User talk:Dicklyon#TheLibrarian's rampage

{{Styletips}}

File:Ivan Sutherland at CHM.jpg

{{The Original Barnstar|For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)}}

File:Convict Lake Pano.jpg]]

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

:It is said by many that A picture is worth a thousand words. Wikipedia articles are vastly improved and enhanced by the use of images. Dicklyon's user page displays just some of the over 500 images he has added to Wikipedia articles making the articles more enjoyable and interesting for our most important commodity, our reader. WP:Photography. He is a long-time veteran editor with over 137000 edits (58% in mainspace) who always uses the edit summary to clarify his edits and communicate his intentions to following editors. He also participates in various timely and important WP:Manual of Style discussions to improve what and how we do things around here. A trusted, productive and helpful editor that deserves recognition as an Editor of the Week.

that's for these hacks:

File:Permutation test example animation.gif|Permutation test

File:Correlogram example.png|Correlogram

File:Correlogram samples.png|Correlogram

:There we go again, commenting on the quantity of my edits instead of the quality. But minor thanks anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

;Add new topics at the bottom please.

File:Sydney welcomes 2025.jpg

To all my talk friends. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Panthers

(you had experience with user who does not understand ref policy) 93.143.126.159 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't understand why you object to having a ref on that final sentence of the paragraph, or what policy you think is being violated there. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In regard to the Talk:Cherokee freedmen controversy RM, I wonder if Cherokee Freedmen could be considered the name of a group of people, sort of as in MOS:DEMONYM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, it could be, but I don't see compelling evidence for capitalization of that usage. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The NFL Honors pages you moved should have been kept capitalized as Annual as it's a part of the proper name. Your reasoning doesn't seem to apply to other similar ceremonies like the 67th Annual Grammy Awards. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't looked into the Grammy Awards, but it's very clearly not part of the proper name of the NFL Honors. Most sources (and our articles) either drop "annual" or use it as lowercase. See [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=60136f8a4720c294&sxsrf=AHTn8zq0GMYjj_7efCfkf2DbhrSBDSBuOw:1739415413555&q=%22annual+nfl+honors%22&udm=36&source=lnms&fbs=ABzOT_CWdhQLP1FcmU5B0fn3xuWpA-dk4wpBWOGsoR7DG5zJBnsX62dbVmWR6QCQ5QEtPRqut5gkyra9fZFbsKm1oGezOI6DQjxNKZ2V8dXgJRWA_TJMoTMoaAT3sFlmqfwsFU7xKyaCESU9pcEBIOWtbh8Q57l_jotrwukFQfQsaj_ShBIVC3RtBGfnv0evqLdoaTjhVTpVso9nbb1qUVYZwxrh2LzRlg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTy92u07-LAxUPTmwGHZNhDwEQ0pQJegQIZhAB&biw=1378&bih=761&dpr=2.4 books] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22annual+nfl+honors%22&client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=60136f8a4720c294&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AHTn8zrfUOTGz9znO6lqeCuJxQM4UApXaA:1739415418019&source=lnms&fbs=ABzOT_CWdhQLP1FcmU5B0fn3xuWpA-dk4wpBWOGsoR7DG5zJBnsX62dbVmWR6QCQ5QEtPRqut5gkyra9fZFbsKm1oGezOI6DQjxNKZ2V8dXgJRWA_TJMoTMoaAT3sFlmqfwsFU7xKyaCESU9pcEBIOWtbh8Q57l_jotrwukFQfQsaj_ShBIVC3RtBGfnv0evqLdoaTjhVTpVso9nbb1qUVYZwxrh2LzRlg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx9-2w07-LAxWTSGwGHaw6C1sQ0pQJegQIAhAJ&biw=1378&bih=761&dpr=2.4 news]. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:I see you've suggested just omitting "annual". I agree. If you'd like help doing those moves, let me know and I'll work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, if annual is not considered a part of its proper name for events like this then it should be dropped per WP:CONCISE. I'll try and take care of the NFL Honors this weekend if you don't get around to it first. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll do some if I find time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I've moved them all and updated their links within navboxes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. I'll work on updating links to the capitlalized ones. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

