User talk:Dicklyon

June 2021

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Template:Z190Z16 talk 03:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A random style tip:

Another styletip ...

Unit symbols: spacing

Values and unit symbols are separated by a space (preferably a non-breaking space):

Correct: 5 min, 3 lb, 90 °C
Incorrect: 5min, 3lb, 90°C

Only angular and coordinate degrees, and the percent sign, are unspaced:

90° (a right angle), 76%

Rolling Block

Please stop reverting my edits sir. I can cleary see that you're a professional man but I've known firearms my whole life and devoted over a decade teaching my knowledge. Here are just a few examples of what I'm talking about and if you can just leave those articles be I'd be much appreciated. I respect all the hard work you do sir and I don't want to get into any kind of argument over something trivial like this. Thank you. 174.242.73.206 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

If I am however unable to persuade you, please make sure to fix all the wiki articles that include the term Rolling Block so the information is accurate everywhere. Thank you. 174.242.73.206 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Following up at Talk:Rolling block#Case and hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Favorite Neurological Illusion

Hi @Dicklyon, I just stumbled on this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Optical_grey_squares_orange_brown_%28opaque%29.png

You're the guy that created the yellow dot mod for this? I love this, in fact this yellow dot version is the specific image I use when discussing why contrast is not about absolute color but is about context, surrounds, neurology, etc etc... I came upon it elsewhere and there was no attribution, glad to know who I can attribute to — the yellow dots were a brilliant addition, and really pounds the concept home. --Myndex (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the brown dots? Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad they don't follow the attribution requirement correctly; e.g. here or here. On the other hand, I can't figure out the history by looking either. I'm pretty sure I did originate it, but I can't see how you figured that out. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that. Now that I found the File and linked it above, I see that I released it into the public domain; no attribution needed. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah BROWN dots then... well, at least in my case, my eye went to what I "perceived as most luminous" the one under the shadow, which I would call yellow... and since that was my "first" perception, I applied the name "yellow" to the second dot. Such is the nature of perception, with the cognitive aspect causing first perceptions to color subsequent relationships (pun sort of intended).

This relates a bit to why in old Hollywood movies the "hero" would wear white — one reason being that the hero was thus easy to make out against the background hills and trees in wide shots. Still true today as it has been for classical image composition, the eye goes to the "lightest", "most luminous" or the "most contrasty" place first. I've seen some German expressionist paintings that play on this, as in, using a high contrast form which is the first perception, but low contrast supporting form that presents a very alternate context or emotion, the latter of which "appears" as vision adapts and the lower contrast areas/details become more apparent. The effect with these paintings is a shift in tone or expression as you stare at it for a period of a few minutes.

And also I ramble a bit. As for how I figured it out, I glanced at your profile and saw photos of Lake Whatcom where I once lived, which naturally led to looking deeper, and saw the image attached to your profile relative to the Color entry, which led to the file... As I mentioned, it's a key example I use often in discussions to get the point across that what we see is not absolute but very context sensitive. It also makes a nice lead into "how there is no yellow on a monitor, only separate red and green", etc etc. And this image with the, eh, "brown" dots relates very much to the perception of contrast, my current focus, so I've been using it a lot this year. As for attribution, I like to do so when I can regardless of PD. Thank you again.--Myndex (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the yellow/orange one has no more contrast with its surround than the brown one! Fun. The Whatcom county / Bellingham trip was fun; my wife's Mum lives there and will be 99 this month. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my joke was hurtful

Hi Dicklyon,

Just a quick message here to say I'm sorry about my joke on the MoS talk page. I notice you said Congrats. All I got from him was some pix to mock my verb choice; et tu. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I interpreted it as you saying that EEng posts pictures which mock your verb choice, and I did the same. Now, obviously, I can't speak for EEng here, but I want to assure you that my joke wasn't intended to mock – having scrolled through the MoS page I had noticed that EEng sometimes posts jokes like that, and I wanted to try it myself. Nowadays I don't hear people using "behooves" much, so I thought it was a great opportunity to insert a visual gag onto the page. I'm very sorry if it seemed as though I was mocking you – I promise you that wasn't my intention. I know this kind of sounds like a non-apology (I'm sorry if), but I'm not actually sure if you were offended or not. If you were, then I am indeed sorry, and if not... then I'm a silly goose for thinking otherwise :) I just didn't want to give the impression that we're 'enemies' or something – sure, you disagree with my opinion on the capitalisation of internet, but I really don't have any negative feelings about you just because of that. It's not like you kicked my dog, burned down my house and used my toilet without flushing it afterwards or something :) DesertPipeline (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. But I don't recommend emulating EEng, as his jokes are generally mocking and distract from the conversation. As for behooves, yes it's an old odd word that I don't recall using myself in decades, but it seemed to fit there. And some of my best friends like capped Internet, so that's not a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've seen anything from EEng that I would consider mocking, although admittedly I haven't seen much from him. I'm not a fan of mocking humour anyway, so if that is his way, not to worry, I won't be following that particular example :) DesertPipeline (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Las Tunas (city)

