Jump to content

User talk:Captainllama

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 31.221.241.38 (talk) at 00:06, 7 November 2023 (→The changes of the Anglo-Spanish War article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Subpages

Special:Prefixindex/User:Captainllama [1]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Captainllama, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of unusual deaths

Kindly visit the talk page of list of unusual deaths. I have mentioned you there already. usernamekiran (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durbanville

Good day Captainllama

I see that you have not accepted my entries on the page.

Wikipedia encourage one to improve articles as long as they are verifiable.

I hereby friendly request you to re-look at my improvements 1. Durbanville High School and Fairmont High school have separate Wikipedia pages apart from their official website. It was just a link to the Wikipedia pages. 2. Durbanville College has an official Wikipedia page and is situated in Durbanville. It was just a link to the Wikipedia page. 3. Eversdal Primary and Stellenberg High school are in Bellville and not in Durbanville. I just stated the facts 4.Kenridge and Eversdal are in Bellville and not in Durbanville. I just stated the facts. 5. Reddham is a new school in Durbanville. That is a new addition, as it recently opened. 6. Clara Anna fontein is a notable landmark in the Tygerberg and is now part of Durbanville. That is proved by numerous sources.

All improvements have verifiable sources.

As far as I understood Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia and improvements should be accepted, if verifiable.

I therefore ask you friendly to accept these improvements as it is in the spirit of a living encyclopedia.

No malicious intend is there so I really do not understand the removal.

If you feel that some of the improvements are not correct kindly notify me.

Regards

User:Barry Ne 03:32 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Good day to you Barry Ne. There may have been, as you contend, some improvements. They'd have been within 13 consecutive edits all except the last without edit summary, which I described in my edit summary as "Unexplained apparently random removals, addition of overly detailed yet non-notable content", which I stand by. Additions are not necessarily "improvements". I hope I don't sound rude, your enthusiasm is welcome but just because a fact is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia, and content removal really does require that a reason be given. I see you have subsequently continued contributing and learning Wikipedia so do go ahead and re-add any information that you still think merits inclusion. Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheFamousPeople.com as a source

Hi Captainllama. I noticed that you used thefamouspeople.com as a source for biographical information in Sharon Stone [2]. Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. (Discussions here and here). Similarly, sharonstone.net and thebiography.us are not reliable either. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I added FOUR sources for the info only as a kind of frustrated brute force refutation of repeated date/place of birth vandalism, there being no citation for either the correct or false info. Seemed to work so I'm very happy for the reliable source to remain as the single citation. Captainllama (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of rugby union terms

Glossary of rugby union terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, thank you for putting the entry in the right oder alphabetically. I realize this may sound a bit dense, but the source I used wasn't very clear (and I don't know anything about rugby union), so I thought I would ask directly: if the ref calls the "calvary charge", is the ball given to the other team and they get the free/penalty kick? I would like to be more specific. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Hbdragon88 Hi, I know next to nothing too! And sources are thin and mostly not very helpful. The site http://www.irblaws.com/ is currently, frustratingly, unreachable. I did however find this which defines a cavalry charge, this rule (9.22) forbidding it and this video illustrating both the flying wedge and cavalry charge.
I couldn't find anything that specifically stated that the penalty is to be awarded to the other team, but that is generally how penalties work, if one side commits an infringement then it is the opposing team who is awarded possession.
Hope that helps! Captainllama (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knee-jerk reaction

Don’t just blindly revert without checking what you are restoring. For example, read the crap at the end of this edit. Anyway you should know that WP:Plot discourages extensive unsourced plots - these ones are plainly just the words of people who saw the movies and decided to write a review. What exactly is encyclopedic about the text I removed? 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:783D:74DD:887A:5D81 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:783D:74DD:887A:5D81 Thank you for your message. Had you thoughtfully edited the plot summaries there would have been no problem. Just choosing a random point and deleting everything after, as you did, is not helpful or encyclopedic, and reverting such edits is absolutely the correct thing to do. Enthusiasm is welcome, if you want your edits to persist and contribute to the encyclopedia you may like to read the following:
Best wishes, Captainllama 23:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walkin' My Baby Back Home

