Archive

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]

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.

Template:Z33 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]

Hi, CapnZapp, I welcome your good-faith efforts to improve Garden-path sentence, including your explanations of certain examples in the article, and how they work. Please keep Wikipedia's principles of original research and verifiability in mind when making your changes. Unfortunately, no matter how good or how helpful your explanations to a reader, it's simply not acceptable to add your clarifications, unless they are based on the content you find in a published, independent, secondary, reliable sources. This is how we make sure that the encyclopedia is not based on the random opinions or ideas (no matter how good!) of our editors, but strictly based on the published sources. That's why I removed your unsourced content a second time. You're welcome to put it back a third time, but please, only with citations to reliable sources this time, if you do; okay? Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying your comments to the appropriate page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing what the appropriate Talk page is for what kind of commentary. Per Wikipedia guidelines described at WP:TALK, an article Talk page is for discussing the content of an article and how to improve it. A user Talk page is about notifications of various types, providing advice, information about how to edit, and so on, as well as to issue notifications and warnings about user behavior. This section has nothing to do with improving the Garden-path sentence article; all such discussion should be confined to the article TP. This section is about clarifying or reminding you of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research, and related policies and guidelines in the area of sourcing at articles, since you seem to have either forgotten, or not understood why your content was removed as unsourced, even though that's what the edit summary said. That's why this discussion is here—it's about you and the way you edit, and whether you do or don't understand and properly follow editing policies; it's not about how to improve the content of some article, therefore, is out of scope for an article talk page. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing what you want - which apparently is to discuss everything except the actual concerns - with what I want, which basically is to ask you to either help out or step aside. If you read the top of this very page is says it right there: "Welcome to my talk page. Please note I take the right to answer your messages where I like at any given moment. Have a nice day." So you'll simply have to suck it up Mathglot but I'm choosing to decline your invitation to discuss the topics of "where to post" or "what to post". Instead I'm going to keep discussing the content of an article and how to improve it, and I'm going to do it at the article's talk page. Especially note the "and how to improve it" part. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's your talk page, so at your invitation, I'll step aside now. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rock, Paper, Shotgun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Walker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Villa Doria Pamphili, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arup.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gunilla Jonsson and Michael Petersén, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KULT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]. Please don't accuse others of harassment without substantial evidence. You should immediately apologize to User:Magnolia677 for your comment there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Note:This user is talking about me correcting a third user of doing the same thing I've asked Piotrus to stop doing. CapnZapp (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are refusing to apologize to another user for a baseless accuation of harassment? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a misunderstanding. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cabinet Entertainment

added a link pointing to Pathfinder

Conan the Barbarian

added a link pointing to Pathfinder

Eric Ladin

added a link pointing to Flight director

Pickaninny

added a link pointing to Melanesian Pidgin

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If my sandbox version gets reimplemented, the bot parameter already adds the [[User:{{{bot}}}|{{{bot}}}]], all that really means is that you type the name of the bot rather than any other wikilink. This is just to make it easier for anyone to add this stuff... If it gets re-added I will update the documentation for these changes. Terasail^[Talk] 10:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An edit like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/949671484/952450781?title=Peter_Madsen is something I would expect from a newbie. If you can't be arsed to run Citer or reFill, could you at least drop the faulty inclusion of a language tag inside the ref tags? Sam Sailor 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/984492340/984493672?title=Peter_Madsen Sam Sailor 16:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/981066811/981424964?title=Murder_of_Kim_Wall Weekendavisen is certainly not a tabloid. Sam Sailor 17:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the name under which they were notable in the 1980s might be more worthy of the redlink, no? It's also the registered company name, for what it's worth.

Also, you might be interested in the conversation that's just started on my Talk:, where someone was (understandably) querying why I was creating a bunch of redlinks. I'd be interested in your thoughts 😊 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Picture requested. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 13#Picture requested until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JsfasdF252 (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).

If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. Wiki-fencing on Talk pages notwithstanding, I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.

So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.

But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 16 November 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]