Welcome to my talk page. Please note I take the right to answer your messages where I like at any given moment. Also, if I initiated a discussion on your talk, please don't move my post here, even if you decide to reply here. Have a nice day. In other words, do not move a talk discussion here if I initiated it elsewhere. You taking the same right I do is fine; giving off the impression the entire discussion was held here is decidedly not.

I subscribe to the school of thought that considers all references welcome contributions to Wikipedia, includingbare URL references. Complaining about them will only result in fewer contributions.

Archive

WP:CATT IP Contributions

Hi - thanks, but it would seem that again you’ve added the ending of the film into the wrong place / section? Justifying this by saying “see WP:SPOILER” is missing the point, and, respectfully, is a sort of straw man. Most are already aware of the Wikipedia policy on spoilers. Placing the ending of the film in the lead / lede area of the article (well, the second paragraph of the introductory section) ignores the fact that,A. this information is a repeat of the information already in the plot section, andB. Again, there’s already a plot section for, er, plot details. One wouldn’t place information about "Adaptations and remakes" in the introductory section because there'a already an "Adaptations and remakes" section further down the article.

Apologies, but it feels like a sort of abuse of the spoiler policy, a kind of shouting "fire" in a theatre thing, in that just because spoilers are allowed, it doesn't mean we should throw them all over the article.Most film articles at Wikipedia confine the endings and full plot details to the relevant section. There is a reason there are "plot" and "act" sections in film and theatre articles. As the talk page on spoilers illustrates, there was a huge debate regarding this, and a sort of compromise was reached.

In the absolutely vast majority of other Wikipedia articles on film, the short summary at the beginning doesn't explain the whole plot or the ending. Unless - rather like another user, "AmaryllisGardner" who wrote thousands of odd articles on the Scots language - you (or other editors) are planning to edit all film articles at Wikipedia by revealing the endingin the wrong section?

Oh, hang on, somebody has just fixed the article. But for how long?: )Cheers2A02:C7F:DCF3:3000:B169:CEF6:D268:AF47 (talk)19:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue involving you,BusterD. Thank you.CapnZapp (talk)17:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop reverting the edits that I have been adding per the page I was working on. All the names listed below have been historically cited same as confirmed in various interviews by the people made mention of themselves that they worked in that type of a field at the start of their careers. I would have never inserted them had that not been the case. I have re-added them and please don't touch them anymore, that is all I ask. I would not disturb you and your choice of topics and all I ask is that you respect me the same way.--Autistic Wonderboy 2023 (talk)22:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for engaging on talk,Autistic Wonderboy 2023. However, this is the wrong talk page. Please explain your reasoning on the talk page for the article in question:Talk:Chorus_line. I even started a new discussion for this purpose:Talk:Chorus_line#Modern additions.CapnZapp (talk)07:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didintend to do that, is there an error I'm unaware of? -FlightTime(open channel)15:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see now. thanx, -FlightTime(open channel)16:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is anew requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers.Rreagan007 (talk)06:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Detectives Harry Bosch and Jerry Edgar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCopenhagen House Grounds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageGreat Northern Railway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articleDance of the Vampires (disambiguation) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

PerWP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Boleyn (talk)21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You re-set the min threads left back to 4 with the edit summary of "spelling |minthreadsleft, also setting the number to 4 to ensure the bot doesn't eat the TOC (the TOC only appears with 4 or more subheaders)". That is not the case with this talk page.Back in 2018 I set the [[WP:MAGICWORD|magic word] of __TOC__. This particularbehavior switch creates a Table of Contents even if the # of posts drops down under 4. Since the 4 posts/threads left is not needful with this code, I'd like to return the # of posts/threads to my previous iteration of 1 (lol, but having the correct spelling for "minthreadsleft").
Taking a look at the talk page's present state, there are threads sitting on the page that haven't had a response in over a year and a half... Thanks,Shearonink (talk)14:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of archiving talk discussions is to prevent the talk page from getting cumbersome. There really is no reason to archive old sections if that is not the case, i.e. if the talk page still remains short. But I don't feel strongly about which way the TOC is preserved.CapnZapp (talk)14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the first purpose of archiving talk pages is to pare down the bulk, the talk page guidelines also state

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitextor [bolding mine] has numerous resolved or stale discussions – see Help:Archiving a talk page.