I was hoping for some discussion, so I might as well start it here. How is it relevant to Baby, It's Cold Outside? Well, they were written about the same time, had revivals about the same time, were both in the movies, are about the same topic, seduction. Even in a similar pop/jazz/blues style. One *may* go over the line, the other *may not*. Lots of parallels, how close does one song need to be to another to qualify for the "See also" section"? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, User:Smallbones, for the invitation to discuss. Having looked at the page Walkin' My Baby Back Home I find no mention of controversy nor subject matter, and as I am only passingly familiar with the song I am regretfully unqualified to accept your invitation.
It occurred to me to copy/paste to Talk:Baby, It's Cold Outside where such a discussion rightfully belongs but that's your prerogative not mine. You will find a wider audience for informed discussion than here. Best wishes! Captainllama (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, How do I petition a name change? The article Flashlight can be moved to an easier and more recognizable term 'Torch'. I have requested so on the talk page. Is that what you mean by 'petition a name change?'. If there is a different process, can you tell me how to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.112.120.117 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:27.112.120.117 Changing the name of an article is referred to on Wikipedia as moving a page, see the link for details on how to propose it. I am sympathetic but ... disambiguation. The term "torch" has many connotations, including flaming tar on the end of a stick. "Flashlight", while etymologically illogical, only really has the one accepted meaning. But nevertheless, I would be glad to see the change - good luck! Captainllama (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Followed the help article as you suggested. I couldn't find the move option near the history. I don't usually edit wikis hence the challenges. The reason I came here to this article is that we had a grammar session at the school where we had to match the British English terms with American English. I thought it would only be ideal to change the wiki page to a commonly used terminology. But I found more discussions on this topic at the talk page and found that it had no resolve. Just my suggestion. You can consider this when future move requests are made.

Thank you

Thank you for assisting me in learning how it works here. How do I report users Hummerrocket and ~Oshwah~ for their poor ability to function as moderators for their failure to identify and educate an obviously new editor that presented a valid concern that just happened to be 'vandalism' due to the info being placed in the wrong place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.161.116 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My advice? Don't worry about it. There's some abrasive characters and some pointy elbows around here but it's not a social site, the Encyclopedia is the thing. Be civil, of course, but don't necessarily expect it of others when they're focussed on something else and you're in the way! Sorry you had a bumpy intro and thanks for your interest and contribution - keep at it! I posted a welcome template on your talk page which has useful links. Captainllama (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Dancing

FYI, someone named Jimmy Lenner does not exist. Jimmy Ienner does. Ugo1970 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ugo1970 for the info, but why did you put it here instead of correcting my mistake in the article and putting the information in the edit summary? Captainllama (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to inform you. Ugo1970 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, thanks

Regarding this edit, I had the page open for a while and had been meaning to revert Prabhakarzx's edit. But you had beaten me to the punch, here. Thanks for reverting my mistaken unlinking, and thanks for having already taken care of the earlier removal of garbage! --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shared taxi!

The vehicles used as Aggkot or Mikrolet are not taxi, rather a microbus! M R Karim Reza (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@M R Karim Reza: "Taxi" is a function, not a description of a vehicle form-factor. "Microbus" is a form-factor, not a description of a function. A vehicle can be (and in this case is) both a taxi and a microbus. I see you have edited mini van → microbus, which is fine. Captainllama (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Turner

Hi, Captainllama - I have left a response on the Sophie Turner talk page in reference to the issue.

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Sorry about this. The user I reverted was a long term abuse sockpuppet. I was performing a WP:DENY of their contributions. StaticVapor message me! 22:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC) I thought so, -it made me chuckle! Captainllama (talk)[reply]

Unusual deaths & animals

Hello Captainllama, I added a new section in the unusual deaths talk page, about a man choking to death in an underwater erotic asphyxiation. The source is a medical source, and describes the death as "unusual", but I don't know if I should include it, since I don't know if medical sources are reliable.