Hello, I've added a bit of info to justify the move at this article which you've recently undone. I think you'll agree that the decision made by the original closer was correct. Please join me at Talk:Las Tunas (city) to discuss. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siege to --> siege of

Hi Dick, I see you're mass converting the names of sieges and military campaigns from upper to lower case. This contradicts the normal convention for naming military battles and campaigns as per the sources and as reflected by MOS:MIL. To take just one example, Grant's Overland Campaign occurs around 5 times more than Grant's overland campaign in the sources. See here for verification. Please would you revert your changes unless there is a clear consensus for such naming. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice a 21st-century spike in capping Overland Campaign (sometimes Overland campaign), though I attribute some of that to authors copying WP. Do you have an idea where that came from? For most other campaigns (which were already thoroughly discussed) and sieges, the sources are unambiguously lowercase. I'll revert Grant's for now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes to the capitalisation of military engagements

Hi Dicklyon, it's been brought to my attention that you have recently been changing the capitalisation of many hundreds of articles, always along the lines of 'Siege of X' -> 'siege of X' (or similar terms such as 'Defense', 'Capture' etc.) Can you explain why you made these edits - is there a guideline I'm unaware of, or a discussion I should look at? My understanding is that, per WP:MILTERMS, accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources. The rate at which you were making these changes makes me doubt that it would have been possible for you to be surveying the sources on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not the sources usually capitalise them, and so I can only assume that you made these changes because you personally feel that they are correct; on a scale like this, I would tend to see an action like that as disruptive, but perhaps there's something I'm unaware of - please let me know if there's something I'm missing. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the guideline. It's true that I have not checked every siege, but I have checked many, included all the most famous ones (here are a few), and haven't found any that are usually capped in sources. In addition, many (possibly most) were already lowercase in articles, except in the lead where they were capped; so there was not really much signal that editors even thought of these as proper names. If I got a bunch wrong, that would be disruptive. So far, nobody has pointed out any that I got wrong (except maybe Grant's Overland Campaign; see section above). For the defenses and captures and sacks of, I think I did check all that I changed. Please do let me know if you see any that you think I might have got wrong. I agree with you that this should not be about personal feelings or opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I don't have time immediately to check all of them - there are hundreds - but I suspect that you have got a bunch wrong. For one thing, amongst your changes have been a number of GAs and FAs, which have already been extensively reviewed already - I can't think of any reason why you would change them without discussion. Again: did you discuss these mass changes anywhere prior to embarking on this campaign. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 20:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a few people who care about such things have checked some and will check more. If the quality of my work is found wanting, I want to hear about that and take steps to fix it. I'll review sieges in Category:Featured articles again to check whether I messed up. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Among FAs with "the siege of", overwhelmingly lowercase in sources are the sieges of: Calais, Aiguillon, Constantinople, Taunton, Carthage, Durazzo, Berwick, Malakand, Lilybaeum, Thessalonica, Dyrrhachium, Quebec, Badajoz, Tobruk, Sevastopol, Leningrad, Port Arthur, Canterbury, Yorktown, Petersburg, Boston, Tsingtao, Béxar (also Bexar), Vicksburg, Syracuse, Charleston, Seringapatam, Orléans, Kut, Mafeking, Suzhou, Paysandú, Peking, Vienna, Sarajevo, Arwad, Suffolk, Louisbourg, Ragusa, Antioch, Chandax, Zara, Lachish, Knoxville, Nice, Montreuil, Boulogne, and the Iranian Embassy siege. Hard to find sources to check: Godesberg (the article originally started with "The seige of Godesberg", but then User:Anotherclown came along and capped it; I think it's a made-up descriptive name, as I don't see it any books). One interesting case is the siege of Sidney Street, which is a lot more capped recently, partly due to references to the 1988 book title The Houndsditch Murders and the Siege of Sidney Street; but still not quite what I'd call "consistently capitalized in sources"; and not really a milhist item, either. Mecca is another; the ancient sieges lowercase, the 1979 one more often capped (but I didn't mess with that one, and it doesn't use the phrase in question in our article). Lisbon is another that shot up in caps in recent books, due to mentions of History of the Siege of Lisbon. In general, I don't find any reason to suspect that FAs in the milhist area have been checked against the capitalization guidance. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to ask this again because you haven't given an answer: did you discuss these changes anywhere before you started changing hundreds and hundreds of articles?

