User talk:Cengime

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --TommyBoy (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cal, It will go on my list to do after I look at my info on Cosima Wagner to help the guy getting that article to featured status. Fyi I've been through a period of disillusionment with Wikipedia trigerred by not liking various activities of the Chair or WMUK. Once the Arbcom case about him has completed, I might be a lot keener.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have now responded on the talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cengime, somebody says "Shakespeare evidently knew", and you believe there is a real evidence for his suggestion. Such an approach is not quite correct in science, I am sorry. Moreover, maybe your editings are not quite good for the mainstream case. I am a little bit older than you, and I know the world quite well. Take care, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not doing science. We are writing an encyclopedia. Articles should reflect what the reliable sources say even if editors disagree with the experts' judgement. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, given that "Shakespeare" is undergoing a paradigm shift, how do we determine what sources are "reliable"? For example James Shapiro's book *Contested Will* is cited multiple times in articles dealing with the authorship question, even though reviews have often shown the book to be faulty to the core and full of elementary mistakes. Just wondering when Wikipedia is going to start learning from its own mistakes.--BenJonson (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cengime. These recent edits should probably be removed, since the case is closed. If you think these IPs are being operated by someone who was sanctioned by name in the WP:ARBSAQ case, or in its enforcement log, just file at WP:SPI and identify the sockmaster. Let me know if you do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed my above diff. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cengime. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cengime. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
Message added 23:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor User_talk:Dave_of_Maryland will never see reason, be aware that engaging with this editor and trying to reason them will most likely prove fruitless and a waste of time. They have a warped idea about science and their own beliefs. There is actually so much wrong with what they say that it's not worth the effort to try and convince them. see WP:SHUN. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For Molière authorship question :). Ironholds (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wonderful article; thanks for writing it :). Ironholds (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Hey for real thank you your edits are much appreciated. Excellent work. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on matters pertaining to photography. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion here about the Shakespeare sidebar template that has been added to several articles. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My latest topic ban was for "Shakespeare Authorship Question" - not all things Shakespeare. To quote the admin who banned me, I was:

"topic-banned from all edits regarding the Shakespeare authorship issue."

Editing the formatting of a Shakespeare play character list has nothing to do with the Authorship question.

Thanks Smatprt (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Achilles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elektra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Atheism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. clpo13_(talk) 18:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cengime. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cengime. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cengime. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Julius Jones (prisoner). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cengime! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:37, Monday, February 13, 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Helding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albrecht of Brandenburg. 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) 06:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Catechism of Saint Pius X, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about books which state the dates of their publication. Those books are the source. Please have a look in the books which are the subject of the article, the Compendio della dottrina cristiana and the Catechismo della dottrina cristiana, before once again restoring the former text which is no less unsourced, and also is false. That you found the false date "1908" already existing on Wikipedia is not a justification for repeatedly restoring it to the article in the face of what the sources clearly say. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One last time: WP:BURDEN, Wikipedia:Citing sources. Veverve (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cengime! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Catechism of Saint Pius X several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Catechism of Saint Pius X, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Please revert your revert. Otherwise, I will open an AN.. Veverve (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clear. The book was published in 1905. You have not stated any reason for your belief that it was published in 1908. I do not consider this a legitimate dispute. - Cal Engime (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Untamed1910 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Go (game 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § Go (game until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I saw you undid my edit on John Neumann where I removed the word "sadly" and said "It is not controversial that it was "sad" for these children to be deprived of elementary education." It's not about it being a controversial statement, but about it not being WP:IMPARTIAL. It's still an opinion even if it's one that most people agree with. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for your message for your message and for this opportunity to further explain my reasons for reverting the edit. In the first place, it is not at all clear to me that the sentence indicates it was sad for the children to be unable to correctly speak either the language of the country, or their heritage language: it says, Neumann began to teach the children, whom he found sadly neglected and unable to speak either German or English correctly. A natural interpretation of this is that it was Neumann's subjective impression that the children were "sadly neglected," especially since it seems clear that this account of this period in Neumann's life is based on what he wrote in his diary. Second, even if this sentence should be taken as an assertion that it truly was sad for these children to lack a pastor or teacher, and be "unable to speak either German or English correctly", there is no contrary point of view in need of representation. Perhaps it is imaginable that some linguist would feel a tinge of regret that we did not get to see what pidgin these children would have spoken in the absence of elementary education, but if one reads what WP:IMPARTIAL actually says, instead of treating policy shortcuts as magic incantations that substitute for reasoning like people usually do, it is very clear that to consider it "sad" that children were unable to correctly speak their native language is not to "engage in a dispute," because that it was fortunate, or indifferent, that they were unable to do so is not a "relevant point of view." To say that "most people" believe that children should be taught to speak the language of their family and country correctly can only be taken as an ironic understatement. Some people, I suppose, due to a failure to grammatically construe the sentence correctly, would consider it rather opinionated to represent it as "sad" that the children were unable to "celebrate the sacraments," but the better-informed will easily see that this clause is governed by the word "began": Neumann began to teach the sadly neglected children, and he began to celebrate the sacraments. - Cal Engime (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]