The other question I have is, is all type of unusual animals deaths permmitted on the article? Or it is only elephants or big animals allowed to be included? Could notable dogs or cats be included, also? Since the two elephants deaths on the article caught me in surprise. Thanks.--Cientific124 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cientific124, I am flattered but unworthy to be asked to weigh in upon such matters. I tend to go by what seems right and check the documentation if unsure. That said, I've been sure only to be later found wrong. You say you "don't know if medical sources are reliable" but reliability is not dependant upon subject. The best I could offer is "some are, some are not" i.e. no help at all! However there are resources on Wikipedia that maybe can help towards resolving your dilemma, for example:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Physical_sciences_and_medicine
Your other question asks whether all types of animals are permitted on the article or only elephants and big animals. Again, I am not qualified to advise in abstract and can only point to is the given criteria for inclusion: "...This list includes only unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources..." So, nothing to exclude animals whatever their size, just a requirement that more than one source call the death unusual.
I'd also recommend a browse of the talk archives of the unusual deaths article to get a feel for how the criteria for inclusion has evolved to its present state. I note that you have asked about the autoerotic asphyxiation case on the talk page and not had a response (sorry), sometimes the best way to get a discussion going is to publish and deal graciously with subsequent fallout (if any).
Keep at it and best of luck! Captainllama (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! I will do a browse on the older talk page of the unusual deaths article, and I will add the autoerotic death on the unusual death article! About the animals deaths, I will try to expand the article with some more unusual animals deaths, if I find any. Best regards! --Cientific124 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For your copy edit on V. G. Siddhartha DBigXrayᗙ 12:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yum, thanks! Captainllama (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

Can you take a look at Mohammed Zahur Khayyam and do some copy edit if needed. thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civilty and WP:DENY

Hi Captainllama! Thanks for responding the user talk page of Libeyellow96, and for adding the information you provided regarding the long-term abuse. I just wanted to send you an informal note regarding your edit here where you provided additional information (which I appreciated greatly, by the way)...

I completely 100% understand how easy and even how satisfying it may feel to call these long-term abuse users names and refer to them as the scum of the Earth, and I absolutely can't blame you for doing so... but I highly discourage and advise against engaging in such behavior. By calling this user a "no-life wanker", you've essentially given them exactly what they want - which is time, attention, and emotion (even if it's just a small or minute amount), which only encourages them to keep at it and keep up what they're doing. We want to do our best to deny them that recognition and time that they want and with each of our messages, edits, and actions. You have to remember that these users are trolls... they thrive and survive on the recognition that their actions bring, and we have to do our upmost best not to give them what they want.

Think of it like two little kids... the older brother poking at the younger brother and teasing him. Every time the younger brother screams, "stop it!", it only encourages the older brother to keep doing it. If the little brother simply ignored or showed indifference to what the older brother was doing, the older brother would get bored of it, find what he's doing not to be any fun, and he'd stop doing it. We have to model that kind of thinking in these scenarios; otherwise, we're just causing them to continue what they're doing, which isn't helpful to the project. ;-)

Anyways, that's all I wanted to talk to you about. :-) Just take what I said to heart and think about it, and please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer them. Just make sure to ping me if you respond here so that I receive a notification. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thanks for your reply and I take your point. I'd only note that my comment was intended for your consumption rather than the vandal's, but as I unthinkingly posted on their page rather than yours the point is moot and, ultimately, unwise in either case. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Captainllama! I appreciate you for responding to the message I left above, taking it to heart, and for using it to self-reflect. Being positive and responsive to feedback like you did above is a good leadership skill, and it'll only make you stronger in the eyes of other editors. :-) Even if your message was left on my talk page as opposed to the user's, I still hold my recommendation and my thoughts toward the words you used - it doesn't matter where the message was left. ;-) It's easy for users (even new or novice ones!) to find and go through another editor's contribution history, and from there find your very recent messages and edits, and then read through any message you left about them on Wikipedia... that's how many LTA users and trolls find out that we're on to them! ;-) Next time this situation arises, just let the words "stay thy hand" come to mind, and give yourself a brief and gentle pause first. :-) Like I said earlier, it's a lose/lose situation if we resort to stooping to their levels, and we want to aim higher than that whenever we can do so. :-D Thanks again for listening to me, and please don't hesitate to message me if you have any questions or want to talk. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Letterman - FYI