You seem to be using some Google Books graphs to evaluate whether or not names are 'usually capitalized in sources'. I don't say that that's a bad approach, or even one that I wouldn't support; the point is that it isn't the only approach. One might take issue with the fact that such an approach doesn't take the type or quality of the sources into account - a book about a particular engagement ought perhaps to be given more weight than a book about a completely different subject which mentions it in passing; an academic book by a renowned military historian ought perhaps to be given more weight than a travel guide.

Another point that people might reasonably make is that Google doesn't differentiate between cases where 'siege' is being used to refer to an action (eg: "The duke of Burgundy commenced hostilities by the siege of Calais": that is a reference to the duke's action of laying siege to Calais) as opposed to a reference to the engagement itself (e.g. "Calais remained a possession under the Treaty of Brétigny until its loss after the Siege of Calais of 1558": that's a reference to the siege directly).

I am not looking to argue these points with you here: my point is that people could reasonably disagree with your approach, and when there is room for disagreement, it's always better to check to see whether there is consensus to proceed before making hundreds of bot-like changes. I see that a discussion has been started at WT:MILHIST by Bermicourt - I would urge you to stop making these changes until that discussion has been had, and consensus is achieved. Explain what you are doing, and why, and see if people agree with you before proceeding. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes - I've just realised that you have been continuing with this even though you now know that the mass changes are contested. I don't want to be heavy-handed here, but if you don't stop this until discussion shows a consensus, my next step will be to block your account from article space to prevent the potential harm to the project. Please engage in discussion and gain consensus for your approach before making any more edits of this nature. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted a few errors while reviewing the FAs, checked sources, and went ahead and fixed them. Let me know if you see any that you think should be capitalized. Apparently Gog found one he disagreed with, as he reverted one, so now we have a case to discuss. The Milhist editors have had hundreds of chances over four weeks to say if they saw any errors among my case fixes on sieges and offensives and such. I got a number of thanks, and had brief discussions with a couple of editors who questioned a change or two (e.g. User_talk:KIENGIR#Siege_of_Budapest a month ago, re a point of confusion that a few of the Milhist editors are now expressing; you could maybe help clear that up with them) (& e.g. User_talk:Sturmvogel_66#The_siege_of_Leningrad where he appears to accept my point while expressing an opinion on the low value of such fixes; it's OK with me for him to have that opinion of my efforts) (& e.g. User_talk:Calidum#Case_fixes where I tried to discuss a revert but got ignored) (& e.g. User_talk:Keith-264#"titles"? for a suspended/pending discussion re Fortified position of Namur and such) (& e.g. the discussion with Bermicourt immediately above, for which I self-reverted even though I think the case for caps is weak). Also, we have a long history of discussing the application of the case guidelines to Milhist topics, though not specifically these. I'm OK with people disagreeing with my approach, but then they need to say so, not wait a month and then go complain to an admin and start a discussion at Milhist without pinging me. Dicklyon (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the question of whether or not you are correct in making these changes. What concerns me is making changes en masse without any prior discussion. You surely know from past experience that changing hundreds of articles without discussion based on Google n-grams can be contentious? I just don't know why you wouldn't start a discussion first to see whether there was consensus for this campaign of changes (or is it the Campaign of Changes?)

You say The Milhist editors have had hundreds of chances... - did any of them know you were doing this across the board? The lack of many complaints for a few weeks might be a sign of general agreement, or it might just be a sign that nobody noticed what you were doing.

I don't understand what you want me to help clear up with the milhist editors. If you'd like to explain that, I'd be happy to consider it, but I don't personally want to be drawn into the content dispute - I just want to ensure that discussion takes place, and we establish whether there is consensus for these changes that you're making. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of "without any prior discussion" is inappropriate. The issue of following MOS:CAPS has been discussed to death at Milhist. And it's not a case of nobody noticed; you can see that KIENGIR noticed and was confused; and that a couple of others noticed and stopped arguing after I pointed to the evidence. And several others noticed and gave me thanks. Bermicourt and Gog and Keith have all been in case arguments before; they like their caps and don't like to follow MOS:CAPS. If you're not going to look into the question of what is correct here, and just want to pile on in criticizing the quantity, as opposed to the quality, of my work, that's not helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you several times whether there had been any prior discussion or not, and you declined to give an answer. If you're now telling me that there has been discussion, then feel free to point me at it. I think your characterisation of me wanting to "pile on in criticizing" is also unhelpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This goes way back: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_8#Military_terms (in 2012), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_152#Campaign_vs_campaign (which links several related RM & other discussions), and many more. Still, some in Milhist ignore the wider consensus and want to cap their special stuff even when sources don't. If you're not looking at the source evidence, you won't understand how badly you're coming across here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go right back to my initial post - I've asked you several times whether this has been discussed before, whether there's something I'm missing, and so on. All I'm hoping to do here is make sure that these changes have been discussed and there is consensus for them. I didn't mandate that such a discussion happen at MILHIST - someone else started that, I'd have probably suggested MOS talk myself, with a cross-post at MILHIST.

