User talk:Lgfcd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello Lgfcd, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Lgfcd, good luck, and have fun. --Adrian (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

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.

Edith Wharton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to United States of North America
Winsor McCay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to United States of North America

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing citation style[edit]

At Truman Committee you performed some changes including a change in the style of citations. This is not needed or desired, per WP:CITEVAR. The original citation style first used in the article should remain in the article unless consensus for change is established on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes were needed for hyperlink. Sorry that improvements are regarded as nuisances. Lgfcd (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must add my own voice top your arbitrarily changing the reference format. This is not allowed under WP:CITEVAR, and continuing such edits may result in your editing privileges being suspended. Let me also add that external links should not be formated using citation templates, like you did at Lone Wolf and Cub —Farix (t | c) 18:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing for free should not be called a "privilege"... --Againme (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you changed a couple of the reference formats in Binary prefix, to no apparent end other than to remove a bunch of line breaks. Please do not do this. One, such gratuitous changes are discouraged per WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference." Two, using a new line for each item in a reference template is widely followed practice on Wikipedia, as it markedly de-clutters the edit window, making errors less likely. I have therefore reverted your changes. If you made any substantive changes to the article, please re-do them.
I also feel it necessary to point out that your response above, "Sorry that improvements are regarded as nuisances," does not seem to me to be indicative of someone who is eager to act as part of the WP community. Editors who ignore or dismiss community input can be blocked from editing. Jeh (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to remember is that a lot of people prefer the simpler citation style, especially in articles with a lot of references (because the citation templates take up a lot of space). So I'd appreciate it if you don't do it again in the Samson Option article. I wish they'd come up with a citation template that just would produce a simple and easily edited citation (because if you want to add additional or corrected info, sometimes you have to redo the whole darn thing as a simpled citation). So just more feedback. CarolMooreDC 02:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robotic vacuum cleaner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neato (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) 12:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

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.

Steamboat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Robert Napier
Z notation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Zip

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Backus–Naur Form, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SVN (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) 11:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sand[edit]

Hi, you may still be in the middle of editing, but the refs are in a bit of a mess at Sand. I'm off to bed. Thanks Span (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny Cash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (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) 11:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atomic demolition munitions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MA (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) 12:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junkers Ju 87[edit]

Hello, I'm Bzuk. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Junkers Ju 87 because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! FWiW (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark[edit]

Hello, I'm Bzuk. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! FWiW (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Although some of the revisions you have made are useful, your changing reference formatting and bibliographic notation is contravening WP:Retain and WP:CITEVAR. FWiW (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark, you may be blocked from editing. FWiW (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Williams (British writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Thomas (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) 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces around pipes[edit]

Why are you adding them to the continuous integration article? I've never seen it done and it's not described at Wikipedia:Piped link. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charismatic Movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Wagner (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) 11:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Pedrail wheel[edit]

You made this edit to Pedrail wheel, which broke the citation you altered. I have replaced the original citation as it was, to fix the article.

It looks as if you are engaged in some effort to replace various citation formats with the one you prefer, by automated means. I'm sure your edits are well-intentioned, but when they break pages in the process, the overall effect is in my opinion negative. Efforts like this can also get negative reactions from editors who prefer other formats. WP:CITEVAR states: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." In my opinion, there needs to be objective evidence of consensus before these types of changes are made wholesale.

Please ensure your tools are functioning correctly and take my comments into account before making further edits of this type.

Many thanks,

--MegaSloth (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green children of Woolpit[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for running a bot script on this account without approval. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources.