I've posted Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Rob Letterman. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl (miniseries) - FYI

Captain, the phrase "for dramatic purposes" is meaningless dribble, and your "sources" prove nothing. Read the sentence with and without the phrase, and you will see the difference in clarity and meaning. Please remain civil and respectful of other users. Happy days lie ahead for you. Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How extraordinary (and ironic) you would imagine I had not considered the passage both with and without the phrase. Have you? I assume not, given your blinkered insistence that removing information imparts more information. Let me help:
"The series was exhaustively researched, but some liberties were taken."
Why were these liberties taken? Was it perhaps to make it more exciting? (i.e. for dramatic effect?) Or was it for political purposes, to maybe cover for/embarrass the authorities? Perhaps the liberties were taken because the filmmakers ran out of money? Did the directors wife demand to be given a starring role? We don't know. Now try this version:
"The series was exhaustively researched, but some liberties were taken for dramatic purposes."
Ah, so that's why. To make a complex story more easily digestible. See how that works? Yes? No? Captainllama (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Captain - your argument is childish and fails, on every level, to support your position. You seem very angry and I urge you to relax. Yours is not the only voice on Wikipedia, and other users can and will edit content. If we had wrongly edited particular facts (dates, places, names) or failed to provide sources for quotes, then we would understand your unbridled anger. However, in this case, we did not edit the facts or sources, we merely redacted an unnecessary and vague phrase: "for dramatic purposes." You do not control the English language, nor do you control this article. Take care and God Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@24.60.1.17: This is silly, and funny. Why are you posting here instead of on the talk page of the article? Why are you projecting your failure to collaborate onto me? Why are you suggesting that I am a lone voice trying to own the article when I sought and received consensus from the community? Why are you referring to yourself as "we" when you actually are a lone voice who has not sought the opinion of others? Why are you advising me to be civil and respectful while calling my point "childish" and "meaningless dribble"? Why are you so hung up on disparaging me and my arguments while neglecting to provide any actual refutation? It's clear that it is you, not me, who has taken this as some kind of personal war to be won rather than a dispassionate discussion as to the merits or otherwise of a form of words (which are not even mine in the first place). Your telling me to relax? You're calling me angry? Hilarious! The actual discussion is at the article talk page if you're not too embarrassed to engage there. Meanwhile feel free to reveal more of your insecurities by projecting them onto me here, it's good to have a laugh now and then. Captainllama (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Captain! You make numerous assumptions about us and our use of the pronoun "we", but we will forgive your personal attack on us. You could not possibly know that the IP address to which you refer is, in fact, a public address and you sparring with a group, not an individual. None of that matters, but now you know. Menwhile, please remember that it was YOU, not US who instigated this conversation. We made a minor edit to a wiki entry and we believed our edit was accurate. You then attacked us on our talk page and you literally demanded that we return the favor, or did you forget? This is the last you will hear from us, but we will continue to edit that particular entry, ad infinitum, and we will do so "for dramatic purposes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@24.60.1.17:Oh for goodness sakes, you enormous horde of people with the curiously identical mindset and way of expressing yourselves who happen to live in the same geographic area, get over it already! Do you have a point that needs making, or do you not? If you do, the talk page is over there. If not, stop trolling and get a hobby. Maybe you could see how many of you you can fit into Dilboy Stadium? Or would too many of you get left out? Captainllama (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the correction; I truly apologize.

Sc2353 (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try out our counter-vandalism tool?

Hi @Captainllama:,

Thank you for reverting vandalisms such as this_one. I am a developer building a web-based counter-vandalism tool, may I ask you to try it out and give us some feedback? http://battlefield.wikiloop.org xinbenlv Talk, Ping 00:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llamas everywhere

We've been criss-crossing on so many articles lately, reverting some of the same problematic edits, that I almost feel I need to post a "no relation" disclaimer on my user page! :) Grandpallama (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpa! No relation? I'm hurt! What would Granny say? :-D Captainllama (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not a terrorist organization?