I can't wear two hats - if I'm acting as an admin, I can't get involved in the actual content discussion, so I'm not looking at the source evidence, but I expect other people to do so. If the evidence shows that you're right about the sources, then the MOS guideline that I quoted right at the beginning of this thread clearly says that your changes are correct.

If there is a discussion somewhere that reached a consensus to say that a Google n-gram on its own is a satisfactory way to establish that, please let me know. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use and limitations of Google n-grams have been widely discussed. I would not generally claim that it's enough "on its own", except that sometimes it does make the situation pretty obvious. It needs to be used with care, clicking through to check individual sources often. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS say not to capitalize anything that is not consistently capitalized in sources, and we have also had RM after RM after RM about events of this sort for 20 years and they keep going lower-case, because the sources come nowhere near to being consistent about capitalizing them, except in specific cases (which WP then also retains capitalized), it's very clear that consensus has already long been very well established. MILHIST cannot make up it's own "anti-rules" against site-wide consensus. This is why we have WP:CONLEVEL policy, which was specifically written to curtail attempts by wikiprojects to behave as if topics they claim within their scope are walled gardens, and it's why we've had around a dozen ArbCom cases focused on wikiprojects attempting to "control" articles they wish they WP:OWNed, all concluding against this idea. For ArbCom-ruling language that is directly applicable to this, see:

among others. If certain parties from MILHIST continue in a behavior pattern of "try to make up our own pseudo-rules, then tag-team harass editors who bring WP's military history content back into compliance with the actual policies and guidelines", it may be time to open another ArbCom request. Participants in that wikiproject have to learn one way or another that it is not magically special and different, and is not immune to the same policies, guidelines, procedures, practices, and decisions that apply to everyone else. Especially since many of those things originated specifically stop the very behavior in question. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, I'm aware of CONLEVEL, but I don't have your institutional memory, so I'm not aware of all the history around this. Accusations of tag-teaming and harassment are pretty strong, and they aren't what I see here. When people see hundreds of apparently undiscussed changes, they are going to be surprised and concerned - that's surely not a surprise?

It's abundantly clear that the over-arching consensus is that these should be capitalised if they are capitalised in the sources, and that they should be lowercase if not. What I'd like to have seen is a discussion somewhere where someone said 'Hey - all these articles have got caps, but the sources don't support that. Here's my evidence.' Then I'd hope that people would examine the evidence and say 'You're right - go ahead and change them.' And we'd all be happy. (Maybe I'm being naïve though.) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who focus on MILHIST are not generally going to be "surprised and concerned" when a large knot of them have collectively been fighting like hell for nearly 20 years to over-capitalize military topics just because they're military topics, and they talk about the on the MILHIST talk page all the time (generally in ranty terms about this editor or that messing with "their" articles). Hell, WP:SSF was written about 80% with MILHIST in mind. No wikiproject in WP history has been more intent on thwarting MoS, AT, and other policies and guidelines that don't align with certain editors' personal preferences. One of the reasons I talk-page-stalk Dicklyon is that as one of the main naming conventions and MoS compliance editors, he's frequently subject to organized (via e-mail and wikiproject-talk) WP:POVRAILROAD attack by various wikiprojects, so yes it is tag-teaming and yes it is harassment. Probably the only reason I have not personally taken this to ArbCom already, with dozens of editors from at least 4 projects as parties, is that it is difficult to get ArbCom to accept a case filed by a third-party editor who is not central to the dispute and the behavior problems raised in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, I bow to your knowledge of the history, but I will point out that Gog the Mild, who approached me, started editing regularly in 2018 (as did I, FWIW). He has not been fighting like hell for 20 years, and I do believe that he was surprised and concerned. This again is why I advocate discussion - we don't all know the background here. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having a discussion is fine. But WP:FILIBUSTER matters. It is not right and cannot continue that a wikiproject throws up a "we have to discuss this" wall of FUD when ever someone does entirely routine guideline compliance edits, then injects more "but FA ..." FUD as additional hand-waving, all in furtherance of the same over-capitalization push. Have a discussion is fine. But we've already had it, many times. Having the same discussion over and over and over in an attempt to stall and to drive someone into yielding is absolutely not fine. It's a mixture of TAGTEAM and WP:FORUMSHOP, and is a form of gaming the system. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, S, it's only small knot of Milhist editors who are problematic. If it had been a large knot we probably never would have made as much progress as we have on caps fixes and stuff. I didn't know Gog was that new; that could explain some of his ignorance of guidelines such as MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both: it's clear that there is a lot more background to this than I was aware of, and that Dicklyon has put more work into this than I appreciated. I apologise for the original tone of my approach - I should have tried to find out more before I used words like 'disruptive'. I withdraw my earlier statement that I'll block you from article space if you make more of those edits.