Anomie⚔ 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Have never used a robot, would not even know how to do it. Lgfcd (talk) 8:53 pm, 6 February 2013, Wednesday (9 days ago) (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

Having watched this for a while, I can only apologise for not stepping in and lifting the block earlier. I think that as a community we're being unreasonable towards Lgfcd - it's pretty evident now that he's not running a bot, and since that's what he's blocked for, there's no need to make him jump through hoops to get unblocked. Lgfcd, I'd suggest you steer clear of making edits that could be construed as "bot-like" in future, but beyond that I see no reason to constrain your editing any further. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything that suggests that he's using a bot, Anomie. People do tend to standardize edit summaries, and the speed is nowhere near what I would expect from any form of automation (no two edits were made within 2 minutes of each other, according to the log). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the edits have AWB-like similarities, but there's nothing wrong with semi-automated edits. Unless Anome is party to other undisclosed information, I can't see a reason for this block.  An optimist on the run! 07:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for Anomie to respond, can you just clarify if you've used a tool for assisted editing, such as AWB or similar?  An optimist on the run! 09:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not. I never heard of AWB before today, I still have no idea how it works, and I do not even get the concept of ‘a tool for assisted editing’, so I would not know how to use, get or create one. Unless you count the GNU Emacs text editor and the Conkeror, Mozilla Firefox & occasionally Google Chrome World Wide Web browsers.
―Lgfcd (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assisted editing tools are ones which semi-automatically make changes to text, but don't save until the changes have been reviewed. Such changes include (but not limited to) fixing typos, hyphenation, etc, text replacement and citation fixing. See WP:BOTASSIST. Such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot.  An optimist on the run! 10:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looks like it is something I should use, but I never did. Strange as it may seem, I do like to improve things by hand. I just wish Wikipædia was less of a policial organisation than it has became. I have no problem with my edits being reverted when reasonable, but I have the distinct impression many reverts and deletions are more about control than quality. I guess I am naïve to expect from WP something better than from our civilisation in general.
―Lgfcd (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Anomie's response here. I'm still doubtful about the validity of this block, but will leave a final decision to an independent reviewer.  An optimist on the run! 15:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not answering here, I cannot answer anywhere else, I was given no warning and I see no sense in what he did, since I have never used neither ’bot nor script nor anything else than a web browser and a text editor. Even though I see where he is coming from, he should just consider one can forget one has already edited a part of an article, specially when the improvements were trivial.
Probably I should just give up on Wikipædia, it is grating me already dealing with such heavy handedness and talking to a wall. From what I see for several years now, even before having this account, this seems to me a magnificent failure as far as quality is concerned, perhaps because excess complexity steeming from the PHP heritage and the fear of making early technical and style decisions makes decisions arbitrary.
Perhaps I will learn German, they seem to care better. Thank you anyway, and bye!
― Lgfcd (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to stay, and if you are unblocked, are you prepared to follow accepted wikipedia structure and policy insofar as the addition of references and citations is concerned? This specifically means not making what you have termed "improvements".--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I am lost. What is the issue here? The block as far as I understood is about someone wrongly accusing me of using a tool I do not even know how to use, but now it is also about me not doing something I do not quite understand. Would you make your mind and tell me where do I sign in blood, and for what? It is most aggravating.
— Lgfcd (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was an easy question. You have only to answer it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to answer when one does not see the point, specifically. To which improvements you do object? What they do have to do with this block, based on a non‐existent ’bot? At this point, I start to think I lack the social skills and emotional endurance to keep on this control game. By all means, do keep me blocked if you like.
—Lgfcd (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like. Block lifted, see template above. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui, I've been watching this talk page but without commenting until now. In response to your comment on the unblock ("crucified"), I support the unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, a bright line in the morning surely is nice!
—Lgfcd (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference format change?[edit]