I made an edit to the article Islamic terrorism by adding the Muslim Brotherhood to the list of Islamic terrorist organizations. Why did you undo my edit? The Muslim Brotherhood is labeled as a terrorist organization in several countries ,including Egypt ,its birthplace after they evidently committed many terrorist attacks against civilians and military personnel. What is exactly your criteria for being a terrorist organization? Should the US government label it as such? You just said it is "not a terrorist organization" without explaining why. --Simsman333 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simsman333 sorry for the delayed response, life going on in the background. Your question would have been seen by more people and answered quicker if posted at the talk page for the article, because it's not "my" criteria, it's the criteria for the article, and, more broadly, Wikipedia policy -for instance, Wikipedia reports what does happen, Wikipedia takes no position on what should happen. These things are fundamental. I won't labour the point about citing reliable sources, instead, the Muslim Brotherhood article Section is worth a read. Best wishes! Captainllama (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comma use in Joe Pantoliano

Hello CaptainLlama, reverter of my comma!

This is such a minor edit I see no reason to get into a discussion on Joey Pants' Talk page about it, but if you don't mind indulging my linguistic curiosity, why don't you feel that a comma is necessary in this sentence?

Your version:

Pantoliano and his wife, former model Nancy Sheppard, have four children. He was introduced to his wife by his friend actress Samantha Phillips.

My version:

Pantoliano and his wife, former model Nancy Sheppard, have four children. He was introduced to his wife by his friend, actress Samantha Phillips.

My take on this is that if either "his friend" or "actress" were omitted, I would leave the comma out as well. But putting them both in as a compound noun feels awkward, perhaps because one denotes a personal relationship and the other denotes a factual description, and I would typically only see them combined in this way in a first-person narrative, where fact and opinion can be more muddled: "This is my actress friend Samantha!"

In this case the first noun (actress) is intended as a descriptor or qualifier of the second (friend) - it would look rather odd to see "This is my friend actress Samantha", which is why I think it looks awkward in the third person as well. Whereas, putting in a comma creates a distinction between the personal detail (his friend) and the extra factual detail for the article's reader (actress).

Purdue's lab[1] makes a distinction between essential and non-essential elements - as in this example, prescribing that commas should be used if a noun is not essential to the sentence: "Tom, the captain of the team, was injured in the game."

I'm not sure if this rule is a perfect fit here, but it seems like it might be - since "actress" is not a linguistically necessary detail.

No fuss if you don't feel like discussing this, but curious to hear your thoughts. Cheers!

