosdruid. Since you yourself suspect your proposed changes might be contentious, I thought it a good idea to revert you and ask you to hold off changing the article until such time you have achieved consensus on the talk page. I would like to thank you for letting this process continue.

Okay then, to move the discussion forward, I must confess I am confused.

To me, it appears you back up your proposed changes in wildly varying ways. First you talk about WP:FILMLEAD, then that it's down to "produced by". You also involve other editors, as well as a lot of spurious facts.

I'm no expert on film articles, but I would think WP:FILMLEAD is clear enough - the nationality of production companies are not relevant for the film lead; the attribution from reliable sources is, and most importantly, if the film's nationality is singularly defined. (My emphasis).

In other words, please show us that sources agree the movie is "singularly" British and I suspect your proposed edits will go through without any more discussion. :-)

However, I suspect you will find that sources (please remember you can't pick sources and specifically that you will need to include major US ones) can't agree on the film's nationality. In this case we should follow WP:FILMLEAD: "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." Here it's important to remember if enough sources define the film as American, then that attribution should remain as part of that later coverage.

This also means that I would like to ask you a favor. Please consider stopping your usage of what I can only label as irrelevant or misleading facts (such as what the director thinks, the highly selective findings of a random Wikipedia editor, or where various production companies are based), at least until you can show us those facts are indeed relevant to Wikipedia policies.

I could be wrong, and if so, you have my apologies.

Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing spurious. You may need to re-read. As for your comments on what you consider "irrelevant" and "misleading", I suggest you adopt a less judgemental attitude. What the director thinks the film is is very relevant to me, just not to you. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]