You continue to make unexplained sweeping changes to reference formats, like you have done on Saab JAS 39 Gripen without any attempt to seek consensus on the talk page of the articles, and leaving it up to others to clear up the mess left, including changes to author names. Please consider the requirements of WP:CITEVAR which says that consensus must be obtained on the article talk page before making such changes. You do not seem to be changing the behaviour that got you blocked because someone mistook your mass changing of reference formats with no discussion for a bot. Please reconsider and work with other editors, not against them.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lgfcd it would be appreciated if you could go back to Saab JAS 39 Gripen and undo all your reference change edits, they are clearly disruptive and against consensus for that article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly? Last time I checked there was nothing specific besides general accusations of disruption and consensus, but the article had inconsistent and even incorrect citations, which I corrected and uniformised. Please be more specific, if possible at all.
― Lgfcd (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The existing style wasn't 'corrected'; it was completely thrown out of the window in favour of an entirely different style. That type of activity goes directly against WP:CITEVAR, which says that the citation style of an article should not be artibrarily changed from one style to another by a single editor, but it should have been done as part of a consensus. Your work, while being well done in good faith, can be viewed as not a correction but to force a previously-unused citation style upon an article without any prior discussion. And the citations were probably not inconsistant across the article - if it had been, it most likely would have been brought up during its GAN review two years ago; and even then, they should have been made consistant with the style that's dominantly used in the article, not a completely new style being brought in without discussion.Kyteto (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked what exactly the editors have been complaining about; so here it is in one single word: WP:CITEVAR. On this talk page alone, User:Nigel Ish, User:MegaSloth, User:Bzuk, User:Jeh, User:TheFarix, and User:Binksternet have all linked WP:CITEVAR to you over the last five months. I would suggest, if you actually took the time to read CITEVAR and what it means (basically "Don't change article citation styles to your personal preference without agreement"), you would know what actions that you have doing that has caused over half a dozen editors to point out this same rule to you. Kyteto (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your silence on the issue makes it look as if you are trying a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, simply refusing to acknowledge or engage with discussions and continuing to charge on with the changes. Kyteto (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over a month, I would have expected an acknowledgement of the conversation at some point in this time period as you are still actively editing. Dialogue, rather than ignoring the dozen or so editors who have pointed this out individually, would be more constructive. Kyteto (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, three months later we're still awaiting any response from you on this issue. You're clearly actively editing Wikipedia in recently weeks, yet you don't respond to dozens of different editors starting conversations on this talk page regarding your improvements. This is leaving little options to what can be done if dialogue is being completely ignored. Could you please respond? Kyteto (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Hamilton (photographer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elle (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) 11:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spaces[edit]

Why are you adding spaces to the references at On Becoming Baby Wise? Such spaces do not assist the reader in any way. Changing references in this manner is neither improving nor fixing them; it is simply changing them. Change is not needed if the references are consistent within the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference format changes in Solid-state drive[edit]

As has been said many times here, you should get consensus before making sweeping changes to existing reference format, per WP:CITEVAR. Before you make wholesale changes to reference formats on any page, you need to propose such changes on that article's talk page and get consensus for your new format before proceeding.

If you have actual information to add to the references other than formatting changes, please make those changes without changing whatever format you find on each page.

I assume it is not your intention to be disruptive, but the majority of comments posted here should tell you that that is how many of your format-changing (and some other) edits are perceived. In the future, please try to be more willing to accept community input. Jeh (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More reference format changes[edit]

I had a similar unpleasant experience today, and I reverted his/her changes with the same explanation here. Apparently, this new editor is a slow learner because repeated explanations across multiple articles have not helped. There are other ways to reinforce the point, and I hope we won't have to go there. The solution is simple - use the talk page to propose your article-wide changes and reach a consensus with the other involved editors before you proceed. Ignocrates (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Bucer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ENG (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) 18:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More reference format changes, again[edit]

W. H. Auden received more of these wholesale changes. I am grateful for at least one of them - an archived link that replaces a dead one - but the rest modify the standard format on the page. I have reverted the wholesale changes, but will take this opportunity to make the existing references more consistent. So some of the work done by this editor will (and should) go into the page, but not at the cost of changing so many existing formats. - Macspaunday (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hofstadter[edit]

I notice you have made a number of fairly substantial changes, and yet they are all marked as m (minor). That is not correct. A minor change basically is something almost inconsequential, such as addition/removal of capitalisation. More than that is not minor. For more info, click on the link next to the box on the edit page. John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Sat 12:24, wikitime= 11:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flapper may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Oregon may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the highest percentage of residents identifying themselves as "non-religious", at 24 percent.<ref>{{Citation | format = [[PDF]] | last1 = Kosmin | first1 = Barry A | last2 = Keysar | first2 = Ariela |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lgfcd&oldid=1165251785"