To be clear - I think more communication would be a good thing. I think letting people know that this was going to happen, and why, would have been better than just doing it - if only to allay the concerns of people who don't know the background, and who don't know where all these discussions have happened (which includes myself). GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always ready to politely discuss when questioned, as saw with the recent user discussions I linked. Gog should have asked -- or reverted -- if he thought there was something wrong. I have no way to suspect that a new editor won't understand my edits. Dicklyon (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editor who has repeatedly been dragged to noticeboards by one or another of a few editors with friends in high places, over a content dispute, with the hopes that their connections will be enough to circumvent consensus. It appears to be happening again. The discussion that should have been had is the one where you tell your buddy that 1) WP:Bold applies to FAs just like everywhere else, and 2) that the R in BRD doesn't stand for "Run to your favourite admin". Primergrey (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your supportive words. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this worked out OK, with Gog self-reverting his revert after discussion at Milhist. Gave people a chance to get on the record with whatever there reservations are, and to see how silly some of the objections are. Now let's get back to business. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth, FYI, "prior to embarking on this campaign" also comes across as demeaning. Maybe I'm on a campaign, but my work to improve WP is only called that when someone is complaining. I've been on this campaign for over 15 years. I've fixed caps and punctuation in tens of thousands of articles, including via many thousands of moves. Sometimes a few people object, but usually 99% or more of what I do gets no feedback, positive or negative. The idea that I should discuss all manner of little fixes in advance is a non-starter, even if they affect hundreds of articles. Making sure that my edits conform to consensus and guidelines, however, is fair and is what I try to do. Watch and you'll see. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as SMcCandlish notes, the idea that one can present evidence at Milhist and expect them to say "you're right, go ahead" is just not realistic. It's better to be bold and see if anyone complains, and then discuss. Better to ask forgiveness than permission would be the other way to look at it. I do revert myself now and again, like with Bermicourt's suggestion on Overland Campaign; I don't agree with him, but agree it's worthy of more discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GirthSummit, consensus is well established for Dicklyon's fixes. Tony (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I take your point that 'prior to embarking on this campaign' comes across as demeaning. I apologise again for the tone I took in that post. I'd like to explain how I approached this, and how I think it might be possible to take steps to avoid this being something that has to keep cropping up again and again.

Gog's work as a copyeditor through GOCE, and a reviewer of articles for GA and FA, has been prolific, and he is a stickler for the MOS. I'm certain that his concern here was not that his personal preference be retained in defiance of the MOS; I think that he shared what appears to be a common misconception that 'siege of...' is usually capitalised, and was concerned that you were changing hundreds of articles to go against it. I looked, saw the hundreds of changes without any discussion that I could see, and overreacted. I should have looked into this more carefully before coming here, and I should have approached you differently; I've learned something from this, at least.

I've spent a bit of time this morning looking into the comments that you and SMcCandlish raised at WT:MILHIST, particularly the Google Scholar searches, which were pretty convincing: it's clear that you are indeed correct that in most instances (certainly all the ones I looked at), 'siege of' should be lower case. I have some thoughts about why people commonly think that isn't the case, most of which we can't do anything about; one thing that we might be able to do is look at the wording of the MOS. Here's the current relevant bits of MOS:MILTERMS:

The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.

and

Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of July 8, 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion). The generic terms (war, revolution, battle) take the lowercase form when standing alone (France went to war; The battle began; The raid succeeded), but "campaign" is always lowercase (Bougainville campaign, American logistics in the Normandy campaign).

It tells you that battles etc are capitalised if they are usually capitalised in sources, and then lists a bunch of examples where that is the case. I can see how someone could read that, and come away with the impression that this is the norm - the fact that it tells you that campaigns should be lower case seems to add to the impression that it's normal in other instances. I wonder whether some language should be added to help steer people in the right direction on this. 'Should only be capitalized if', might perhaps sound more of a note of caution, along with some examples of cases that aren't? Perhaps a footnote indicating how rare it is for particular engagements to be consistently capitalised?

