User talk:CapnZapp/Archive

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, CapnZapp! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

--omtay 38 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Help Request

{{helpme}}

My problem is I don't like Wikipedia's default white background, and would like to read light text on a dark background. So I have just created an account.

To my dismay none of the Skins available offer light-on-dark. They're all dark-on-light designs.

So I tried to find myself around. I couldn't find any direct help on this, but after a while I found the Metawiki User Gallery. I tried to follow the instructions on how to create my own Monobook.css page.

Now I have two problems that completely stump me: 1) The user style I tried did weird things to my layout. I could not delete the css page, and blanking it didn't help. So I seem to be stuck with it. Please make my style return to normal! 2) What is the good way to read Wikipedia with light text on a dark background. I do not want to change any other part of the layout - only the colors.

It would really be helpful if the Skins tab on the user preferences had a link such as "don't like any of the above skins? Go here, or do this, to get assistance".

Okay so 1) is solved - apparently it just took a while. I'm back to black on white. Now for 2)...

Hi there! You were going about this the right way, somebody's just done it for you already :-D. Go to MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css. Copy all that text (inside the box). Paste it into your monobook.css page. Bypass your cache and you should be doing fine! If you need any more help, feel free to post here or on my talk page. Hope this helped! --omtay 38 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Settlers of Catan edit

Hi,

Yes, I did accidentally delete the reference to the robber. I've fixed it now, thanks.

--Apeloverage (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Replying to every thread on a talk page

Hi,

Regarding your recent edits to talk:Shareaza: you basically said the same thing in four separate threads, one of which had been stale for four months. While it hasn't caused a problem in this case, on some talk pages old threads are archived by bots, which skip threads with recent replies even if the bulk of the content is long-settled. In future, please consider limiting talk page responses to threads which are obviously still active; replying four times doesn't increase the weight of your argument and only makes it harder to close off old threads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fudruckers and Idiocracy

Please read WP:Trivia and Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Practical steps.

This Idiocracy/Fuddruckers foolishness is unimportant and has no valid reason for inclusion. The only reason people have included it is because of the "giggle" association with anal sex. There is an ongoing issue of people trying to include the word "buttf*ckers" in the article, the Idiocracy reference is being used as an attempt to legitimize their vandalism. If you had taken the time to look at the history of the article you would have seen this. The request to leave out Idiocracy references is an attempt to make vandals think twice about being stupid, which does work to some extent.

The same thing has happened repeatedly at the Bennigan's article with South Park, again there is no valid reason besides an unimportant, passing remark or gag in a movie or television show.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's take the discussion to the Fuddruckers talkie! CapnZapp (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My deletion of your Dungeons & Dragons contribution

I deleted your addition of the role/class/power source table and paragraph from Dungeons & Dragons. I explained myself at Talk:Dungeons_&_Dragons#class.2Frole_matrix. I did want to say that I am being more conservative about changing this article than I normally would be because this is a Featured Article, a difficult rating to achieve. I appreciate how deeply frustrating it can be to have your carefully crafted contribution deleted. I hate doing it to you, but I believe this is for betterment of the article. I really do appreciate your contribution and hope you'll stick around the D&D cloud of articles to contribute! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just wondering what you were doing on Graphic violence. How am I meant to provide a citation? --Dicttrshp (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dicttrshp! Well, currently the page claims Ogrish and Rotten are notable among websites specializing in graphic imagery. I find it dubious that we can verify that claim, but rather than just removing that text, I wanted to give the authors (you?) the chance to back it up. Of course, if you can't find any reliable sources, please consider rewriting the text; perhaps omitting those two examples. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They both have articles here, could that be counted as a reliable source? Thanks for answering, --Dicttrshp (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence. Can we agree on the new wording? CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say, I wasn't aware of the connotations "notably" had on Wikipedia. --Dicttrshp (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kuriki

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kuriki, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuriki (2nd nomination). Thank you. Noe (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pipes inside

I have a problem. Two problems actually...

1) Where do I best ask question 2? :-) Here? Village Pump? Help Desk?

2) I'm at the The Tortoise and the Hare page, trying to add a good hatnote to the Zeno's paradoxes page, specifically the section there called Achilles and the tortoise.

Now, no matter what I try, I can't "hide" this reference (Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise) using a piped link. It simply won't work inside the hatnote template. What do I do wrong? As you can see, it works perfectly in the line above.

Specifically, I want to achieve the following result:

This article is about the fable. For the algorithm, see Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm. For the paradox of motion, see Zeno's paradoxes.

but with active links, the Zeno link going directly to #Achilles and the tortoise, and of course using the hatnote (Template:about in this case).