Keeping around stale discussions on main talk doesn't seem all that purposeful to me. People often will come along months or even sometimes years later and reply with the last or original editor having moved on or the issue having already been resolved sometime in the past. You want to retain those posts/thread...I disagree but ok. Cheers,Shearonink (talk)23:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stated I don't feel strongly either way as long as the TOC is preserved. It's not that I actively want to retain stale discussions. Instead, my view is that there's no harm in keeping them, especially since that, in general, automatically avoids eating the TOC. But as you pointed out, you are well within your rights to archive a stale discussion - especially if you have a compelling argument. Sometimes it is actively good to hide contentious discussions from view to prevent a resolved issue from flaring up again. CheersCapnZapp (talk)09:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectZite has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 26 § Zite until a consensus is reached.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)15:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedProfessor Balthazar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageYugoslav.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapnZapp, thanks for your edit onHeidi Gardner regarding the SNL Beavis sketch. Another editor made changes to your version that I thought were unnecessary, they reverted my revert and I then made some adjustments. Based onsome of their edit summaries elsewhere, they appear to be a new combative editor, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look at my changes and see if you're okay with them.Fred Zepelin (talk)15:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleDance of the Vampires (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk)10:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not believe that this article should be disambiguated as the author spent lots of time and effort into this article.210.50.59.118 (talk)12:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that edit flows much better when reading, and is a great addition to the article.CAVincent (talk)21:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapnZapp. Thank you for your work onUniversity of Warcraft. Another editor,Hey man im josh, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

There's no mention of "University of Warcraft" at the target. Also no mention of university anywhere except in the sources of references.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Hey man im josh}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hey man im josh (talk)19:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added added a short mention,User:Hey man im josh.CapnZapp (talk)15:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, now the redirect has meaningful context, thank you!Hey man im josh (talk)15:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CapnZapp: Enjoy theholiday season andwinter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,Abishe (talk)15:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe (talk)15:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here to avoid derailing that conversation further

You seem to repeatedly claim that you asked me to do something, that you didn't insist. And yet, there you are telling meYou don't get to question/invalidate Vanamonde93's opinion based on they failing to qualify "main actor". That is not a request, that's a dictation. I Indeed get to question claims that are made, and as long as I"m not questioning intent, it does not contradict AGF. Your insistence that I only interpret their statement in a way that's convenient to your stance is inappropriate. Your claim at the review thatto me he was definitely not trying to create exceptions flies in the face of your statement at the AFD,Vanamonde is one of several editors arguing for an exception to the rules.

As for not ranking cast members by screen presence, that seems like a curious argument designed to support this one article, It doesn't reflect Wikipedia practice, nor industry practice. Awards are broken down into lead and supporting actors. Casts are divided are divided in numerous ways. Heck, I appear on-screen in the remake ofMighty Joe Young, but if anyone were to call me a star of that, it would be either of ignorance or for purely humorous intent. Indeed, Vanamonde93 themself appeared to be dividing the cast, by assigning one as "the main" actor.