Before I propose anything, I'd be interested to hear your views on this, and those of anyone else commenting on this thread, and if there have been previous discussions about this wording that I should be aware of. Apologies again for how I handled this. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, you'll see that I added the bit "if they are usually capitalized in sources", while in the midst of another capping argument with Milhist people pointing to there as permission to cap whatever they wanted. I got a bit of flak for it, but it stuck. So, progress. But yes, a more clear statement would help, and I'll support you if you draft one. I don't know who put the bit about campaign; treating that as some kind of special case is nutty, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: ah, found the change that treats "campaign" as a special case. Hawkeye7, I know you linked the discussion about campaign, but was there anything in there to suggest that it's special? And does that mean you'd support me in downcasing Overland Campaign and Red River Campaign? Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the MOS in December 2020 in response to the series of discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Campaign vs campaign and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 29#Campaign vs. campaign in military history articles in July and August 2019, which in turn followed a series of requested moves. I always thought that proper nouns should be capitalised, and it introduces a strange inconsistency to the MOS. I don't know enough about the American Civil War to comment; but "Overland" is not the official name of the campaign; officially it is "Wilderness". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions and disagreements have never been about whether proper names should be capitalized, but rather about how to decide which are proper names. Not clear what you're saying is an inconsistency. It seems to me that listing campaign as if it's special is inconsistent. As for Overland vs Wilderness, I have no idea who decides what's "official" or "accepted" in military operation naming; both are widespread in sources, but with more recent books with "Overland Campaign" in their titles the proportion of capped uses has been creeping upward. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please consider removing this. — Ched (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed. Dicklyon (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girona/Gerona

I was a primary contributor to the article Third siege of Gerona. You recently changed the spelling of the town from Girona to Gerona, and opened up a sensitive subject. The former spelling is Catalan and the commonly used name in Catalonia, while the latter is the Spanish. What's sensitive about it is it is related to Catalan national identity. I believe that Girona is the proper name for the article on Wikipedia, since it is the functioning name for the city. Traveling English speakers would use Girona as a practical matter. It is an ongoing issue however, with those striving to downplay the Catalan identity preferring the Spanish spelling. There was a minor battle over the use of Empúries, rather than Ampurias, for example. You noted "sources use Gerona", but that is not altogether true - many sources use Girona; older sources, from a time when the Francoist government was suppressing the Catalan language, use the Spanish version. I am tending to want to revert the article name and spelling standard back to its former state. I adopt the notion that Catalan places should have Catalan names, as are used in Catalonia. What do you think? (copied to the talk page of that article for a better forum; pls respond there, thx) Bdushaw (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the feedback. I'll stay away from that. Girona is a lovely city; I had a nice visit there in 2003. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain how to undo the article move, to exchange Gerona for Girona and simultaneously exchange the redirects. Do you know how? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back, which swapped the redirect. Let me know if you'd like me to help undo more. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moltes gràcies! Bdushaw (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Justin Bieber on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Illinois changes

Hi Dicklyon, I'm sorry to revert your reversions but the discussion around the title of the University of Illinois pages decided to match university's style to include the hyphen rather than en dash in its name. Fair game on the Mass Transit District page but the university clearly stated preference for a hyphen between Urbana and Champaign. JustinMal1 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I notice too late the fucked up RM. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinMal1: can you point out where "the university clearly stated preference for a hyphen between Urbana and Champaign"? Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the writing style guide of the Urbana-Champaign campus is clear about the reference and uses it twice exactly as "Urbana-Champaign." [19] The official system style guide offers some reasoning why and the same style. [20] The Chicago campus's style guide also uses an exact "Urbana-Champaign." [21] Even the student newspaper mentions an "ever-powerful hyphen." [22] I hope this helps! JustinMal1 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For University of Illinois Chicago, they say "Do not use a comma or a dash" (as in University of Illinois – Chicago, as we do with a lot of university-campus relations). It says exactly the same for UIUC. Nowhere do they comment on the character that connects the two city names. The fact that they happen to render it with a hyphen-minus doesn't mean they are saying an en dash would not be just as good. So as for "clearly stated preference", no, they don't touch this question at all. Dicklyon (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official style guide of the university. How they list a term in the guide is the official title, typography, and spelling. It is unnecessary for them to explicitly say "use a hyphen" if it is used in the term. Would you like them to also explicitly state that Urbana includes two As? Explicitly state that Champaign has a silent G? You're taking this line of questioning out of character and asking for something that is not necessary. If the university lists it as "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign" then this is the official name and style, hyphen and all. JustinMal1 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out by several people, there are different styles for how to render typographically the logical dash between place names. They are silent on the question, and default to the common style of using a hyphen. You said they had as "clearly stated preference for a hyphen", but that's plainly not so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're contradicting yourself, they cannot be silent on the question but also make a determination on which to use, hyphen or dash. I would call their listing of the hyphen multiple times in the style guide to be a clearly stated preference. JustinMal1 (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contracting myself; many people and orgs default unthinkingly to the hyphen-minus key on their keyboards, and wouldn't know an en dash if asked. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