Juansmith (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html

English variety for the European Union

Hi! I happen to watch WP:MOS (although for a different reason) and I saw the last edit of yours. Why do you say that version you removed was incorrect? It doesn’t seem to be particularly correct to me to include British English, given that the UK is longer appartement of the EU, and it certainly does not feel right to exclude Maltese English given that Malta is. I’m curious what your reasoning was; could you clarify that for me?—R8R (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly R8R, and I have taken the liberty of copying this across from my talk page to the Manual of Style talk page.
The Wikipedia Manual of Style for all English Wikipedia articles "always has precedence should any contradiction arise" and "new content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue."
This is not about which countries are and are not members of the European Union. It's about edits which changed the (English) Wikipedia Manual of Style instructions on what variety of English to use in one of several examples given; the examples are given to show that strong ties to a particular variety of English are best respected. The example in question is asserting that British English (or Irish English) are the correct choices for the English Wikipedia in articles about institutions of the EU. The edits I reverted were changing that advice, to assert that English Wikipedia articles about the EU should be written in Maltese English.
Maltese English is "heavily influenced by Italian, not only in vocabulary (... pronouncing Franco-Latin loan words in English in an Italian style) but extending to phonology, with the English being heavily accented".
Of the 24 official languages of the EU, three (English, French and German) are "procedural" languages. "Strong ties" is not narrowly defined as formal membership of a political body, commonalities of geography, history, culture, populations, politics, etc all form "strong ties". Although the "varieties of English" we are discussing are an internal construct of Wikipedia and not something used or recognised by the EU, commonalities forming strong ties has meant that the "procedural" (per EU) "variety of English" (per Wikipedia) used by the EU is de facto British English. It was used by the EU and its predecessors before the UK was a member, and will continue to be used now the UK no longer is. Along with English, the 24 official languages of the EU include the Irish language and the Maltese language (but not "Irish English" nor "Maltese English).
In summary;
The UK leaving the EU is entirely irrelevant here,
It would not be sensible to require Maltese English be used in articles about institutions of the EU,
Were the edits to stand the example would be a poor one to illustrate the advice being given,
There is no "persistently recurring" style issue over using British or Maltese English needing to be addressed by altering the Manual of style.
I hope that makes sense, cheers! Captainllama (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. It indeed makes sense that English will continue to be an important language in the European Union even now that the UK has left, and there is indeed no doubt that that variety used in continental Europe will predominantly be the one used in Britain. However, what I don't understand is the specific difference between Irish English and Maltese English; why is the former a proper variety to use for describing the EU alongside British English whereas the latter isn't?--R8R (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome R8R. I was responding to your request for the reasoning behind my edit reverting the replacement of British English with Maltese English. The pre-existing inclusion of Irish English is not of my doing and my personal opinion of it counts for little. Your query is better placed on the Manual of Style talk page where it will receive wider attention and a much better chance of a satisfactory response. I have copied it there and will myself be interested in the replies. Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually have an article on Maltese English (redirects to a single para), because it doesn't exist as a formal written language or variant. Irish English is not much different; the Irish Times effectively uses British English except when quoting or imagining speech, and perhaps the odd phrase. Scottish English is actually slightly more different, especially in preserving different legal terms. So as far as turgid formal stuff like EU policy documents etc go, we are really talking about BE, even after the UK leaves. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Johnbod I appreciate your response. I said I would be (and am) interested in the answers but I'm not the one who was asking and here is not the place. I have copied your comment to Manual of Style talk page. Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piped editions to categories

Thanks for your interest. I'm just adding a sortkey, in line with more or less every other family category. If you look at the underlying category of almost any family, you will see the consistency and the point. Rcb1 (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)rcb1[reply]

Definition

Hello, Captainllama. You have new messages at MartinezMD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clearly you’ve decided you have a problem with me well I tell you one thing if you don’t be careful I will report you, now you have been warned. Liamdaniel981 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet of Liam-dino. ~Captainllama

easy on the revert button. do some proper editong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.139.52 (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"proper editong" - nice! ~~Captainllama

About First Battle of Maritsa.

On what basis are you deleting this article? There are eight sources there. Tarik289 (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused, Tarik. I am not deleting this article nor any other. There is no article "First Battle of Maritsa". Digging around, I find this article: Battle of Sırp Sındığı, which is being considered for deletion but I have taken no part in those discussions. During my digging I also found considerable evidence of tendentious editing by you and, further, evidence strongly pointing to you editing anonymously under several ip addresses against Wikipedia rules. I suggest you take the time to learn and understand what Wikipedia is and is not, such that you are able to contribute in a constructive manner. Captainllama (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think my this question isnt about me its about Battle of Sırp Sindigi and i saw your nickname under -Wikipedia deletion program and i did not edit with bad content in any way. Tarik289 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​I repeat, please take the time to learn and understand what Wikipedia is and is not, because while I accept you did so in ignorance you certainly did edit "with bad content", both under your username and various ip addresses. The rest of your comment makes little sense but again, it has nothing to do with me. Captainllama (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never used any other account Tarik289 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​This is nothing to do with me. Captainllama (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some Like it Hot edits

Hi there, fellow SLiH-fan! I agree with you that much of the stuff I had added to the synopsis was too wordy and detailed. I have now managed to shorten the synopsis a bit further, so now it's even shorter (a little) than the version you had reverted it to. I have also put in a couple of essential points and taken out some unessential ones, and, I think, improved the style. My edit-summaries clearly (I hope) explain the reasons for each change. I'm writing to request, if you disagree with some or them, then let's discuss them on the article's TALK page before you revert them. Thanks! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kim Possible

This is fine to restore, it was caught up in mass reverting an LTA IP. Even an LTA gets it right once in a while. My bad. -- ferret (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert- Serial Comma

For my edit on the serial comma, you said that it contradicted the previous re-ambiguity. However, the preceding version is merely a Q and A, not an official suggestion in the latest 17th edition (https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed17/part2/ch06/psec019.html). Removing the "examples below" would also be suitable in the following:

"Items in a series are normally separated by commas. When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more, a comma—known as the serial or series comma or the Oxford comma—should appear before the conjunction. Chicago strongly recommends this widely practiced usage, blessed by Fowler and other authorities, since it prevents ambiguity. If the last element consists of a pair joined by and, the pair should still be preceded by a serial comma and the first and."