An alternative to downcasing "Award" in titles might be to remove "award" altogether per WP:CONCISE. See {{section link|Talk:NBA_Finals_Most_Valuable_Player#Requested_move_11_October_2024}}. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree. I'd have no objection to further moves along those lines. They often get piped that way anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::This was already brought up above (which you agreed with) so I'm not sure why you did it this way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I often take the simplest path, just fixing case errors instead of looking for other names. There are not a ton of these, so it would be straightforward for you or Bagumba or someone else who has a preference to do the moves. In most cases, there are redirects there, so some would require page-mover rights or a request at WP:RMTR. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::If you prefer that I do it, I'll put a bulk request at WP:RMTR for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%2FNFL+.%2B+award%2F+-intitle%3A%2F+awards%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 these 11]. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Did that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:OK, "Award" is now removed from all of those I touched recently (there are others to do still). See also new RM at Talk:Newspaper Enterprise Association NFL Defensive Player of the Year. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of business and finance abbreviations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Follow-up.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file :File:Fritz Pfleumer.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article already had picture of subject, inclusion feels unneccesary.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Roasted (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I looked for how a particular phrase made it into MOS:MILTERMS and was surprised it seems to have been from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FCapital_letters&diff=prev&oldid=906009357 your edit]. (The phrase was referenced in a post-RM comment at Talk:North Yemen civil war#Requested move 28 November 2024.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, not great. Even getting that much in there got a little pushback. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I noticed it was a step toward MOSCAPS and there was opposition. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You may be interested in these [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1553544/][https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&retrievalId=73e21969-a9ef-4aa5-96bb-2bae267d53e2&hitCount=1&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA200506495&docType=Article&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=ZONE-Exclude-FT&prodId=AONE&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA200506495&searchId=R1&userGroupName=wikipedia&inPS=true&aty=ip][https://www.englishoutsidethebox.com/2017/09/30/adverbs-of-frequency/#:~:text=almost%20always%20%E2%80%93%2080%2D90%25,sometimes%20%E2%80%93%2050%25.] and how "usually" is most usually interpreted quantitatively. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Interesting, indeed. The second link doesn't work for me. The first one seems higher quality than the third, and I notice that the third provides a strangely high estimate of sometimes. Although described as a synonym of occasionally, it provides a percentage estimate of 50%, which seems too high. The first one's estimate of 11–33% seems better. They closely agree about usually. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't disagree about the quality of the third. The second, I had to access through the Wiki Library. It is: "Clarification of terminology in drug safety", Jeffrey K. Aronson and Robin E. Ferner, Drug Safety (Vol. 28, Issue 10). It is a full paper that reproduces the same table as in the first link but with citation detailed for the individual terms. From what I have gleaned, the sources cited are linguistic studies that capture how these terms are understood by a sample population. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to bother but there appears to be an edit war in MOSFET article regarding Atalla contribution. If you have some time I would like to know your opinion what to do. I think we can add Atalla contribution into the lead as his demonstration that semiconductor surfaces problem could be solved is very important. The previous version however in my opinion was exaggerating his contribution by relaying on non-academic sources which themselves seems to be influenced by Wikipedia(mainly by Maestro2016). I started discussion here DMKR2005 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automatic_lubricating_cup&redirect=no Automatic lubricating cup] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Automatic lubricating cup}} until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

