Archive

Hi - you left me a note about considering to become a wiki user. Thanks for the thought. I really enjoy editing writing of all kinds. I joined wiki as a registered user a long time ago. I tried to cancel my user account after several years of frustrating experiences with other editors. Edit wars by proprietary editors especially. The nerd who wrote the "florida everglades" article for instance, and the little group of nazis running the "autism spectrum" page, are two examples.

I also find the wiki editor software to be clunky, and have not learned all the little tricks some other editors have. I got threatened with "blocking" for "vandalism" the other day, by someone who just didn't like my edit. I don't know how to defend myself. I also found it difficult to get help from senior editors to protect myself from edit warring. I'm not even sure if this message will get to you and you'll know who it is from. There is no "chat" function.

Without anyone to lean on for learning and protection, I just walked away. I also am in a concussion recovery, so I shouldn't spend much screen time anyways, and I get headaches from trying to do trickier stuff like add citations or pictures. Unless wiki makes it easier to edit, and provides simple mentorship protection to editors, I'll never come back as an editor. I just try and fix obvious mistakes in articles I come across, and if I inadvertently get run over by edit warring goons, I just walk away.

So thanks for the offer. I just keep my head down and use my English skills to help out where I can. peace and love best Ben 184.69.174.194 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo for Hilary Kay, but I thought it wasn't really clear enough. What do you think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your decision to keep looking for a better photo without the clutter of other people. CapnZapp (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re your comments about the previous fleet, I restricted the list to ships actually operated by the company named. For ships operated by by its predecessors, P&O, P&O Orient and Orient lines see the articles on those companies. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - much clearer now. If you feel confident the list is complete, feel free to remove the expand template. CapnZapp (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I think I've done it now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lac La Biche, Alberta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapnZapp. Two years ago you added some references to Sunny Lane. I'm guessing someone removed the tv.com ref as unreliable. TheRichest.com is unreliable as well. I'm unable to find any information about ("Celebs Named: 10,000+ Celebrities' birth name" by Burt Vance, page 122) at all: no books by that author, nor any books with similar names and authors. Any idea what it is supposed to be? --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My best suggestion is to google "Sunny Lane Holly Hodges" and see if you still find a credible source. If you don't, well, the information will have to go away. Sorry I can't remember how and where I found the Vance book ref. CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the three 2001 IPs are the result of one person using different computers at one facility (a university?) and in no way an intention to convey that these are different editors. I suggest focusing on the content - at the Talk page - and not worry about the phantom horde that disagrees with you. A knowledgeable third editor is already participating, so please work it out there (without me). David notMD (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, User:David notMD. Please note I wasn't primarily concerned with sockpuppetry. That is, of all possible violations that particular one wasn't on my radar (can you even be accused of sockpuppeteering when you only make anonymous edits?) My main concern was how to deal with an IP editor that might or might not be one person and might and might not be a troll without going into an edit war with an unknown entity. Discussing with ever-new IP addresses that might not even be read didn't sound like fun. For example, I considered (and then un-considered) asking for page protection - at the very least this would have forced the IP editor to register an account with which further interaction would then feel much more worthwhile. Hopefully your intervention is enough. CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapnZapp! You created a thread called dealing with a series of IP edits (one user?) at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CapnZapp. Since this message is also pertaining to the Teahouse, I thought I'd just add this here. Your newer thread on automatic invites is much more a question on the operations of the Teahouse than a "how-to" question on Wikipedia. As such, it should have been on the Teahouse talk page (WT:TEA) than in the forum itself. Just an FYI for future reference. John from Idegon (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapnZapp! You created a thread called automatic invites at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit and referred me to the talk page where you wrote something,but have yet to respond to my reply on the talk page?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I kept you waiting User:12.144.5.2 - I really have nothing to say that I believe you will consider constructive. I can only suggest you try accepting Wikipedia for what it is rather than getting frustrated by policies that very likely will not change. Feel free to ask the Help desk or at the Teahouse if you have questions regarding policy. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider passive acceptance of policies that I regard as directly harmful to be complicity in that harm.In doing research one does exactly the opposite of what you are recommending...the sources that are not inclined to be precise are the ones to be disregarded in a verification process.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm the closest thing to objectivity this place has. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes in Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but please complete your references. Examples are in other references. Cheers. Errantius (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Errantius! I belong to the wikipedia school of thought that says "better bare references than no references". In other words, I'm one of the many editors who might not contribute at all if bare urls were rejected. Hope you respect my position. Cheers and best wishes, CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to have the section about Anthony Pellicano corrected or removed in it's entirety. It states that I had a prior relationship with Anthony Pellicano which is blatantly false. You cite http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051401982.html  as the source. Even if you use that source material no where in Del Quentin's article does it state that Pellicano was a "prior boyfriend". It merely states prior relationship albeit a false statement. I was never contacted by Del Quentin Wilber. To assume that prior relationship equals romantic is sexist. You wouldn't write that about a man who had an alleged "prior relationship" Regardless it is stated as fact with no supporting evidence. 