Would this be suitable in your perspective? Many thanks for your help and advice. VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

​The advice to remain flexible because "there are times when using the comma (or omitting it) results in ambiguity" seems to me eminently sensible, so I was surprised to see it replaced by advice to remain rigid "since it prevents ambiguity", which seems narrow and incorrect. Not having access to The Chicago Manual of Style Online I must take you as my guide to what it says, and if what you have written here is faithful then that is of course proper, noting no reference to non-included examples. You don't say whether the Q and A remains extant online or whether it has disappeared, if the former then I think it worth mentioning in the article. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your efforts in counter-vandalism work. Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Extirpate” v “decimate.”

I respectfully disagree with your change back to "extirpated." You may choose a different word from "decimated" to replace "extirpated," but "extirpated" is incorrect, because it means "completely extinguished," and the article makes clear that the population was not completely extinguished, only a large part of it died and some moved to another location.

By the way, "decimated" is in fact correct here-it is no longer used to mean only killing a tenth, and today is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a population, as the American Heritage Dictionary 5th puts it in a usage note: "Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today, this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a population. [Thus] the sentence 'the Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war'" is acceptable "even though it is common knowledge that the number of Jews killed was much greater than a tenth of the original population." Caroline1981 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caroline1981 thanks for your thoughts, and my apologies for the peremptory edit summary I left on my reversion. I had just been reverting disruptive ip making multiple inappropriate replacements without edit summary and was still in the same mindset. I take your point that decimate has evolved and no longer refers narrowly to a reduction by 10%, and can these days be taken to mean "reduce greatly" by "a large proportion" - perhaps still appropriate for a 10% reduction but also perhaps appropriate for 10% remaining. What it emphatically does not connote however, is total annihilation. For a population to be "decimated" it is required that some proportion remain. That is not what is intended to be intimated in the sentences under discussion, rather the meaning is that of there being no remainder, the population being totally wiped out. We would say "extinct", except that means being wiped out everywhere. What we are saying here is the populations were (or were feared to be) extinct locally, in the reference zone; i.e. lake Aral. We could use variations of the phrase "locally extinct" throughout, but we can express that concept in a perfectly good single word: "extirpate".
"Extirpate" does not contain only the single sense of "completely extinguish" as you contend. From the Wikilinked instance in the article: "Local extinction, also known as extirpation, is the condition of a species (or other taxon), plants or animals, that ceases to exist in a chosen geographic area of study, though it still exists elsewhere" and """local extinction" is highly vernacular. The more proper biological term is extirpation".
I fear the word "decimate" is not only less precise but also misleading, and that the suggestion another word or phrase be found is unnecessary, given that the pre-existing "extirpate" conveys exactly the sense intended.
I'll leave it a while for possible comments before reverting to the established version. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! From additional googling I see that there is a specialized different meaning of “extirpate” in biology that refers to local extinction as opposed to total extinction. However in every regular dictionary I consulted this meaning is not mentioned at all—only the meaning of “completely eradicated” is given. In my opinion, in an article intended for a lay readership instead of a specialized professional readership, it is misleading to use a term of art that has a different meaning to the lay reader. Again I support you in not using “decimate” but I urge you to replace it with “locally extinct” rather than “extirpate” to avoid misleading lay readers. Caroline1981 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in the United States

When you get a chance, could you take a look at the talk page? There is some text at Terrorism in the United States#U.S. totals that asserts as fact something that the source simply says is plausible. I've been discussing it with a new editor. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death place

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/215767898/barbara-jefford Danniepye (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danniepye please explain why you have posted a bare url on my talk page without any context whatsoever? Captainllama (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Incredibles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moonlighting. 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) 09:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selby

