Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

User talk:204.111.137.20

February 2021

Information icon Hello, I'm EDG 543. I noticed that you recently removed content from Stuart Hall School without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without your IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

If you have any questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jalen Barks (Woof) 11:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long comment

Please stop adding long comment to every page 246 bytes or larger and see Template talk:Long comment#Template protected edit request on 30 April 2025. We need the links in the long comment to know where the pages are as an aid for other editors. Removing those links removes the aid. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links are not needed, in fact there are probably thousands of cases where the older style comment remains in use. The standard for short pages has always been 256 (28) bytes. Arguably it should be higher. In just elevating clearing the backlog of 246 and 247 byte pages I already identified deficiencies to be remedied. No cutoff will be perfect, but 256 is better and more intuitive than 246. I have used the older long comment exactly to avoid potential bot issues, but if you would rather a reworded form that leaves the links in place I can shift to that. I simply do not see the need since they are in hidden text, so either someone who knows nothing about begind the scenes work will view pages, in which case the pseudo-links accomplish nothing, or someone who is knowledgeable about behind the scenes work will see them in which case the colon will make the meaning obvious. Should you disagree with any of these options an RFC may be used to settle any disputes. Otherwise I intend to continue maintenance work as normal. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me here @Jonesey95, as the user who made this change in the first place! Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Good job, IP, for driving another good editor off this platform. I'm only trying to help, but I don't think you intend to listen or even look at the other user's reasoning for adding those links. Goodbye. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not meaning to be rude, but trying to hold other volunteers emotionally hostage by threatening to quit is not collegial. Jonesey95 is a volunteer like us and is not required to respond promptly or at all. I reviewed the discussion, at no point is any mention made there or anywhere of a consensus to reduce the short pages limit. Several methods are open that allow continuing normal maintenance, I have chosen the one I believe will be least impactful to the workflow of others. If you have an alternative suggestion for rewording the comment I am open to it, but you have not made one. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm willing to listen for at least the moment. Where is the discussion that took place that set this standard? If no discussion was made, we do not have an actual standard, and it seems you're only basing this "standard" on a pattern you saw at ShortPages before the recent changes. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is a thing. 256 has had implicit consensus for a very long time, you should not be unilaterally changing that over the objections of others, instead WP:Dispute resolution should be followed.
Additionally, you seem to have reverted a couple of the maintenance edits. I do not understand why you would do that, but Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback does not permit the use of rollback for those edits. Though a handful of mistakes is admittedly but a minor infringement. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a problem with the template, please discuss it at Template talk:Long comment. On that page, and in my edit summary, there is an explanation of why the non-working brackets were added: to make it clear where the template names end. In the no-brackets version, it is ambiguous whether the second template referred to is {{Long}} or {{Long comment}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the requested RfC at Template talk:Long comment. Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User: Jonesey95, I have no issue with the template. In combination with the operation of the bot the current length requires some tweaking when doing standard maintenance. For simplicity I have chosen to continue using an older standard, but there are several other ways of achieving the same end with or without brackets, though I am not convinced of the need for that cosmetic change. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for recategorizing my speedy deletion requests, they're my first. Obviously G3 is the correct category: " redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism" but I missed that somehow. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Sometimes it may not even matter, but as some admins like to patrol specific categories it helps to sort everything properly. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Information icon Hello, I'm SKAG123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nuckols (surname) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. SKAG123 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:SKAG123, did you read the edit summary at all? Anyway please explain your reasoning at Talk:Nuckols (surname), or I suppose you can file an WP:RSN request. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For being another person that patrols shortpages. Really appreciate all the long commenting you do. I would've thanked you but wikipedia doesn't allow you to thank IPs, so this is my way of thanking you! Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 17:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I don't always have time to volunteer, but when I do I try to help out with some of the maintenance. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Hello,

Thank you so much for your message on my talk page, I wasn't aware of the procedure, I have now corrected and sent a proposal for deletion. Have a good day. MediDude4345 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, but WP:PROD is only for articles, redirects are listed at WP:RFD. The instructions are at WP:RFDHOWTO. If for some reason you find yourself unable to complete the nomination please leave the reason below and I will nominate it for you. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if you could thank you. The reason is that the character has had a name change in the show, from Faith Cadogan to Faith Dean - therefore, the Cadogan page needs to be redirected to the Dean page. Thanks so much for your help once again. MediDude4345 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can complete this nomination, but would your concern be addressed by retargeting the page to Characters of Casualty#Faith Dean as an Template:R avoided double redirect, in which case it can be done boldly or do you believe it needs to be deleted? 204.111.137.20 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As I'm not too experienced with redirection and deletion, based on your opinion, I'd be happy for you to decide whatever works best. Apologies - long time wikipedia user - just not too familiar with the advanced stuff! :) MediDude4345 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine I'll retarget it shortly, if you find that satisfactory we can leave it be, otherwise leave a new message here stating you want it deleted for reasons previously indicated. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xtayalive

Did you notice that there was not a single link to an item named "Xtayalive"? The Banner talk 14:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common point of confusion, but just because the pages linked do not have a title that matches exactly does not mean they don't count for the purposes of WP:G14. See for example Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) or just all of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27. The key here is the wording of G14 "Disambiguation pages, regardless of title, that list zero extant Wikipedia pages" if the number of listed Wikipedia pages is not zero, then G14 cannot apply. You will see there is no requirement there for title similarity. That does not mean these pages must be retained, only that speedy is inappropriate. Remember the only advantage of CSD over other forms of deletion is volume management, it is inferior in every other way. Hence if you want these pages deleted you should WP:PROD or list at WP:AFD. In many cases you will also find bold redirection to be sufficient. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you prefer to keep a useless dab-page. Clear. The Banner talk 14:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with me. Speedy is only for a specific narrowly defined set of circumstances and that page does not qualify. Again if you want it deleted either WP:PROD or list it at WP:AFD. If you would prefer this type of page to be eligible for speedy deletion for some reason then start a discussion at WT:CSD. You may disagree with deletion policy but please do not violate it. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surname pages

Note that "... is a surname, and may refer to" is broader than "Notable people with the surname include". For example, if the article here has as title the stage name or pen name of X, then the surname may not be the actual surname of X.