This is currently under review at the Washington Post and will be corrected in their archives. For now I ask you to at least rewrite the section and remove the words "prior boyfriend." Also on the Pellicano page you repeat that same mistake. I do not know how else to fix this problem so thought you could help. I am not sure why this is surfacing after 10 yrs and has never been posted. It should not be this difficult to correct and I am not sure why you and other editors are so determined to perpetuate a lie. thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Fiorentino Really (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for administrator assistance. Hopefully you'll get the help you need. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Colours BSIcon.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my experience affects the general issue, because not all of us use talk pages the same way, DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, User:DGG, you conforming to the same guidelines we all abide by, is a completely separate issue. The ONLY issue I have raised over there is "should the rule of thumb stay 75K?". So unless you're ready to argue why we should increase the WP:TALKCOND limit for everyone to, say 1 megabyte, I see no particular applicability of your case. Me posting messages on your talk page has nothing to do with this. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what specific edits this is in response to, but regardless, it's uncalled for. Let me hit you with another rule of thumb: don't template the regulars, especially when the template you use implies that they're new to Wikipedia when they've been around as long as you have, for twelve years and counting. Keep discussing things on the WP talk page, but stop messaging EEng directly like this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Writ Keeper If you had spent a second to look at his talk page (or my contribution history) you would have seen that I did try the personalized friendly tone first: [1]. It did not help - he persisted in sniping the discussion. The next step is to build up to the level 4 warning template and then report him, just like any other user. Or, obviously, have him stop his disruptive behavior, which would be infinitely better. (It's certainly not the case that our policies prohibit "templating the regulars" - for one thing I'm sure you know you linked to an essay) But maybe what you're trying to say is there's no need to hold off reporting him? In that case, I would be interested to hear your argument why admins won't just dismiss the complaint on grounds of not warning the user properly first. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp, for what it's worth, there is no requirement that a warning template be applied to count as "properly warned," and if you did open a complaint, your normal talk page discussion would have been sufficient. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Creffett said: the only time one has to build up to the level 4 warning template before reporting is if you're reporting them to AIV, and I really hope you know enough about our processes and the difference between editing disputes and raw vandalism to know that that would be bad. ANI, which presumably is where you would report them, only asks for you to Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page; nothing about the escalating warnings, and certainly no hard requirement for it, and certainly nothing about using condescending templates first. So cut that out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The archiving at Talk:Street or road name, which you did, has somehow become incorrect. Please help, because I have no experience with Wikipedia archiving.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dthomsen8: Thanks. Just an anon making a mistake, easily reverted. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gpedia. Since you had some involvement with the Gpedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Raegan Revord, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Citrivescence (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Citrivescence There has been a mistake, since the article clearly meets all requirements. Please undo your action at your earliest convenience. CapnZapp (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: Hi, I didn't make a mistake. The WP:GNG requirements have not been met because the references do not offer significant, in-depth coverage of the actress, and many of them are not considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. She will meet the WP:NACTOR when she has at least two leading roles. Please note that you can move the article back whenever you like, but if you do not improve the references, it is likely to be deleted. Citrivescence (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Citrivescence You made a BOLD action. You are contested. Please undo your move. Now is the time to take it to discussion. You are free to add a {{refimprov}} template to the article, and explain your grievances the regular way. You could even start a RFD if you absolutely must, etc etc.

What you are not entitled to is unilaterally and without warning removing articles from mainspace as if Raegan Revord was some poorly crafted trash article, and I need you to stop doing that. You come across as overbearing and unfriendly to users whose work you consider to be trash, not worthy of even a regular talk discussion! Now since I cannot undo your action I need you to undo your move and stop creating extra work for your fellow editors. This is the second and last time I'm going to ask nicely. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: I am a new page reviewer. It is my job to follow a flowchart regarding articles in the queue, which I did. It is you, in fact, using boldface type, who comes off overbearing and unfriendly. Nowhere did I call the article "trash." You do, actually, have the option to move it back to main space, but as I said, it could be sent to AfD. Citrivescence (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Citrivescence: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#misuse of Draft space CapnZapp (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Please let me know if there's an undeletion request for the article. Since I personally asked, it wouldn't be considered canvassing. Intuitively, I can't believe that people argued that she isn't notable enough for an article. I was looking to see how she didn't have an article despite a major role. There are articles for MANY actors with lower roles than her role on a hit show. I know that's not a usable argument. The article needs to be done RIGHT with SOLID (I mean featured article level) major sources to convince people with such strong conviction against what was presented previously. There has to be interviews and featured articles about her in major magazines like People, Time, etc. Do it right or don't do it at all. I don't have time now but it'll be a high priority when I do. Royalbroil 14:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapnZapp

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Citrivescence and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Raegan Revord, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Citrivescence (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Tales from the Loop (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Winesburg, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You left a comment on my talk page letting me know I did the COI incorrectly and I was wondering if the change I made now fixed it. I applied the template to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmanheim1 which i think is the talk page of the article im working on. I am not sure if this is all I need to do since this is my first wiki article and the temple that is offered is what i included. If you could please let me know if I need to add anything else I would greatly appreciate it! Fmanheim1 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding at your own talk page CapnZapp (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment in my reversion of that unsourced reception information I removed from the lead of Gravity (2013 film), but I thought you may also be interested in this recent discussion about film leads: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Reception details in lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very cursory look at that long, rambly talk section didn't find any binding conclusions, so not sure what your point is, wallyfromdilbert... My point, on the other hand, is that instead of bluntly losing the information (which very well might have originated in the body of the article and then moved up by a GF editor), address the specific issue. If you don't like it in the lead, the proper resolution must logically be to move it out of the lead. (This time I have done the work for you.) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently missed this language that was added to the MOS as a result of the discussion: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews." Further, WP:V is already a policy, and there is no reason to add the unsourced content back into an article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that it should be included, not restoring some sort of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH elsewhere in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you acting as if templates such as citation needed don't exist? You seem to argue us editors should just instantly remove anything without a rock-solid source, which is absurd. You made an edit, I reverted you, then it is time for you to take it to discussion. Stop throwing policy at people that oppose you, and take it to discussion. And you're way off with your "burden" nonsense: you come across as having a disruptive gatekeeper attitude. Instead let's take it to discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help CapnZapp!! I appreciate you adding the Template for me because I was not sure where it was supposed to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmanheim1 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Np :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gravity (2013 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. See WP:BURDEN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I did not "add or change" anything, you removed something. You were reverted, and now you need to take it to discussion. See you over at Talk:Gravity (2013 film)! Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to follow WP:BURDEN and stop restoring unsourced material into an article. That is a policy, not a guideline or essay. You can be as pissy as you want being wrong, but you are still wrong. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you need to discuss. It really is that simple. Have a nice day! CapnZapp (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is a policy, while WP:BRD is not. Per policy, you need to not restore unsourced content into articles. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this your only warning for edit warring. I don't care who started it or who is "right". If you continue, you can discuss it with a few admins. Maybe they'll agree with you and you won't be blocked. I'd suggest not finding out.

There is now a topic on the article's talk page. I recommend you use it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a busy admin such as yourself could easily miss it, but my entire point was to get Wallyfromdilbert to move to the discussion table, rather than templating me or bludgeoning me with policy, so you will certainly get no objection from me, SummerPhDv2.0! I will shortly engage over there. Again thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw the edits you made in the actor pages about the reunion, and I found out that you wrote that the episode of reunited apart was published on June 1, when it was May 31. Also, you used IMDb as a source, and that's not recommended. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This revolves around a series of edits starting with [2] CapnZapp (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also please don't convert citations to external links. Such links should not typically be included within the body of an article. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop and leave it in your capable hands. CapnZapp (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Monty Don's American Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Monty Don's Japanese Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monty Don's Italian Gardens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellagio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Monty Don's American Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 11:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Monty Don's Japanese Gardens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 11:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add unsourced content to articles. The burden is with YOU to verfiy everything you add with reliable sources. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you targetted Perry Mason (TV series) to Perry Mason (disambiguation), you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. The change broke 1,278 links (that's 5.5% of today's count of bad links to DAB pages), which will have to be checked and fixed manually. Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Narky Blert Had you looked at my contributions you would have seen me starting that job already. You are welcome to help. CapnZapp (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain why IMDb is not serious. Just as good as books, which get freely cited.

Lots of foolish things get into books and magazines.

And in this case, the similarities are obvious.--GwydionM (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GwydionM and thank you for asking. While the basic movie information (such as casting) is considered reliable, most additional sections of the IMDB site is not, since they are based on user submissions (and thus are no more reliable than blogs), per WP:RS. The specific essay (not a policy in itself) explaining which parts of IMDB are good, and which parts isn't can be found here: WP:IMDB/BLP. Have a nice day, CapnZapp (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC) This revolves around a set of edits that start with [3].[reply]

But I've already explained, it isn't a blog. The site vets all submissions and would not allow rubbish. That makes it as good as a blog.

Still, on past experience I expect common sense to be ignored in favour of the Wiki subculture.--GwydionM (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the linked essay explains the Trivia section is user submitted. I did not say it was a blog, I said it is treated as no more reliable as a blog.

If you wish to change the way Wikipedia treats a specific source (like IMDB) you're welcome, though my talk page is (of course) the wrong venue. But first you should consider that you might simply be wrong here, GwydionM - before you go down the rabbit hole of "wikipedia subculture" conspiracy theories, please consider the alternative explanation where Wikipedia's decision is instead based on IMDB trivia sections frequently being found to be unreliable, and that Wikipedia's decision is, after all, based on common sense. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not going to change. And I have other things to do.

But you might have said from the first that this was a Wiki policy.--GwydionM (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you made me aware you believed IMDB was a good source, GwydionM, I responded with if you believe IMDB trivia is a good source, ask over at my talk, and I'll direct you to the relevant policies explaining why it isn't, and in fact is far from. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited La Dernière Vague, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]