How do I "layer" the pipe? That is, I need pipes within pipes?

Currently, I resigned myself to only pointing to the main page and not the subsection. Did I have to do that or is there a solution? Neither Wikipedia:Piped link or Help:Piped link has anything to say on this matter.

I don't think you can pipe the link to a subsection in hatnotes. As for the other, you can ask your question here, or at the helpdesk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Asking your question here is fine from a procedural standpoint, but you have to rely on that the handful of users who monitor the helpme category will happen to know the answer. The helpdesk will get far more eyes on your question. Thus, if you're asking something complicated that you don't think many people would know, the helpdesk is a better bet. The village pump isn't a good fit unless your question involves a change or modification in policy or guidelines, though there isn't usually any fuss over misplaced question related to using Wikipedia.

With regard to the piping issue, there's no need to actually use the template. The template is for ease of layout and consistency of formatting, but if it doesn't serve, just code it manually. Remember that what people see is of paramount importance, not how it looks in edit mode. So here's the code I think you want: :''This page is about the fable. For the algorithm, see [[Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm]]. For the paradox of motion, see [[Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise|Zeno's paradoxes]]''

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! So the template is nothing but a shorthand, then... CapnZapp (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is also true of citation templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}. They are very useful for organization purposes, but if you can't get a proper result using them, just code it yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Link

Done as promised ([1]). Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As promised what? So far, you have communicated only through reverts of pages. Have you considered how unfriendly you come across as? CapnZapp (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See the appropriate Talk page and try and address the issues. Thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Which talk page? The Sorcery! one? CapnZapp (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Try using the link and see.

Also, re: the "hard work" done by fellow Wikipedians, please note with regards to many FF titles, they are being redirected, as they are essentially trivia (see Wikipedia:Trivia sections). The current information is all in-universe (e.g. fan maps of solutions) and full of opinions, inferences and many unsourced statements. There is also unfortunately nothing more than be added to these articles as no such material exists. The notable entries (such as The Warlock of Firetop Mountain and House of Hell) have been retained as they are notable (the first title, and soon to be a feature film respectively), but most are only suitable as fan pages. At Wikipedia, articles strive to be encyclopedia standard. I am as passionate about Fighting Fantasy as the next person, but realize that the articles must be written in a neutral, factual fashion without any trivial details. Hence the redirects (There was an Article for Deletion discussion and this was the consensus), where relevant information such as an ISBN and links are retained. This also includes cover images, which can now be found at a link at Fighting Fantasy and List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. Many thanks. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, there are additional comments re: your edits at Sorcery!. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

With re: to this comment:

In other words, I strongly oppose the idea that anything that can be condensed in list form should be removed as free text. That means that you should stop removing articles on individual FF game books, replacing them with redirects to that master list, if your only argument is that the list contains the core information. Wikipedia would be a poor place indeed if everyone followed that principle.

Please see my summary above. Where most of the FF articles fall down is on notability (see [2]), being largely the above mentioned trivia. Yes. I know you are passionate about the game system, but you also need to realize that these are not fan pages and as such must be encyclopedia standard. The articles are in the process of being brought to that level. Some information is unfortunately irrelevant and rife with trivia and opinion (e.g. your additions on spell work to Sorcery!) and as such have no place in the articles. The master list will have all relevant information, but it will be just that, revelant. If you want more, then by all means create a fan page. By the by, be careful about issuing ultimatums as they are invariably taken the wrong way (e.g. I must stop editing because you oppose the changes). Have a think about this, and then get back to me. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as you realize that this is your opinion only, and not irrefutable fact, you will do great here at Wikipedia. Feel free to make changes, but as soon as they are contested you must realize you don't own articles, and you must argue for your opinions before changing things your way, preferably through reasoned Talk page discussion.

First off, you don't know squat about me, so please don't tell me you know I am passionate about the game. That, if anything, is irrelevant.

Second, please don't tell me about Wikipedia's 'encyclopedia standard' like I don't know that already. Stop talking down to me.

Third, please don't phrase it like you regret having to remove other editors' work ("Some information is unfortunately irrelevant"), but that you have to do it anyway, since your view of the information is objective and the only one that counts.

Finally. Stop reducing all Fighting Fantasy related information to a dry boring list. Thank you. Feel free to rewrite and condense, but try to keep the articles as free-flowing reader-friendly text.