Hi, My complaint about the usage of the word crash is that it is not a synonym for accident. Selby was a cascade of 4 consecutive collisions (or crashes) not a single incident. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murgatroyd49, thank you for your reply. In context, "crash" most certainly is a synonym for "accident", and "accident" has no greater nor lesser connotation than "crash" of being a singular incident or a cascade. Whether we call it accident, crash, incident, or event, all of those are just as appropriate as each other to describe an event made up of lesser, constituent events. The only difference is the gradual deprecation of "accident" in favour of "crash" by the safety and insurance industries, which was the reason for my edit. Best wishes Captainllama (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwinked! tag

Hi, Captainllama. I wanted to let you know that I removed the tag you placed for Hoodwinked!'s plot summary. Your rationale is understandable, but it fails to account for the part of MOS:FILMPLOT which states that the recommended range of 400–700 words may be exceeded if "the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines". In this case, the plot summary is 772 words (only 72 outside of the given range), and the story's structure is unconventional and highly non-linear. My edit was reverted, but when I get some time, I'm going to start a discussion on the article's talk page, and I invite you to join. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTechnician27 and thank you for your attention. I am always aware of the proviso in MOS:FILMPLOT and that the the word limit is a guideline. Go is highly non-linear, Memento is highly non-linear, Pulp Fiction is highly non-linear. Hoodwinked! is not "highly" non-linear, it has non-linear elements, and is not particularly complicated or complex. Reviewing the plot summary I see a profusion of wordy redundancies, repetitions, editorialisng and explanations, and general fluff. Is it necessary for the reader's understanding to state Granny suddenly jumps out of a nearby closet? If the police arrive, and Detective Nicky Flippers questions everyone about the incident, why would we say the police arrive on the scene. Detective Nicky Flippers questions everyone involved about the events leading up to the incident? I see in your last nine edits to the plot summary you managed to removed the word "by", the word "they", and a comma. (Hint: there are three pointless "manage to"s in the plot summary).
I have copy edited the plot summary, trimming it to within the guideline word limit without, I believe, omitting any material detail. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Battle of Alcatraz

Why is a red-wikilink bad?

And why we should link on Alcatraz Island in the [[San Francisco]] bay instead of the more specific on Alcatraz Island in the [[San Francisco bay]] Meridiana solare (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meridiana solare, my edit summary referenced MOS:OVERLINK, it should perhaps have also referenced MOS:REDLINK, where you will find further guidance. In any case, I recommend reading and understanding the page containing both those - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
Your edit (and several subsequent, I see) inserted many inappropriate links which I reverted en masse, if there was an appropriate link caught up in that please feel free to re-insert. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I can not understand why you throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there is something wrong (if any, as you haven't answered what is wrong and why) , just fix it, not the right things. Meridiana solare (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​With respect, it is not for me to teach you Wikipedia's policies. I have directed you to the resource, it is your responsibility to familiarise yourself. If there is, by chance, a single decent change in the midst of a mass of poor changes performed in a single edit, it is unsurprising for that single instance to be missed when the edit is reverted. As I said, if, having read and understood the relevant portions of the Wikipedia Manual of Style you feel an edit was wrongly removed, please feel free to re-insert with appropriate edit summary.
Best wishes, 13:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Captainllama (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You even revert from Pentito "Collaborator of justice". From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should be linked "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully".
Mass reverting edit and add the burder of reinserting them to other user is unfair. Meridiana solare (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Gigantism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Nichols

Hi – I wanted to let you know about the change I made to a formulation you added to the article on Brian Nichols; see Talk:Brian Nichols#Accused rapist. Joriki (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Ally Sheedy

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ally Sheedy, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Brecel

Thanks for improving my edit 👍🏼 2A02:8388:293E:3400:CD06:FC0C:8652:5851 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The changes of the Anglo-Spanish War article

The changes in the article were made due to a compromise reached a few days ago to change that part of the article and include only the main events of the war. Its in the talk page.

Sincerely. 31.221.241.38 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Captainllama&oldid=1183866847"