As previously discussed, on far too many occasions, the usage of "NFL Draft" is VERY CLEARLY not an error in capitalization. As we've repeatedly discussed, the NFL and all 32 NFL teams follow a style guideline that treats it as a proper name. I recognize the result of the RM that moved NFL Draft articles to "NFL draft", but to repeatedly add a template that states that it's an error in capitalization is clearly inappropriate and disruptive, and you've been doing so for over a year now. You have not been able to justify labeling it as an error, and I'm growing quite tired of your obsessions with labeling everything you don't like as an error. If you continue to do so, I will bring it to ANI, because I'm just exhausted by the petty obsession and bull shit, and it's so discouraging to continue to fight over something so stupid and insignificant with you that it's just easier to air it out there if it continues. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:And then there's the changing of capitalisation in references[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Branch&diff=prev&oldid=1289369124] (compare e.g. the first one to the actual title[https://thecitizen.com/2023/05/10/sandy-creek-alum-brian-branch-picked-in-nfl-draft/]). Not a one-off but common practice apparently[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Mingo&diff=prev&oldid=1289367683][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaylon_Jones_(American_football,_born_2002)&diff=prev&oldid=1289367355] and many previous edits in the same run. How long has this disruption been going on now? Fram (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Far too long... Based on their block log, I'm not sure they'll take criticism and grow from it either, which is basically the reason they were banned from using automated tools, and their appeal on such ban was denied. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't mean to pile on Dicklyon, but could you please not change NFL Draft Scout to NFL draft scout. "NFL Draft Scout" is the name of an actual website that's been around for decades. I don't see any evidence it is commonly lowercased. Thanks! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Unfortunately, it's one of the problems with blanket downcasing references when you're not familiar with the subject matter, you end up missing what's obvious to some when you implement your preferred capitalization styling. In this case it absolutely makes sense to keep that upper cased, and downcasing cannot be carelessly applied (nor is it an improvement in the examples). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I had actually checked the linked pages (e.g. [https://draftscout.com/dsprofile.php?PlayerId=1040862&DraftYear=2023 this one]) and found that "NFL Draft Scout" appeared to be part of a made-up title ("2023 NFL Draft Scout Jaylon Jones College Football Profile"), not part of the title of the linked articles. It would be best to move it to the publisher field if it's the proper name of the nfldraftscount.com site, and best not to set made-up titles in title case unless that's the consistent style in the article (which it's not). In spite of what Josh claims, there was no consistent reference title style on these articles, and I moved them to be closer to consistent sentence-case for article titles. Not sure why he's bitching about that. Did I miss a few over-capitalized words perhaps? Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Excuse me? I showed you dozens of links to demonstrate that the NFL and the 32 teams are very consistent in their capitalization. Would you like to check the NFL media guides? Those are extremely consistent in their usage. It's clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it's not a mistake, and it's an intentional effort. As such, it's clearly inappropriate to repeatedly state that those capitalizations are errors in capitalization. I'm bitching about your inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'm bitching about your lack of care (which is what led to your ban on usage of automated tools) to properly assess the context and the references, and do your due diligence, before just downcasing anything and everything because you prefer it that way. THAT'S what I'm bitching about. Move on and work to be productive instead of disruptive, it's been over a decade and you're being bitched at for the same stuff you were over a decade ago. The community WILL run out of patience eventually, and I think you've burned far too many bridges to continue to act the way you have been. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Last warning Dicklyon, you continue to disruptively change the rcats on NFL Draft pages, as you did {{diff2|1290086683|here just now}}, I will be going to ANI over the disruptive behaviour. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Alright, and with the {{diff2|1289373046|continued intentionally disruptive activity}}, adding a template which states this is an error in capitalization, I'll start gathering diffs and I'll be posting at ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oops, you did it again. Dick, you seem to be inviting a full discussion on this, but is ANI the best place for that? Your point of view seems to be that if an RM decides to lowercase an otherwise uppercased name the uppercasing should contain a 'miscapitalization' template instead of a 'from other capitalization' label. Since NFL Draft is obviously not a miscapitalization in the "real world", you may want the question decided one way or the other, but an ANI charge will take up lots of time and may stir up editors. Can't this be decided another way? You see what happens at ANI, some take it as an excuse to escalate. Why do you think that Wikipedia decisions completely invalidate real-world caps to such an extent that they should be deemed 'miscapitalizations', and why invite an ANI discussion when this could be discussed elsewhere? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Hey man im josh: I tend to agree with Randy Kryn about taking this to ANI. There was a discussion before at {{section link|Template talk:R from miscapitalisation#Template intent}}, but it seemed to have ended with no consensus, or at least wasn't formally closed. Perhaps a followup RfC is needed. Frustrations over philosophical differences aside, it seems we can resolve this valid topic—how to track capitalizations that WP standards say should be changed, even if they are not totally erroneous outside WP—without resorting to block histories #my2¢ —Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Good to hear from you, Bagumba. By the way, most of the miscapitalization tag reverts that Josh has done were the ones you placed; I've done many fewer, I think. And I find his point, and Randy's to be a bit bizarre. These tags are about WP maintenance, not about telling the NFL or others that we think they're making a mistake by using their own capitalization style. Then Josh completely contradicts his own point by putting miscapitalization tags on things like Auckland region, which is by far most often lowercase off-wiki, and for which there has never been a consensus to capitalize. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The tag you placed on NFL Draft says "error in capitalization", when obviously it is not. "other capitalization" is accurate. Even on redirects it seems important for Wikipedia to not misinform readers who may get a look at it. If a casing has some real-world support for uppercasing then it is not an error. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Readers aren't seeing the tags on redirect pages. Those are for WP maintenance. It's an error with respect to WP style, per consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Why can't you drop the stick about the NFL Draft? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It is a matter of perception as to who is wielding the stick. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you for saying that. Dawnseeker2000 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Good point. Just trying to keep Dick out of ANI, where people can just make up means, intents, and motives, even if they believe what they are saying. I think an ANI thread would be quickly kicked back with a suggestion of an RfC. It's turning into more of a big deal than it's worth, hopefully not a 2025 remake of the NFL Draft discussion, and it is about a point so small-to-some that other editors will laugh at us. But they will have missed the point. NFL Draft, I read above, is recognized as a proper name by the NFL and all of its hundreds of teams (is it 32 now?). An official Wikipedia page, which the NFL Draft redirect page is, should be accurate. Saying that uppercased NFL Draft is an error from a miscapitalization, in Wikipedia's voice, that's why I've involved myself, as well as trying to keep Dick away from ANI where it usually works out well in the end but is often a road paved with the bones of the fallen. A simple RfC question, along the lines of "If a lowercased page name, such as NFL draft, has an uppercased redirect (NFL Draft) which is the actual official name of the topic, should the official name be labeled a 'capitalisation error' by Wikipedia?" might do. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I've never seen "simple RfC question" work for complex topics. People just end up voting uninformed without understanding the background. And the simple question ignores the complex counter arguments, and we end up with a wall of divergent text. I'd take the time to workshop and compile a list of pros and cons upfront, and hopefully a few participants will read it first. —Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Alright, I appreciate your approach here with the willingness to keep this as far away from AN/I as possible. Dawnseeker2000 15:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't agree with Josh's edits in this area, but I'm also somewhat resigned that there was at best no consensus at that last major discussion for "R from miscapitalisation", and I apparently misunderstood his stance (here) on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_NFL_Draft&diff=prev&oldid=1288525431 my most recent edit], thinking he was now fine w/ using the miscap tag when there was an RfC ruling on WP style (apparently he would only apply it for miscapped undercapitalization). I can only suggest trying to get consensus at an RfC (consider workshopping it first), and living with the outcome, one way or another. ANI would just lead to pitchforks and a nuanced explanation by you, but WP doesn't do nuance well, even moreso at noticeboards. It'd be a crapshoot. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|apparently he would only apply it for miscapped undercapitalization}} – This is entirely incorrect @Bagumba, I've applied the template to hundreds of over capitalized redirects as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Rather than an RFC, I've started a more informal proposal discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#On redirect from mis/other capitalization tags. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:That serves as the workshopping I suggested (and with any luck we won't even need an RfC). —Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Exactly, an RfC doesn't seem necessary. If a name has adequate real-world uppercasing its lowercased title (again, NFL draft as an example) is an in-house choice and not a miscapitalization. Labeling it a error in capitalization is just inaccurate, and Wikipedia shouldn't purposely add inaccuracies to its pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The disconnect seems to be in what these categories mean: is it purely internal—for WP maintenance only—or is it a statement of "real-world" grammar? These are all a subcategory of :Category:Redirects from incorrect names, which says: {{tq2|This is a maintenance category, used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia and contains non-article pages, or groups articles by status rather than subject ... These categories can be used to track, build and organize lists of pages needing "attention en masse" (for example, pages using deprecated syntax), or that may need to be edited at someone's earliest convenience.}} —Bagumba (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello {{u|Bagumba}}, thanks for trying to weigh the options. To address "in-house" or "visible space", see the top of the page when NFL Draft is clicked. Uppercase is prominently visible at the top of the page, right under the title "NFL draft". At that point it arguably becomes mainspaced (i.e. a curious reader could easily click on it to see where they have gone "wrong"). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::But then realize it's only maintenance mumbo jumbo. LOL. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Bagumba: The text is fairly clear, it states "this is an error in capitalization", whereas the other template states that it's an alternative capitalization that does not adhere to Wikipedia's capitalization conventions. I think it's pretty clear which one is more appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 14#Square root of 4, I think that we should have articles at Square root of 8 and Square root of 10, and content at 2 and 3 addressing the characteristics of these numbers as square roots (specifically, as the square roots of the smallest even and odd number to have another whole number as their respective square roots). Since you seem to be interested in these topics, can you help? BD2412 T 21:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, maybe I could help, though my articles on square roots were really pretty much in jest, to poke fun at Square root of 3 and Square root of 5. I've since become fond of them. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I've just found your Draft:Square root of 4, and I must say, it is brilliant. I had never thought of 1.999... being an equivalent. BD2412 T 03:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I had a lot of fun with Square root of 6 and Square root of 7, too. Silliness, but well sourced and well illustrated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I have started Draft:Square root of 8, which is of course exactly twice the Square root of 2. BD2412 T 17:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Cool. I didn't know there was a modern reprint of the hexaflexagon book. I've made a lot of those; also tetraflexagons. Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Merge-split-transwiki_default.svg