Now then, CapnZapp (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take a step back and think about what you are saying to fellow editors. It is coming across as rather condescending, and, to be honest, immature (see the first and four points in particular. Again with the emotional ultimatum). Think about what you said in each of your four points. Then have a think about the comments I made above re: the current state of Fighting Fantasy. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

By the by, I've been on and off Wikipedia for a long time, and have found that a simple Edit Summary usually does the trick. When needed, then I go to the Talk Page. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fighting Fantasy

A discussion on redirects of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks is taking place. I notice you've had discussion previously with the user that made the redirects. The discussion is here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citadel of Chaos. Regards. Szzuk (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thx CapnZapp (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thebladesofchaos's talk page

Hello. I don't know if you're confusing me with another editor here, but this is just WP:BRD - Thebladesofchaos boldly replaced the entire article with a redirect, I reverted it and I've now opened discussion. It seemed more useful to do that on the editor's talk page, rather than an article talk page that the other editor might not have had on their watchlist. We certainly haven't been "communicating through the comments of your "undo" actions", as Thebladesofchaos has not reverted any of my edits. --McGeddon (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Thebladesofchaos has not reverted any of my edits" - that's great to hear! No problems, then. CapnZapp (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trotter (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) 10:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Non-existant Sandy Island Google Maps.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Non-existant Sandy Island Google Maps.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CapnZapp. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
Message added 15:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VernoWhitney (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beketaten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bast (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) 11:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue

Respect. 90.229.34.175 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Russell River, Queensland

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. MadmanBot (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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.

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

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 • autoblocks • 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)

RE: Gravity (film) Scientific Accuracy

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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

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)

Snows and hatnotes

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

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)

Gravity

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)

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)

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)

Camilla Läckberg

Camilla Läckberg is fervent propagandist of a lesbian relationship and a non-European immigrants at Sweden. It's as fact as she is a Swedish crime writer. (Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender literature. Classical and medieval literature. Poetry. Camilla Läckberg).85.141.208.53 (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to your vandalism. CapnZapp (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

: You are right always. Everybody is a stupid but not you. Only you know everything about everything including Camilla Läckberg. But she still is fervent propagandist of a lesbian relationship and a non-European immigrants at Sweden. So do you?85.141.209.152 (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Colours BSIcon.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Villa I Tatti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoffrey Scott (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) 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: BOLD

My friend, I did do that and someone (Corvoe) reverted it. I had to personally go to their talk page and get them to post a message on the talk page explaining their thoughts.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Valkyrie Red: Well, I still feel you're not quite calibrated for Wikipedia if you somehow feel wronged you "had to" talk to your fellow contributors in order to get their opinions... Plus, try to avoid engaging the person when you could argue against an opinion. Being reverted simply means someone dislike your edit, not that they dislike you. *insert smiley here*

Personally, I often explain/motivate my edits on the talk page - this all but forces other parties to respond, since if they nullify your edits without participating there, they're made to appear as if disregarding core practices of building consensus.

By taking the discussion to an editor's talk page, you often make things much more personal than necessary. Just a friendly hint! :) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a friendly hint, stop talking to me, k?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CapnZapp. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson (2nd nomination).
Message added 07:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

RFD for Serene Branson

Hi CapnZapp, I've brought your request to delete the Serene Branson page to RfD here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_3#Serene_Branson. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Clickbait article

I've removed your "unreliable sources" tag: as far as I can see, the only source that might have been questionable was the one from Facebook's press release blog, and I believe that's covered by the primary source exemption that allows primary sources to be cited as evidence for a person or organization having made a particular statement. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I've just seen your comments on the talk page, and will respond to you there. -- The Anome (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Denmark-Norway

"You don't get to change how history is written" Don't be so quick to snap on me, son, if you actually knew history you wouldn't be trying to act like a superhero or whatever your game is. I forgot the source, it's not that hard to simply just tell me. You might want to translate this text if you don't read Danish or Norwegian, the point is though, 1: the colonies were indeed Dano-Norwegian and 2: if you want to talk about "what everyone knows", I know the colonial empire deteriorated after 1814 due to a lack of resources, much because Norwegian resources were traded for food and other goods from Denmark to keep the Empire going - don't you also know that?:

http://www.forsvaretsmuseer.no/nor/content/download/10903/77091/file/Den%20dansk-norske%20Fl%C3%A5ten%201510-1814.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.231.182 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Until you have discussed the change on the respective talk pages, please do not change the practice of referring to these colonies as "danish". Do not change "danish" into "dano-norwegian" without reaching consensus first. CapnZapp (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Akalabeth: World of Doom