You have been acting inappropriately to me in ways that are not appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk)16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions speak louder than words. The time you've spent, and forced others to spend, on theRaegan Revord administrative minutiae is really really bad, and I encourage you to take a couple of weeks away from this particular subject. Revord is part of the main cast, and that's likely what Vanamonde intended, full stop. You, on the other hand, are confusing two separate kinds of exceptions (you were talking about whether Revord is the main actor, I was talking about the notability criteria). I am hereby asking you to not discuss this further, at least not here on my talk page.CapnZapp (talk)16:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourecently spoke of a "recent arbcom case". Which case? CheersCapnZapp (talk)14:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5#Standards_of_editor_behavior. The rest of that principle was already on the page (from previous cases). I hope this helps. -jc3715:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chuckle.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)11:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions toCharlie Dodson (motorcyclist). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit needs more sources to establish notability,it has too many problems of language or grammar andpage formatting needs fixing.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information atHelp:Unreviewed new page.When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.CycloneYoris^talk!21:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my article, and draftifying it doesn't dump it in my lap. You can improve it too,User:CycloneYoris. Other editors, on the other hand, are mostly denied a chance to improve the article because most drafts are effectively invisible, and it will very likely get deleted after six months. Your action tells me you aren't really thanking me for my contribution; therefore I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to not use such boilerplatey language when interacting with established editors next time.CapnZapp (talk)22:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message that was generated by the draftifying script. I did not write it, and it was posted here because you created the Charlie Dodson article.CycloneYoris^talk!22:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make the call to draftify the article or not,User:CycloneYoris? If so, you are responsible for the message being posted on my talk page. In other words, your assertion, that the message was posted here because of my action to create the article isfalse. I have created many articles that doesn't prompt some software to hit me with boilerplate. No, it was posted here because you decided upon yourself to deem the article beneath your standards and more to the point: because of your decision to use boilerplate language even when you communicate with established users. You need to assume responsibility for your communication, even when that communication is through some tool you have decided to use. I'm certain you are aware ofWikipedia:Don't template the regulars - while your automated message might not be a template, it still comes across as talking down to me. No, you and your message aren't thanking me for my contributions, and converting articles into drafts isn't a helpful way to help editors improve articles - in practice, it removes the chance some other editor will build upon my stub article and bring it up to standards. I know, and you know, it is a way to get articles out of sight without having to outright delete them, and I find your automated message condescending and disingenuous. Therefore, once more I am politely asking you to not use boilerplatey language when interacting with established editors.CapnZapp (talk)10:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapnZapp. I see in my notifications that you have thanked me for some edit by me. Since I am not yet very comfortable with the Wikipedia environment, what I could make out from the notifications was that it was in relation to my talks with another user Mathglot. I could not find that thanks notice there [On Mathglot's talk page]. Anyhow I wanted to know was "What was it that was worth thanking in my talk"? I ask this because i will take it as a template for my future talks. These kinds of talks tell me what exactly to do. I am still learning - almost fumbling you can say, Thanks.Neotaruntius (talk)13:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neotaruntius: I thanked you for saying (on Mathglot's talk page)But this still is not a veiled request to you for a quick answer. I need to learn via normal channels. This approach is commendable! I think you have a bright future here at Wikipedia and best of luck! (PS. If you are curious about something regarding the Thanks subsystem: read more here:H:THANKS. If you have questions regarding Notifications in general, visit here:H:NOTIFS)CapnZapp (talk)15:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CapnZapp for your kind comments. Mathglot was equally gracious. He said almost similar words to me (you have a bright future here). I am so new and such a novice that I was completely flabbergasted. I wrote few lines to him (as a genuine note of thanks, and praise), without realizing it could be misunderstood as flattery. That is exactly what happened. Mathglot thought I was flattering him. It completely extinguished whatever flame he had ignited in my mind. That is why I think I am so new to Wikipedia after so many years. Still trying to learn how to speak without even inadvertently annoying someone. I am so happy you found that comment praiseworthy and you think I have a good future. Actually I see myself as a knowledge seeker, and that is the main reason I visit Wikipedia. Here I meet amazing people like Mathglot and you. I have hesitation talking to him now. May be some days later.Neotaruntius (talk)15:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you make this green by the way "But this still is not a veiled request to you for a quick answer. I need to learn via normal channels."?Neotaruntius (talk)15:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I should clearly note: you did nothing wrong and I don't mind you asking. My best advice in regards to personal communication here on Wikipedia: this isn't a social place where you hang out to make friends. Some editors might be, but the vast majority of editors are here to improve the encyclopedia. (As a reader you visit Wikipedia to learn stuff, as an editor you visit Wikipedia to improve its articles) When you address editors, focus only on the matter at hand, be brief and direct, and avoid personal curiosity. This place can be much like a gathering of scientists or engineers - the lack of personal interaction can be offputting to many people. In short, many editors are unaccustomed to personal interaction and some are even bothered by it. Now, the Teahouse (and a number of specific other places)actively invites interaction. I can't speak for Mathglot, but one reasons newcomers are referred to the Teahouse is that this directs them to helpers that actively seek personal interaction.CapnZapp (talk)15:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And oh, I used the{{Talk quote inline}} template, which is described here:Template:Talk quote inline. If this makes you go "what is a template" I'm afraid I can't explain that here, and I think it's best learned as you need to use it. My best advice: focus on making useful edits and improving Wikipedia. This will make you learn various tricks and tips at a manageable pace, as opposed to getting overwhelmed by the thousands and thousands of little things that make up Wikipedia. RegardsCapnZapp (talk)15:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiCapnZapp. Thanks. Three big key takeaways for me form you answer (1) This isn't a social place where you hang out to make friends (2)When you address editors, focus only on the matter at hand, be brief and direct, and avoid personal curiosity (3)Many editors are unaccustomed to personal interaction and some are even bothered by it. I came to almost similar conclusions from a number of my earlier interactions with users who were very helpful, but coming from you, they are a confirmation. I only wish such crisp /concrete advice were given somewhere in help pages. May be it is already there but I am not aware. My only defense - if you can call it so - for my earlier mistakes is, that I thought one should be properly and adequately acknowledged for such sterling help. I now realize, a simple "thanks" is enough; more may sound obsequious and even offensive. Thanks again.Neotaruntius (talk)06:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloCapnZapp! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Edit request notices just like edit notices?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk)03:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic choice. Meant to slightly emphasize thatreally good sources are called for.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)09:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.CapnZapp (talk)09:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapnZapp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Charlie Dodson (motorcyclist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)22:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleFrances Bay (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Bay (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Laterthanyouthink (talk)08:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It would be nice if you supported the plain text archive box yourself here:

• Template talk:Talk header#Ready, steady, go!

