User talk:CapnZapp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:CapnZapp)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en-4This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.
Search user languages

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High Admiral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord High Admiral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Top-of-page template tags and lack of policy therefor[edit]

I noticed your posts here. IMHO, it's bad enough that Wikipedia set on a trend of plastering template tags appropriate for the talk space in the article space, but now it's worse, that these template tags include a link to a faux-policy page that warns "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first". When was there ever consensus reached on the issue of these blighting tags being appropriate in the article space, when the talk space is the proper place for such tags? Is this something we can ever move up to the higher levels of decision-making, like ArbCom or whatever? Robert K S (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Your link into the archive leads to a conversation between users SilkTork and Fuhghettaboutit, not me. Anyway, it sounds like you would be better off discussing there, not here. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Incompulsive Barnstar[edit]

Invisible Barnstar.png The Invisible Barnstar
Not a service award I'm afraid, but this barnstar—for users who make significant and helpful contributions to the project, but have kept to the background without seeking recognition or reward for their work seems particularly apposite...Many thanks for everything you do here! —SerialNumberParanoia/cheap shit room 10:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

On BRD, edit summaries, see also and correct links[edit]

Hi CapnZapp,

First, WP:BRD is pretty much standard practice. You made a bold edit, I reverted you - but instead of discussing it on the talk page, you reverted me again. It's common courtesy among well-established Wikipedians to come to a consensus that way.

Second, we don't discuss through edit summaries. Further more, yours has a inappropriate tone - I have a "lofty" standard? I assumed good faith and explained in my edit summary why I reverted your edit.

Third, WP:SEEALSO is quite clear in its wording. "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. (...) Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous", italics my emphasis. See also sections are for, well, tangentially related articles. And if you like to add a link to a see also section, make it clear to the reader why it's there. Instead, you just added the link BFR without context. Speaking of which...

Fourth, BFR is a disambig page. You probably meant to link to BFR (rocket).

I'm not opposed at all to having a sentence or two about a technology mogul and his rocket, sourced and all, with a link to the article on BFG. But please don't do a half-assed job. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

First off, you need to choose: good faith or half assed. It's one or the other. If you feel an editor is doing a good faith addition that still doesn't meet your standards, improve it, don't revert it. I've met enough gatekeeper editors to have tired of reapplying my imperfect work over and over again until it's perfect to some invisible standards. Instead I'm calling out the behavior as unconstructive: if you feel the editor's idea was sound, only the implementation was not good enough, bring it up to your own standard instead of shooting down that editor's work, thank you very much. CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That I'm not opposed to adding the link is not the same as thinking it is a sound idea. I've cited several standard editing guidelines. Your reasoning for adding it in the see also section was in an edit summary and there's no context for the reader to understand why BFR is there, so WP:BURDEN applies as well. If you like to add to an article, it's up to you to prove why.
"Shooting down an editor's work"? You added BFR. A total of seven characters. If you had run-ins with other editors before, don't take it out on me. Also, take a look at your own editing attitude. I haven't reverted you back. The article still just links BFR. Are you expecting me to do editing for you? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

TV series' nationality[edit]

Thanks for the various constructive criticism. I do see where you are coming from, and it may well be that I am overly coloured by having read through past talk where the outcomes of the current approach have been gently queried, and seen the sorts of responses they got. I was also thinking that, since the current MoS was clearly written in good faith from the standpoint of normal referencing - it's the added examples that led off down a different path - the less the textual change to current policy the better (the wording of an MoS is usually worked over; editors are often both reasonably and unreasonably protective of it). You do appear to be suggesting a radical re-write, which in my experience people are less willing to do. Although if you have an alternative solution in mind it would certainly be helpful to pitch it into the discussion? It may well be that the issue does need to go beyond the project, as to be fair you have already indicated. Kind regards MapReader (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again (now it is my turn to hound you;). I believe I have come up with a proposal along the lines you earlier suggested; having taken a bit of time to work through this, I can now see that this is a much more sensible approach. Thanks for the pointer. MapReader (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Good luck. And edit:

───────────────────────── Maybe it's the programmer in me, but you accidentally left the multinational case undefined - exactly what I imagine you wanted to avoid! See for yourself: A series's nationality, if singularly defined, should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, and identified in the opening sentence. Stripped down, this sentence becomes: IF singular THEN definition ELSE ???

What you need is: SET Definition. IF singular THEN mention in lead sentence ELSE later mention

Contrast: A series's nationality, if singularly defined, should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, and identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced.


A series's nationality should be derived from reliable sources, not the nationality of individual production companies. Identify it in the opening sentence, unless the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation. In such cases, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced.