Thanks for the sharp eye – didn't realize I was adding the wrong dash on my mobile device. Sorry about that! All fixed. Cheers Facts707 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'action of'

Hi, my watchlist is slowly being filled by your removals of capitalisations of 'action of XXX'! Nonetheless, just a quick message to say thank you for doing so! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How refreshing to get such a message on my talk page! Dicklyon (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tucker Carlson on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

It would be appreciated if, when you move a page, you checked and fixed incoming links from navigational templates, as these need to use direct links in order to display correctly on the target pages. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Thanks, I'll try to keep that in mind. Is there an easy way to find such things? The incoming links list tends to show a lot of articles, but doesn't say when some are by way of templates, as far as I know. Do I just need to inspect some and try to figure it out? Maybe there should be a bot looking for redirects in nav templates, sort of like the one that fixes double redirects? Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the "what links here" for the old title select "template" in the namespace dropdown. See for example here for 1975 Spring Offensive. DuncanHill (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough! All these years and I totally missed that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: I just did a bunch of link updates in Template space. Thanks again for the suggestions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Offensive

You may want to spend some time fixing the nearly a thousand links to Spring Offensive before you do or propose any more page moves. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I will! Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Dependencies

Just a little note of confusion about the RM at Talk:Crown Dependencies. Do you agree with that? — BarrelProof (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No particular opinion. Caps are a large enough proportion in sources that I wouldn't tend to object, though it does seem odd to me. I get enough grief from much more obvious over-capitalization issues. Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speak up in the RM since I was confused myself about what would be appropriate for that one. I view such cases as opportunities for learning. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Battle of the Mons Pocket shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this today, and saw it was shortly after my second move, and before I started the RM discussion. I had assumed you where withdrawing from the discussion based on your comments away from the issue after I pointed out your misunderstanding of capitalization. So I redid the move to the correct title, thinking you'd accept it. I was wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This issue being that I pushed back on your nonsense, which you subsequently doubled down on? Can you understand that the issue should not be about your opinion, but rather about guidelines and sources? Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Sarkar on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Asian-American studies on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Civil War/civil war

What do you make of this ngram? It looks like the capitalization only won after the Wikipedia article was created, under the present name, in 2004. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing capitalization over time is not an unusual pattern; it's hard to say to what extent Wikipedia capitalization affects caps in books – I've seen clearer cases than this one. I'd say it's not yet at the point of "consistently capitalized in sources", but it's hard to win the argument when it has gone that far. You'd need to show that a lot of the capped use are from headings and titles. With more context you'd have a better case. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And citations. E.g. 1999 books and later have a lot of citations to The Origins of the Greek Civil War and Studies in the History of the Greek Civil War, accounting for the high capitalization in "of the Greek Civil War". Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, this is just a question, (not an accusation of any kind and not looking for a dispute). Today, I noted you added a blank before a heading (summary: "blank line before heading").

It reminded of when you did the same 2 weeks ago (summary: "And blank lines are suggested before headings.").

