User talk:Technopat/Archive 11 (to 26 June 2023)

Thank you for visiting "my" talk page. Please leave your message at the bottom of this page, either by clicking "New section" (above) or "Click here..." (below). I'll reply wherever you prefer (my usual habit is to reply on your talk page, which means I'm watching it, and there's no need to add the {{talkback}} template or quote any previous message). Oh yeah, before I forget, if you came here because I undid or reverted your unsourced content, there's really no point bringing it up here. Just cite your references in the article you edited. Click here to leave me a new message, and please don't forget to sign.

Thank

Hi Technopat

Thanks for your help.and your words.

About you talking to me, i just did translate from the spanish text to english, so if the spanish text was correct and functionaly thereford the english. Just asking.

In other hand, I was attemp to introduce the same references that was in Spanish article, but i wasnt able to do. I must study harder how works the list references in English edition because works in different way then in Spanish edition.

Thanks for your help and I apologice for my english expression. Prodestur (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I forget to sign

Prodestur (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Replied. --Technopat (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal

To Technopat,

Hello! I was wondering why you removed my edits on the Feynman page.

Kind Regards,

Feynkid Feynkid (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Replied. --Technopat (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joaquín Ibáñez, Baron de Eroles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Castile. 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) 06:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi Technopat! I think you got the wrong user, because the IP address you reverted the edits to was 204.122.112.163, and I am 190.26.144.107. Otherwise, my edits are just proof, because Wikipedia:Sandbox is a sandbox, my edits are not intended to misinform or vandalism. Thanks. 190.26.144.107 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just for general information, this IP has done this on more than one occasion. --Technopat (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Exact. The same person who used the IP to make that edit wrote you the message. The sandbox page, not even in Help:My sandbox mentions that it's just for "general comsumption", for that it would have to be an article or something strictly formal.

  What I did in the sandbox is not vandalism or misinformation, it's just proofs. Why? Because it is precisely a sandbox, where the editions do not necessarily contribute to Wikipedia. What was done is not promotional, protected by copyright, offensive or libelous, it is simply an experiment of what a chart on Wikipedia would be, but it does not have encyclopedic or malicious intentions. I hope you understand which edition you are messing with.

  Additionally, you say that I am supposedly doing "vandalism". It's not the first time I've done it, since that kind of thing I do in the right place almost periodically. So why before users like you didn't stop me but you did? Explain to me what happens with you and what is that general consumption that you tell me. 190.26.144.107 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• No comment. --Technopat (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of Military terms

WP:MILTERMS is not intended to override MOS:CAPS on things like battle and siege. When sources don't support capitalization, we don't either. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Replied. --Technopat (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

French toast

You reverted my note that citations in the article on French toast failed verification, with the comment 'That "earliest known reference" is verifiable, which is what matters.'

This doesn't make sense; I'm aware that the reference is verifiable. That's why it was marked "failed verification" - the citation is verifiable, the attempt was made, and the citation is known to be false. The Apicius does not contain the text attributed to it by the article. The article is quoting material that is original to a 1936 translation of the Apicius, and it is marked as original content [not present in the Latin] in that English-language work.

Given that, why do we want to have false information in the French toast article? 2601:647:CC00:84D0:9A0:20F:1FA5:2DC9 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Replied. --Technopat (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate on how you think WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant?

  The French toast article makes two claims about the Apicius, both cited to the same source. The claims are "verifiable" in that they are cited to a work that really exists and it's possible to check whether that source supports those claims. They have "failed verification" in that the source doesn't support the claims. It is true that the claims are false, but more importantly here, the claims are also not present in the source to which they are cited. 2601:647:CC00:84D0:20E7:5F80:7E14:3028 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Replied. --Technopat (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Dispute of resolution

I opened a Dispute of resolution here Xuxo (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of French generals of the Peninsular War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Valencia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

…for your reverts on IP 220.240.82.127’s unconstructive talk page edits, which I only saw after I replied to them on a new one. I am not totally sure what’s going on there but thought I’d flag to you that they’re back at it, in case you have a better sense of the background than I do. Thank you for your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)