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, your {{#if: Wairarapa Line |Special:Permalink/{{#if:|recent request}} at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning blue.svg:Template:R from non-preferred capitalisation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent, long-term battleground behavior from multiple editors at capitalization RMs. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI that I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&diff=prev&oldid=1295018556 removed] this section from MOS:CAPS' talk page because it's blatant canvassing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Not worth going to the barricades over, but the [https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/10495793 paper's banner] was clearly The Kapunda Herald. Doug butler (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:The banner shown in the article has no "The", and many sources omit the "The" or lowercase it (as in ref 6). It's not generally treated as a definite piece of the name. If it was on the old name, like in the banner you linked, you could put "The" back for that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:And I don't get what ref 3 is supposed to be supporting. I find only "the Kapunda Herald" in it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, nobody seems to have notified you here which is what typically happens, but I think you're [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1297432231 topic-banned from capitalization] until ArbCom settles the matter. ({{yo|Asilvering}} is this correct?) I see you've been doing some caps-related stuff after the close, so maybe you weren't aware. Left guide (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't done any capitalization changes in the last few hours, or since I saw the close, but have made some capitalization-related comments. I didn't see any prohibition against talking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I didn't see the customary "broadly construed" verbiage, but some might just brush that off as "details".—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Left guide. Yes, that's correct, and sorry for the oversight, Dicklyon (oven timer went off, and then I distracted myself). Special:Diff/1297436724 is the entry on the edit restrictions table. There's no prohibition against talking, indeed, and the absence of the typical "broadly construed" is intentional. I don't think the community really managed to hash out exactly what the ban ought to entail, so I went with something that I believe everyone in support did agree to, rather than trying to define what they would agree to. I hope it's simple enough to follow for now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Asilvering {{tqq|There's no prohibition against talking}}: Is the ban limited to undiscussed moves, or even nominating or participating in RMs that involve (de)capitalization. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It would cover undiscussed moves, nominating and participating in caps-related RMs, gnoming edits that change capitalization, etc. Preventing Dick from having a truly abstract discussion about capital letters or editing Capital letter or whatever was not my intent. -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Asilvering: I can't talk in caps-related RM discussions? That's harsh. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do you really think that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randy_Kryn&diff=prev&oldid=1297493115 asking others] to 'fix' capitalisations now you are topic banned is acceptable? Number 57 15:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I mean, I didn't explicitly prohibit that, but I can't say I recommend it, either. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:PROXYING allows {{u|Randy Kryn}} to make such edits if they want; whether they would want to―or indeed be wise to―when there's potential for the mother of all arbitration cases fast aproaching over the issue is perhaps another matter. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Dicklyon's suggested edit had both a logical backstory (I had recently used the book as an example at an RM) as well as pointing out an obvious error (fixing an outlier for consistency). Dicklyon's years-long patrolling of Wikipedia for case errors has resulted in productive improvement of the encyclopedia, and we are lucky to have his attention, expertise, and knowledge focused on this styling area. He is allowed to suggest improvements on talk pages until his ban is lifted, hopefully sooner rather than never, and maybe can set up a user page of obvious uncontroversial errors that he finds that myself and others can glance at and act on from time to time. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Randy's often against me when I suggest downcasing things, but I'm pretty sure downcasing "And" in a title where it's inconsistent with the rest of the article that he's citing for "consistency" is not going to bother anyone. As for other uncontroversial suggestions of things to fix, you can all find tens of thousands of those at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. You are all invited to help, especially if you have ability to use AWB to make real progress on some of the big easy uncontroversial cases. Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Asilvering}} – I appreciate your good-faith effort to help by closing that mess. A couple of questions though: Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