I just wanted to ask if there was an MOS or markup guideline behind that? Or a community consensus? Is it backed by some recognized external guide? Is it just personal preference? Any information you can provide about this would be appreciated. Thank you - wolf 07:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for asking. MOS:HEADINGS has said "The heading must be on its own line, with one blank line just before it; a blank line just after is optional..." for as long as I can remember (except for about a week in Sept. 2013 when someone changed it and I changed it back). My preference is to also have a blank line after, but since that's optional I don't often add one. If there's a "File:" right after the heading, or between paragraphs, I'll sometimes add a blank line after that to make it easier to spot paragraph starts. Some editors seem to like to be spacing minimalists, but to me that just makes the source hard to navigate. Dicklyon (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows how that was evolving 11 years ago. Dicklyon (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a few days earlier, this more symmetric recommendation which didn't stick. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the mos doesn't say that now (or I'm somehow missing it). And edits are one thing, but when you specifically revert someone, as you did in the second diff above, there should be a valid, and current, reason for that revert. That's just my opinion on the matter, and I don't really have anything to add beyond that (as I said, not looking for a dispute on this). Thank you for the reply. - wolf 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, was I looking at an old version when I grabbed that quote? Give me some moments to investigate... Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, it was dropped in this "copyedit". I've restored it to MOS:HEADINGS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:MapReader for confirmation (more or less) that it was inadvertent. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: just in case you didn't see the end of this. Sorry I let it get messed up for so long and didn't even notice when you asked about it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's minor matter, so no worries. Apology accepted. - wolf 02:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		Fighting the Good Fight Barnstar
		For resisting those who would like Wikipedia’s capitalization rules to resemble a corporate brochure or a government press release —Wallnot (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wallnot! If you like to support Wikipedia style, check Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Current now and then, including its transcluded subsection on capitalization (there's no automated way to maintain an "article alerts" system for such things like wikiprojects have, so we rely on editors to maintain it manually). Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding drama...

Morning Dick and I hope you're well,

I just thought I'd ping you a very friendly note about your comment here at the Armenian (G/g)enocide chat. It looks like you're making a good point about the book sources in question, but there's no need to accompany the comment with "you are being unbelievably disingenuous in your comments!". You can think that in private if you like, but even if you believe it to be true, saying it out loud in the discussion is only likely to result in silly drama of the sort that's just concluded over at WP:ANI. Your comment may or may not be true (I suspect not - it looks to me like the other editor was just sticking rigidly to a previously-held view and looking for evidence to back that up, rather than making a deliberate attempt to be dishonest). But either way, I'd advise to always argue the issue and not the person; let your facts speak for themselves. Nobody wants to see you blocked or sanctioned. Anyway, that's my advice which you can take or leave at your discretion! All the best — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Thanks. But I've had this kind of ridiculous argument with that guy before about such things, so I at least had a solid basis for that opinion I expressed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mitt Romney on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at User talk:DoctorTexan/sandbox/Michael Moates on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Self-referential humor on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Grammar Nazis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Grammar Nazis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Grammar Nazis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Upload (company) on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mylar

Hi Dick! I hope this post finds you well. I was reading BoPET just now and it occurred to me that this is a really strange title for an article. Polytetrafluoroethylene and polyethylene terephthalate, for example, are located at their chemical names. There doesn't seem to be a move log for the page, and nobody has talked about this on the talk page, so I figure I'll just move it. However, I find myself in a dilemma, and I figure you will have an opinion on this: does it make more sense as "biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate" or "biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate"? Or some third thing I haven't thought of? jp×g 08:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; definitely no hyphen after an "-ly" adverb. What is it commonly called? Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd think Mylar is the common name, even if it's a brand. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links

Hi. About this - diff. Just letting you know, that these edits create unnecessary piped links. Maybe you want to fix your script settings or whatever.--Renat 02:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do this differently. Replace Armenian Genocide by Armenian genocide (which is in any case the correct article title) instead of [[Armenian Genocide|Armenian genocide]] for example. --Mirokado (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. This is a temporary hack so I can still find the articles that I did a pass over. I'll fix it eventually. Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Har. I'm afraid I have already corrected Music of Remembrance, sorry. Honestly, I don't think that making incorrect edits is a very good way of keeping track of what you are doing! --Mirokado (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I don't think these edits are "incorrect", just not "ideal", maybe. Piping through a redirect is pretty harmless. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dicklyon. I also corrected the issue in the articles Foreign relations of Cyprus (diff), Pontic Greeks (diff 1 & diff 2), Topal Osman (diff), Yalova Peninsula massacres (diff), and Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction (diff). Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that was a bad idea, and created extra work for me. All fixed now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is for your really thorough clean up after the Armenian genocide move discussion. My watchlist is full of your edits since days. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm actually all tired out now. I didn't realized there would be thousands of them. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is evidence you are appreciated and respected. We have disagreed in the past, but I want you to know I respect and appreciate your tireless efforts. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not every day I talk an editor into changing his mind, but yes, that worked this time. I'm not convinced he appreciates me, but progress... Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary ethnic groups

Sir, on the list of contemporary ethnic groups where it says the Yoruba people, it states that Christianity is the main religion of the Yoruba people. That information is incorrect and I am saying this because I am an ethnic Yoruba myself. My people, the Yoruba people, the main religion is Islam, not Christianity. Everything else about us is correct. Abal126 (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about that. Maybe I did a case correction on that article? If you have sources, fix it. If not, post your comments on the article's talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elliot Page on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]