On my talk page you wrote: "You have my permission to copy paste this post in the right place or places". --Timeshifter (talk)21:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CapnZapp. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission ordraft page you started, "Charlie Dodson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.Liz^Read!Talk!21:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CapnZapp; hope everything is going well with you. Though part of me worries that maybe not everything is, because you seem to have been a bit prickly lately, like inthis comment at theTalk header Rfc, and I hope there is nothing amiss. If venting will help, c'mon over to my Talk page (or email me); no judgement, promise, whatever it is. You can even yell at me, if it's me, and I'll listen patiently. Happy trails,Mathglot (talk)03:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What Idid was restore the redirect to the disambiguation page, as "Blood of My Blood (Outlander)" could refer to two different articles due to its incomplete disambiguation, and this cannot be redirected to a singular page like youdid.Blood of My Blood (Outlander episode) already existed, so if you were to "accept thanks", perhaps next time edit and correct the right page (i.e. the disambiguation page, not the Outlander redirect), and you won't find yourself in this situation. I'll accept your thanks for this explanation. --Alex_21 _TALK22:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inthis edit toWilliam L. Snyder, you added a reference to something referred to as "deitch_snyder_main" but without the actual reference being cited. Can you find that and put the full reference in? Thanks. --Metropolitan90(talk)21:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I got the ref from The Hobbit (1967 film) but its unusual construction must have tripped me up. Fixed.CapnZapp (talk)22:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fileFile:20110715204810!Tahquitz 1.jpg has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned, redundant toFile:Tahquitz 1 full size.jpg,WP:NOTFILESTORAGE

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular,files for discussion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion based onestablished criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you mayrequest undeletion of the file at any time. —Matrix_{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? -c)16:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to clutter up the discussion with meta-discussion there, but I want to let you know I have read your comments and intend to engage with you on improving the policy, but I'm quite busy for the next few days and may not be able to reply substantively before the weekend. You don't need to wait for me at all of course, I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring you. Cheers.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)14:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. That sounds promising. (I won't engage further, at least while getting page banned remains an option. I will, of course, provide feedback if directly asked for it) Regards,CapnZapp (talk)20:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this from (now-blocked user) @Nhtpaf:Please read my talk post very carefully before making ANY change to Mosquito Coast, Nhtpaf.

If you want your changes to go through, which I'm sure took you considerable time and energy, your best option is to follow my advice and not make any change whatsoever to the article for the next six days. Do that and my trust in you will be intact, and you are free to move on.

Insist on making ANY edits to the article despite being reverted (by me) and engaging on talk, and you risk changing my perception of you from an editor in good standing. Just me having to go here to your talk makes me realize you are already having trouble following our process (given the number and nature of earlier messages above), so you would really benefit from showing an ability to collaborate with me in this case. The changes are so substantive that I feel community input is mandatory in this case.

Please now heed my advice and leave the article completely alone (no editing at all) until the community has had time to provide input. Cheers

You can't demand that another editor is not allowed to make any edits for a given period of time. Second, what is "our process"? Wikipedia has processes, but unless I am mistaken, none of them impose a six-day ban on editing. Was an RFC in progress?

When you emphasize that an editor needs "your trust" abd that your "perception" of thatceditor could change, you are setting yourself up as an arbiter of what edits are allowed.

Discussion is a good thing, and (when needed) dispute resolution can also help. But I am not sure why you are imposing what seem (to me) like your own rules.

Please let me know if I'm wrong. I realize that Nhtpaf was blocked, so they certainly weren't doing the right thing. But maybe you weren't either? Thanks.David10244 (talk)06:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made my edit in an honest-to-god attempt to help the user stay productive on Wikipedia and not get blocked. I made it very clear I was just providing advice. What you must have missed is thatI made no demands whatsoever. I did use very clear and frank language, but that was precisely because I realized in which direction this user was headed, and I made the judgement call that only very clear and direct language had any hope whatsoever to reach him or her. You now tell me the user is blocked. I can't say I'm surprised - I can only take comfort in how I gave the user a chance to avoid that fate. Please reread what I wrote, and hopefully you'll see that my engagement meant the user was clearly told in no unequivocal terms how to avoid this fate. I remain confident my message can and will be interpreted as a genuine attempt to help that user stay on Wikipedia as a productive editor. Now then, I will take your message as a sign you too are a concerned Wikipedian, and therefore I thank you for it. If you genuinely believe I could have been (even) more clear about "this is advice only" I will take that into consideration for the future. Have a nice dayCapnZapp (talk)06:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belated reply: Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.David10244 (talk)08:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery
• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page