1: "until ArbCom settles the matter" might not happen if they don't take the case; I hope they do; what if they don't? Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

2: I'm wondering if you were able to find any evidence of misbehavior on my part, or you were willing to close with a consensus to sanction me just because of the number of people who piled on after evidence-free accusations; is it just my behavior in the ANI thread itself that got me banned from capitalization, or did someone point to some place where my behavior was bad? I don't need an answer here, but I would think that the arbs would require evidence before imposing a sanction. Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

3: Why aren't all the people who made accusations against me on that arbcom case? Shouldn't they be given a chance to try to present evidence of my bad behavior, and/or be seen as having accused me without evidence? The point of going to Arbcom was that such things would be clarified without me doing the haranguing. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Dicklyon, firstly, I sincerely apologize that my attempt to keep the close of that discussion simple has made everything more complicated, not less. It currently looks like they might not accept the case, and my framing of it is surely at least part of the reason why. mea max(issi)ma culpa. I've come to the conclusion that I should reclose it with a firmer and more thorough statement, which will hopefully make it easier for Arbcom to respond, among other benefits, but would also make it so you aren't in a weird procedural limbo if they decline. Unfortunately that means jerking you around some more, after you've already been at ANI for two and a half weeks, for which I really do apologize. And unfortunately for us both, the migraine I woke up with is getting worse rather than better so I don't have high hopes I can do that today. (Not angling for pity! But if this message is somewhat incoherent, do please extend extra grace.)

:Second, this undercurrent of the discussion is a major factor for why I described it as "an arbcom case without word limits". There is a lot of talk in there about what does or doesn't constitute appropriate evidence, often enough with direct appeals to the closer to downweight or upweight something, or to inspect specific diffs, or so on. But the numbers on this are so strong that I can hardly imagine, even in the fully abstract, what could possibly motivate a closer to discount some half to two-thirds of the !votes in support. The consensus in favour of a tban is really very strong. Sorry.

:Third, I can't speak for anyone else. But if you think others ought to be parties in the case, you should probably mention them in your statement. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::OK, thanks. I hope you feel better soon, and that when you get back to it you will take it on to tell us what accusations you find to be supported by evidence. Without that, it's very hard to tell what behavior they think they're voting to sanction me for. I mean, I've pretty much stipulated that I do a lot of case fixing, by edits, by moves, by RMs, etc., and I acknowledge that a few editors don't like the outcome, even though 90+% of my edits and moves never get a reaction. So is it just that I'm the face of MOS:CAPS, or did I do something wrong? Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Capitalization Disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dick, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters&diff=prev&oldid=1297389802 this] comment responding to Sammy D's apology could reasonably be seen as uncivil and contributing to the battlegroundy tone. While this appears to be tit-for-tat, two wrongs don't make it right. ANI appears to pay lip service to incivility etc - except when you are involved. I think you should consider striking that comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP has no sense of humor? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::Humour is a capital offence. What might be intended as humour is too easily construed as backhanded sarcasm and a spark that sets the tinderbox alight. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Should it be changed to a lower-case offense? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)