Sorry for being such a nitpick, MapReader. I didn't want to derail your discussion over at policy, so I thought to restrict myself to here. CapnZapp (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't done any programming since BASIC in the 1980s, but I don't see the problem here. I read my text as: If singular and referenced, X. If not singular or not referenced, Y (Y being refer to national interests later). For national interests, make sure nationality is referenced, not assumed. If I am missing something, please shout... MapReader (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't you see that you make the definition conditional on the grammatical number of the nationality! The definition should unconditionally establish the method for arriving at production nationality. The grammatical number should only influence its presence or absence in the lead sentence. Br CapnZapp (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course, thanks. I think the problem can be solved most simply by moving the 'if' clause later in the first sentence; as no-one has yet commented, I made this small change to the talk page for MOSTV. I also notice, having produced the proposal from first principles based on your input, that what I have put forward is very similar to what the film editors already do, as here, which has to be a point in its favour? Kind regards MapReader (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Don't do things like thisthis. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (fix Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

Jytdog, I presume you meant my revert of your changing the talk page? I am asking you to keep your edits to your own comments. Please do not change the comments or their context of other users. You do not get to decide how and where I choose to discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
When I first commented, I too had created an independent section: i caught that before I saved it and was able to simply continue the conversation we had already started. I just did the same. There is one conversation that started a year ago. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog: I don't wish to continue old discussions, so I started a new section. Please respect that (feel free to join in). Anyway, you certainly do not have the right to delete talk sections created by others. I trust you will let me continue my discussion with Ebyabe now. CapnZapp (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I commented there first; pretending like I didn't already comment there, is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrote the following as a response to your earlier "you are being nonresponsive to that" version
First off - are we agreed on the not-editing-other-users thing?
Then, yes, I will be happy to engage you in constructive ways. All I ask is: Please tell me what Age of consent is doing right that Jailbait is currently doing wrong? The graph is here, and I want to add it here. Tell me how to incorporate the graph in a way that is satisfactory to you and I shall be happy to rectify those deficiencies. I am not ignoring you, I just chose to start a new discussion in favor over old ones. Now if you will allow me to reconstruct my discussion with Ebyabe, then maybe we can continue discussion there instead of here. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Awareness that discretionary sanctions pertain to MoS and its talk pages[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

My allusion to a slow train to Hell at WT:MOSTV is in reference to this. While I recently tried to get the discretionary sanctions lifted from MoS and its talk pages, ArbCom wouldn't hear of it [1], so we're stuck with them. Any drive-by admin can randomly block or topic-ban anyone they feel like for a comment like "bully" at an MoS talk page. PS: I hate this menacing-looking template (I've tried many times to get it changed), but ArbCom still requires that it be delivered to the talk page of any editor who appears to be unaware that DS pertain to a particular topic.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so your response when called out for boorish behavior and asked to tone it down is to bring on the full fear-mongering arsenal. There's no need for pretense, I realize you believe this template is your best friend. Instead let me thank you User:SMcCandlish, it means my message is getting across to you. CapnZapp (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what any of that means, honestly. I went out of my way to indicate where we're actually in "sharp agreement" at the page in question and why being verbally hostile to me in the same thread seems senseless. Here, I've suggested a real reason not to go that direction because there are "sharks in the water", and I even pointed you toward where I'm trying hard to get the sharks out of the pool, to no avail (I've been trying for years, actually). You can spin whatever you want to spin, or just accept it at face value. One thing none of us can escape accepting is that people disagreeing with us and criticizing an idea we present and the reasoning for it isn't a criticism of us personally. The advice to "address edits not editors" doesn't work well if someone won't see that the distinction exists. Please stop taking everything contrary as a personal assault on your honor.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
More positively: User talk:MapReader#WT:MOSTV.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CapnZapp. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
Message added 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

New Jönssonligan[edit]

I've made a draft for the upcoming movie. If you feel like you can feel free to work on it as well. :)★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Not up to date with developments I'm afraid. CapnZapp (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. There isn't much out yet. But I'll try to update it as soon as I find anything.★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Flow aka "Structured Discussions"[edit]

I had answered you over @MediaWiki, but I'm banned there because I was too outspoken against this imho useless gimmick and the proselytes, who push it. So I'm telling you here where to go for feedback about that:

Here on this wiki ther is wp:Flow, but it's completely uninstalled here an enWP because the community rejected it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Language Templates[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you made a request regarding modifying language templates to Wikipedia_talk:Babel. I am not sure if you are still interested in doing so, but I have made such an example for you, posted at the section in the link. It is not perfect but if you still wish to display your language with added information, that may be a way of doing so. Cheers from the other side of the globe! -Techhead7890 (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will have to think about it. CapnZapp (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trainz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DCC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to A Discovery of Witches, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not more the aforementioned article again; it remains the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you disagree, do not keep moving the page from its original location- file an RM and gain a consensus. -- AlexTW 04:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear CapnZapp,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. I came across your comments on the page: Wikipedia talk:Service awards. Since I can't place this in your profile, I hope you will. There is a page on Wikipedia with info regarding this award: Wikipedia:Ten Year Society and also an icon: Template:10 Year topicon.

Also, note that per the page Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons), you are entitled to an incremental service award at 4500, 5000, and 5500 edits. Thanks for all of your contributions over the last 10+ years!​

Best regards, Zcarstvnz (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comments on another editor at Talk:L'Anse aux Meadows[edit]

I never noticed those until just now. From the section heading to the content they are completely inappropriate and I've removed them. I've put names in section headings before in my earlier days and now know that's a bad idea. You certainly shouldn't use one article to discuss edits at another, and you should try not to personalise a content dispute. There are plenty of ways to deal with content dispute, including noticeboards, WP:DRN and WP:RFC. If you really think an editor should be sanction, there's WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)