User:Dismas/user

WP:OVERLINK

Take this diff of the Danielle Savre article for instance where Cupertino wikilinked every hobby the person has including links for both "baking" and "cookies". The article is about an actress and has nothing to do with baking or cookies and both are common English words. The links add nothing to the article just as in the "Supply and Demand" example from WP:OVERLINK where linking of "potatoes" doesn't add anything to the S&D article.

Yet another example

So what, who says we can't know more about hobbies and have links to them to illustrate the article?... If that's your argument... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Secondly, Cupertino has at least twice violated WP:NPA. The first as evidenced here at the bottom of the page. And the second time on my own talk page here. Another example from an edit summary.

And a third! and fourth!

And if I may jump in, a fifth. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And you people like to give orders to stop and delete information as if you were the masters of the website!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Cupertino ignores other editors when guidelines are pointed out such as WP:MOS. This edit shows where it was pointed out that episode titles are to be in double quotes and film/television show titles are to be in italics. Another example where the pertinent guidelines are pointed out in the edit summary and this edit was later undone

Because I didn't know guidelines were mandatory, and which were the guidelines, because your explanations were just gibberish abbreviatures; now I know, apparently it takes more time for you to know that I know than to me to know!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOW

As part of an informal third opinion type situation, I posted my thoughts about WP:LOW on the talk page of the Rachelle Lefèvre article. Two other editors agreed with me that the "Year in X" type links should be removed from the article. Yet, Cupertino, who keeps the name of an "Admin for emergencies" handy, took the words of that admin and ran with it.

After pointing out that filmographies should be in reverse chronological order, Cupertino has continued to go against this guideline. A second editor has even pointed this out to them.

Because I didn't know guidelines were mandatory, and which were the guidelines, because your explanations were just gibberish abbreviatures; now I know, apparently it takes more time for you to know that I know than to me to know!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I believe that Cupertino's linking of non-notable films/television shows/etc. as well as linking of unrelated common English words are related. They make the article messy and difficult to read.

Maybe for you. There is no such thing as a "non-notable films", and even if there was, the current absence of an article over a film doesn't mean that film isn't notable, only that it doesn't have an article yet!... Some common English words were linked as to illustrate the article, specially when they corresponded to generic characters in films and television that had no pages of their own. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cupertino consistently ignores other editors when guidelines and policies are pointed out.

I "ignored" because data audit script assisted per MOS is gibberish. I read the script assisted and it just came up with an editing program and I assumed it was merely a descriptive note to the edit. If you had said "The presentation violated the (mandatory) Manual of Style." I would have came up to it. Speaking gibberish wouldn't point me into any direction. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cupertino is argumentative and while they've made several good edits, fights anyone who makes changes to articles which Cupertino disagrees with.

Yes, I am. Specially when it comes to subjective views from the counterpart!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)