I have been using the wording for nearly 20 years, and in my view it doesn't need to be changed.

Charles Matthews (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charles Matthews, it is the standardized wording used by the templates and an absolute majority of all pages in the surname category. I do not really see your version as broader unless you are relying on a rather narrow interpretation of usage that is not going to be supported by most grammarians. However much is contextual and grammarians often disagree, a substantial minority will even aver that Saladin is his orthonym for example, so it's complicated.
Coming back to the topic at hand, these adjustments are best seen in the same light as genfixes. What drew my attention to the article was that it was less than the 256 byte limit for short pages; when adding long comments it is accepted practice to normalize new pages and as it so happened normalization made the addition of a long comment unnecessary. So I am not going to be changing all instances of your wording to the standard one, however if other maintenance is necessary it will probably be adjusted in concert with the other maintenance. Consistency of formatting has only marginal benefits however so if you wish to make pages with the wording it is not an issue, and as explained won't be adjusted unless some other maintenance is also required. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. You don't mention any guideline, so I shall continue to do the same. I see that the first version of Tusa (surname) was 250 bytes. I immediately linked it into Wikidata, which is my habit, and did an intitle search to expand it. In fact I had started expanding it before you began editing it, which is why there was an edit conflict.
As a general point, I see a lot of "error-trapping" of wikitext these days. Some of it is annoying. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the guideline is MOS:DABNAME, which leads to WP:APOS, but the while the guideline recommends the standardized wording and all the quick use templates are based around it, the requirement is not in any sense strict, see Danielson (surname) or Johnsen, past a certain length the intro usually gets spun off into its own page with a separate surname holder list as with Jones. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bobby George, you may be blocked from editing. Manualbadeditfix (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User: Manualbadeditfix No idea what this is about, but if you don't feel like explaining I don't mind an ANI. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you misunderstood what I was doing.
Me and the original page mover agreed to move Bobby George (darts player) back to Bobby George. So I was preparing for that. DartsF4 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:DartsF4 you did not prepare anything, in fact your actions increased the difficulty in reverting the page move. Please refrain from making future c&p moves, blanking pages, or otherwise making maintenance more difficult than it has to be. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were in WP:GOODFAITH, I did not know the actions would increase the difficulty of moving the page back. If I had I would never have considered doing it.
have a good rest of your day. DartsF4 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:DartsF4, WP:GOODFAITH does not preclude disruptive editing. A substantial proportion of disruption is done in good faith. The difference is that most people when advised their edits are disruptive pause, read the messages they've been sent, and engage in dialogue in an attempt to learn, you instead decided to ignore the advice you were given. Next time consider reading edit summaries and talk page messages, continued failure to do so may result in you being held to account at ANI, not something you want to invite. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice was template messages, which did not make clear to me what you meant. I would not have done what I did to be disruptive deliberately, and I was argubaly negligent by doing so and not going on your talk page and explaining myself. I apologise for what I did, and I will not do that again in the future. DartsF4 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:DartsF4 exactly, standardized advice for specific situations decided by community consensus. You can't even complain that it was improper or incorrect because the verbiage has been specifically decided by community consensus. If your complaint is that they are too long to read quickly, well tough. And should you choose to continue ignoring them and your conduct ends up being discussed at a noticeboard, you will end up doing a lot more reading. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that this has happened, and I do not intend for there to be a second.
I intend to learn from my mistake and be more careful in the future.
I do not foresee a situation where my ‘conduct' ends up being discussed at a notice board as I intend to read them closely from now on and ask a question if I do not fully understand.
What you are saying sounds like a threat and does not consider my past behaviour on Wikipedia, which I think many would argue has been very constructive.
This was a lapse and a mistake which I do not intend to make again. DartsF4 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:DartsF4, apology accepted if that is what you are looking for, the mess has now been cleaned up an so this specific matter is closed. No one has threatened you, instead you have been advised, nothing more nothing less. For future reference the typical and expected responses look like this interaction or this one, or maybe there is even a lttle back and forth like here. It is extremely unusual for someone who is here in good-faith to react as you did, indeed nigh unheard of; the only people I regularly see insta-blank talk page messages without reading them are vandals.
But since you have acknowledged the mistake and committed to not repeating going forward I see no continuing issue. Mistakes happen, so long as the pattern does not recur it is not a problem at all. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say I was probably in denial about what I was doing, failing to acknowledge it was the complete incorrect approach. It is indeed unusual and those were arguably inexcusable actions done without thinking properly.
I should have engaged with you on my talk page or yours, absolutely and not delete the messages.
What I was referring to with the 'threat' was admittedly caveated with “and should you choose to continue ignoring them", but you did mention that in that case that ”conduct ends up being discussed at a noticeboard, you will end up doing a lot more reading.” It’s an empty threat if it could be considered a threat at all, because neither of us intended to get into an ANI dispute about any of this.
We acknowledge my mistake, and you accepted my apology. I wish you good fortune in the future. DartsF4 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2025 2

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or edit a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Melotone Records (disambiguation). Toast1454TC 19:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toast1454, It would seem you have not read WP:G14, I suggest you do so. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of features on Phobos and Deimos. This notification because I can't ping you, because you can't/won't log in. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya