User talk:Chicdat/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chicdat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey Chicdat, I recently stumbled across your user page again for the first time in a while and wanted to give you some cookies. After coming off an extended Wikibreak last year I noticed a lot of the editors that started on Wikipedia at about the same time as us in 2019-2020 seem to have gone inactive but it's good to see you're not one of them. Hope you are doing well. JayTee⛈️ 05:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks JT. Glad to see that some of WPTC's editors are still around. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Chicdat,

You didn't create this draft but it appears that your accounts did some work on it over the past two years. Since you didn't make the first edit, you would not have received a notification but this draft article will be deleted soon as a stale draft, CSD G13. If you wish to continue to work on it, you can request its restoration at WP:REFUND. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't going to work on it any more anyway. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh man I didn't know you've been banned from project space for that long! Good job for wanting to still contribute after all of this time. I suggest maybe creating a few sandboxes to show the kind of articles you'd like to work on, and maybe show other projects you've done to prove your usefulness, such as the List of Atlantic tropical storms that you made. I would support appealing your ban, however. I think you could be a productive editor, for sure! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and advice. I created two new sandboxes to work on, which will end up becoming tropical depression lists. I'm probably going to appeal in the next week. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of stepping forward. When you appeal, you should mention how you have changed, matured, grown, and how you will be as an editor moving forward. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at WP:AN#Chicdat ban appeal. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks HouseBlaster. As with the lifted ban, I will use the right well. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Chicdat, I have just closed your appeal with consensus to lift your topic ban. I would encourage you to take Lindsay's advice to heart: you are likely to have eyes on you as you fully return, so please take everything you wrote seriously and abide by it. But in the meantime, happy editing. If you need anything, I am reachable on my talk page. Best of luck, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: Yes, I will take that advice to heart. Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been inactive recently and was unable to comment on your request. As others said, your appeal shows a level of insight and self-reflection that was missing a few years ago. I wish you well with your continued editing. Best wishes, Cabayi (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Cabayi. I will try hard to keep editing well. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Dylan Hackworth, I have a YouTube channel, so I wanted my channel to be seen on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that I was being disrespectful on Chad Hurley's wikipedia article. I did that because more people that are on YouTube my see my YouTube channel and check it out. I thought I would get more views and subscribers. I apologize for doing all of this. 2605:59C8:409B:4E10:8CC3:7F6F:DCC3:E972 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology Dylan. In the future, remember that you can't use Wikipedia to advertise your YouTube channel or anything else. Happy editing! 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey there,

Just to let you know, the edits that IP are making are legitimate and more than likely good-faith. Richard Desmond is noted heavily as a pornographer (see the bevy of citations on his wikipedia article) - and I think intentionally or not you might be straying into edit war territory.

Best, CR (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

So sorry. From a first look the edits look extremely defamatory. Still not sure this is very relevant to the actual sentence (about a mere donation), but I agree the edits don't look like vandalism. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, even beyond the conviction for criminal contempt (which in this instance was definitely a felony), Kevin Trudeau also has earlier convictions for felony credit card fraud and larceny. 24.182.239.226 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

So sorry about the edit summary, upon further research I saw that contempt of court is in fact a felony, but was on vacation and had no time to correct. Anyway, consensus per WP:FELON is to not label prominent BLPs as felons without a discussion on the talk page. For instance we don't describe Donald Trump as a convicted felon in the first sentence. Hope this helps. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Glacier remnant 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/2025 January 3 § Glacier remnant until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You deleted the whole California Legislative Jewish Caucus section, w/o which page fails NPOV due to huge ommission, since Wiener is a co-Chair; has passed important legislation through it, has secured $160 million through it from the State Budget, and has been in the news regarding various related activities and criticisms.

Edit CLJC section if you like or if you think it isn’t neutral, but don’t delete the whole thing!Seahumidity (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to re-add the section with a less promotional tone. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please be a bit more careful about what you accept. That article is on pending changes because of spam and you accepted an edit that replaced a legitimate external link (the US CDC) with spam. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I didn't see that. Will be more careful in future 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 00:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That's all I ask. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight against vandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you DreamRimmer – I'll keep up the good work in the coming months. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate it. Thanks so much in advance for all your great work :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I noticed your interest in birds. Just wanted to say hello to another bird-loving editor. (Logged out. @3OpenEyes) 74.104.160.163 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi 3OpenEyes. I haven't edited in bird topics in a long time, but upon being reminded, you might just have made me re-enter that part of Wikipedia. Have a good day. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chicdat. Thank you for your request for the new page reviewer user group. Unfortunately it has not been granted at this time. Please check back at the requests page for the administrator's reason(s) - you may be able to apply again when the requirements have been satisfied. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. I will follow your advice going forward. Thank you for your input. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Chicdat, I know this is annoying, but you are the sole defender of contested content in a Talk page discussion against 4 editors who disagree with you. You’re going to have to argue on the Talk page to gather consensus to include it, per WP:ONUS. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight against vandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up.– DreamRimmer (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Chicdat, WeatherWriter has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• The past week has been a difficult week for those involved in the weather community, with all the changes and firings in NOAA and the National Weather Service; and everything involved with NOAA under the second presidency of Donald Trump (new article for all of these events). Hopefully your day can get a little better from this smile! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you WeatherWriter. Unfortunately I have the misfortune of being an American, and the Trump-Musk bromance is adding a lot of stress to my life. Every time I think things can't get any worse they do. Yet they still get worse... 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey there Chicdat. First off, yea, Larry looks to be in pretty good shape. The met history is the one part that I think needs work before you take it to GAN. For a long-lived major hurricane, there are some things that you should discuss, such as the structural evolution of the storm (did it ever develop outflow or rainbands), and external factors in the storm's track/evolution. For example, you mention the subtropical ridge in the third paragraph, but that was probably a factor much earlier. Also, there's one too many images. The impacts can also be expanded. If there were impacts in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, then there were likely impacts in other Caribbean islands, or the Bahamas. One more thing, the article spends a fair bit of time talking about the stolen boat. It sounds like that could've been a fatality - when did they call off the search and rescue? Was there no more info about that? Double check for more Canada damage. The article says $20 million in damage but only gives a few concrete examples.

As for 2002, good job so far! I see you have most of the tables done. That is definitely the most annoying aspect, getting references for every fatality and damage total, and then formatting it all correctly. The only thing you're missing is a few depressions by the JMA, but I'm not sure of the best place to cite that. Maybe Gary Padgett/Steve Young? I notice some of the season sections still need citations, but I'm guessing you haven't done all of them yet.

Keep up the good work Chicdat! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I've made most of your suggestions for Larry, and am a little annoyed about the whole 2002 business (another editor had already done the AHS, PHS, and PTS sections, but they seem to have just copied from the lead sections of the season articles, so I'll have to completely rewrite those sections). One part I was kind of stuck on was the damage. There seem to only be two reports: the $20 million report from CATIQ, which is cited by every other source I've looked at, and the $61 million report from Aon Benfield, which no other sources seem to support. Without any knowledge of how Aon Benfield gets its numbers, I'm tempted to just write $20 million in the infobox and say it's disputed, but if there's some kind of obscure source hidden away that reveals the bigger picture, I wouldn't want to miss that. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, for Larry, consider a third possibility - there's a more accurate total in Mexican pesos. It's better than saying it's disputed if there's a range in numers, but when in doubt, it's good to try and get the most official source, in this case a government source ideally. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Mexican pesos? The only thing I can find with that is talking about Tropical Storm Larry in 2003. Anyway, after flip-flopping over it for a while, I've decided to just nominate it. A preliminary thanks to the guys at the NHC – I would be completely lost without the TCR. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait did you mean the Larry that hit Mexico, or the Larry that hit Australia? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I meant Hurricane Larry of 2021, which hit Canada. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hahaha I probably knew that when I started the convo, sorry my bad. In that case ignore the pesos bit! Maybe try a search like [“Hurricane Larry” damage million Canada] and see if that gets anything? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

So I looked into it. Most Canadian sources I'm seeing are saying $25 million in insured damage. The other sources might be considered reliable, but the $25 million is definitely more than the $20 million from CATIQ. Maybe Aon Benfield is the estimate for the overall damage, and $25 million is the insured damage? That's my best guess. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it means $25 million in Canadian dollars, though. That translates to $20 million in US dollars, using the exchange rates from September 2021. I agree with the insured damage thing though, that is what I'm mostly seeing. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation. We are conducting a study on how people use FlaggedRevisions and gathering feedback on users’ experiences with the tool. Our goal is to better understand how it is used and identify ways to improve it. Based on your experience, we believe you would be a valuable participant in this study and would like to invite you to take part in an interview to share your thoughts. If you would like to participate, please email me here.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards, TRooks-WMF (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Chicdat,

Just following up to see if you are interested in participating in a study on how people use FlaggedRevisions. We are looking to gather feedback on users’ experiences in order to better understand how the tool is used and identify ways to improve it. Based on your experience, we believe you would be a valuable participant in this study and would like to invite you to a 60 minute interview conducted remotely in English over Google Meet. We are happy to offer a digital thank you gift of $75 USD. If you would like to participate or have any questions, please email me here.

Kind Regards,

TRooks-WMF (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@TRooks-WMF: No, sorry. I hope the study goes well. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for getting back to me and completely understand. TRooks-WMF (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been a hard last couple of months for me with everything that's been going on in America lately, so I appreciate the message. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a new ongoing request for comment discussion, with the goal to solve the various disputes on weather-related articles (such as tornadoes or hurricanees) on how to best utilize damage estimates in the infobox. Your comments are highly-requested, as the result of this discussion will affect all weather-related articles. This notice is being sent to all editors who have recently edited weather event articles.

You can view and participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RFC - Weather Infobox Damages. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Your comment here is an allegation of misconduct. If you wish to substantiate it, take it to ANI. An article TP is no place to make such an allegation and a WP:PERSONALATTACK without substantiation. I suggest you strike that part of your comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed... I beg you to substantiate how you have not acted in that manner in these RMs. I see no examples of your !voting for a lowercase page name to be moved to uppercase. A personal attack is an attack against that editor personally, e.g. You are an idiot. In no way was my comment a personal attack, although I will on second thought strike the hyperbole at the end, wanting of course to keep a collaborative editing environment. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157 complaining about a personal attack. Pot meet kettle? Threats to take an issue to ANI means you want to waste people's valuable online time with something that you should be able to handle with a little discussion (or just not letting words affect you so much). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

As with any P&G (actually, WP:TENDENTIOUS is an essay) it needs to be read in full and not take quotes out of their fuller context where to do so might misrepresent what is said in the fuller context, such as the above, which more fully states: Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view. But the spirit and intent of NPOV applies to content (what is said) rather than style, which is neutral in the context of content. It continues: It may also involve repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions [emphasis added]. In this context frustrate refers to the process and not how editors might feel. It would be synonymous with undermine or subvert. Working within the proper editorial process and contributing cogent arguments to discussions is by definition not tendentious. I would suggest you also read Accusing others of tendentious editing and WP:WIAPA as to whether this could be seen as a personal attack. As for your question, see here. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Very well. I will drop the stick now. Although I still don't believe my comment was a personal attack and certainly didn't mean it that way, I can see how it could be perceived as such. As consensus is moving towards the threshold for capitalization being a significant majority, there's very little that I need to say before consensus is reached, so I will probably be staying out of these capitalization discussions in the future, for the most part. 🐔 talk:Chicdat|Bawk to me!]] 13:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

And there you go, the bludgeoning, criticism, and even veiled hints of further action if you continue your honest comments, have nudged into your good work. The result: "I will probably be staying out of these capitalization discussions in the future". You lasted longer than most. I've been at it for over 10 years, and a few editors, as you've seen and at a couple points stood up for me (thank you sincerely), give me a going over from time to time. Have learned it's part of the process. Thanks, it's been good reading your comments and seeing the icon! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Subsoil. 2600:1700:D200:F40:F510:99A2:92AD:6F2E (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to add the basic constituent elements of capitalism more systematically and comprehensively in the introduction as I did earlier, of course respecting Wikipedia standards. Thank you 79.41.35.95 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Per our policies and guidelines, the introduction, or lead as we call it, presents an overview of the article consisting of material that's due for it. We also prefer prose to bulleted lists to explain things, especially in such a visible section as the lead. There's a very similar bulleted list in the characteristics section – feel free to refine it. If you still believe there should be such a bulleted list in the lead, please discuss on the talk page and gain consensus for the change. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chicdat, you changed from the nationality to the ethnicity for Maria Branyas. However, as per MOS:ETHNICITY, this should be the nationality, not the ethnicity. Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

And your edit has been reverted. Take a look at Carles Puigdemont – it describes him as Catalan, not Spanish. If you truly believe she should be described as Spanish, discuss on the talk page. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Larry you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you for being part of the fight against vandalism on English Wikipedia, and being one of the top five most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Your hard work is very much appreciated, please keep it up. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Hurricane Larry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Larry for comments about the article, and Talk:Hurricane Larry/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Hurricane Larry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Kashmir earthquake 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/2025 May 10 § Kashmir earthquake until a consensus is reached. 162 etc. (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

On 23 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Larry, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an Antiguan man who escaped from custody in Canada is suspected of stealing a yacht and sailing it directly into Hurricane Larry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Larry. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hurricane Larry), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Good job for how you dealt with the sockpuppet. I'm starting to get up to speed, only just saw the whole discussion, so I need to chime in at some point, but wanted to say, kudos to you first! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I find the best way to deal with these guys is to not take them seriously – there's no deterrent like that one. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

100% The best way of dealing with a troll is not to feed it, and instead remind yourself why you are better :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been quietly observing the battle (pun intended) over strict invocation of WP:NCCAPS, especially in reference to <ordinal> battle of <place> articles. I agree the current guideline is too absolute and we should treat terms as proper nouns if a majority of reliable sources do so. It looks like Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_66#Overturning_NCCAPS got archived, probably due to overly frequent archiving at that busy page. I think if a well thought out proposal for a change is made via RfC at WT:NCCAPS it might lead to something happening. I believe consensus would align with our view; this does not come out in RM discussions given the current word choice at NCCAPS and like-minded users opting to stay out of individual RMs when faced with the current guideline. Thoughts? Mdewman6 (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise, I am worried what's next: we have Battle of Fredericksburg but Second battle of Fredericksburg? Mdewman6 (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The reason the lowercasers hold sway over the NCCAPS move request is because the letter of the law, for the most part, supports them. (The constant bludgeoning from a few editors is also a factor.) Thus actual change in our practices on Wikipedia is the only real way to make common sense, at last, rule. Otherwise we will continue with A few weeks ago I attempted an RFC but it was badly malformed and went nowhere. If we could draft a decent RFC to change the guideline from "always" to "(substantial) majority", which was received favorably at the village pump, I think we can likely change the text of the guideline. Sammy D III's comment at Talk:War of the cities is telling: These are people on a MOS mission, part of which is de-capitalize military terms which do not follow grammar, instead are used as proper names or common terms. Commonly an article is moved without discussion, then if somebody objects there is already an alliance in place to support the move. Pinging Randy Kryn so we can all collaborate to make a draft. Thanks for your comment, I feel like we might at last be able to reform this nonsensical guideline that allows things like this. (By the way, I thought you might want to read WT:MOSCAPS#RfC on the meaning of "usually" as used in MOS:MILTERMS. Our RFC may have already begun.) 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you care but I just posted this. I'm not sure if I should notify about this post there, otherwise no reply needed. Sammy D III (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The word "usually" seems one obvious choice for choosing a proper name, and if a name is usually uppercased then Wikipedia should accept its status as an accepted proper name. Some proper names are also covered by MOS:CELESTIALOBJECTS, MOS:GEOCAPS, and, as of now, MOS:MILTERMS, which could be used as templates to finally bring common sense into the "naming of names" on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal opinion, I'll leave if you want: If I create content with a source that uses a proper name, I use the proper name. If that is changed to a generic phrase it is no longer supported by the source I used. The meaning of the source has been changed. If part of a source has been compromised then the whole source must be compromised, correct? You can't cherry-pick which facts you use, either the source is RS or it isn't. That reference and anything it supports has to be removed.

They hit the military hard, and it affects stuff that I've done. This can be important in titles. I can't go back and fix every one, ownership and all, and many don't matter anyway. But they were written as proper names, my meanings have been changed with no other sources contradicting them. Proper names! I think one editor has said that the organization that makes a proper name is Primary and can't be used to support it.

I'm RS over MOS and don't like having my facts being changed because of grammar. Sammy D III (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I checked out for a bit on other things. Yeah, I think we let the RfC at MILTERMS run its course, with the plan of starting a broader, well thought out RfC at NCCAPS. The absolutists there are just defending their turf, trying to make sure guidelines don't conflict with standards of evidence (which in general I agree with) so the only way for lasting and meaningful change is to show consensus for a change at NCCAPS itself. Then getting all of the other specific naming conventions and MOSs in line would follow as necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is the only route for change – an RFC to change NCCAPS. It must necessarily affect the capitalization of possible proper names in text as well, or the lowercasers will doubtless seize on that inconsistency and shut it down... been here, done that. There is a large body of potential arguments, many of which have been deployed at ANI; it would be nice if someone with more time than I could seize the gems from the cesspool. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 00:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't workable. "A majority" means even a fraction of a percent beyond 50.0%. But we have no means of assessing source material in this way; we cannot identify and gather them all and do a fine-grained statistical analysis. NCCAPS is simply a restatement of MOS:CAPS as applied to titles in particular. The rule (in different wording but with the same meaning) in both is that WP doesn't capitalize something unless an overwhelming majority of sources do so. This is something we can assess, given any statistically significant collection of sources on the topic: if lowercase for the term in question is virtually non-existent in them, then the standard is met, and we should capitalize. (In actual RM practice, this amounts to roughly a 90%+ capitalization rate.)

If we were to go with just a "majority" rule (or attempt at a rule) instead, it would not be practicable at all. What would obviously happen is dedicated cherrypicking by competing factions to drag the ball back and forth across a magical 50% goal line. An equally obvious upshot of this is that titles of all edge cases would be in a constant state of slow-motion movewarring. Every time someone found a new handful of sources that they could use the push the total back across that line in their favored direction they would do so. Again and again and again.

Our guidelines have been stable on this stuff for about two decades now and they have served us well. They only reason there is recurrent dispute about this stuff is really, really insistent over-capitalization habits on the part of a handful of editors, most of them tied to specific topics, and engaging in invincible ignorance: it doesn't matter how many times you prove to them that capitalization rate of what they want to capitalize comes nowhere near "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources"; they will insist that their version is "correct" anyway, and refuse to drop the stick – even after multiple RMs, and MR, and RfC, AN/ANI, and all else.

PS: MOS:CAPS/NCCAPS, like all the rest of MoS and all the NC guidelines that touch on style matters, are geared in a single consistent direction, by long-standing and very well-tested consensus: WP does not apply any unnecessary stylization, of any kind. Your "majority" idea is completely contrary to that. Basically, it's "Try to get away with unnecessary stylization at every possible opportunity, by crossing a 50.000000001% line." It's just inimical the purpose of us having a style guide, especially one geared toward simple and readable text instead of marketing- and blog-style bombastic messes.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that WP:NCCAPS does not currently align with MOS:CAPS, especially its various subject-specific subsections. NCCAPS uses the word "always" which is quite different from a substantial majority. This "always" absolutism is being employed by some users to move articles away from their long-standing proper noun titles, leading to an overall decrease in WP:CONSISTENT titles. The guidelines need to have the same standard, and that standard should align with WP:COMMONNAME- we use the title (and capitalization) used my a majority of reliable sources. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As silly as it may sound, I think these issues arise because editors think (incorrectly) that "proper noun" and "proper name" mean different things, with the latter defined as "accepted name (in majority of sources)". I went ahead and replaced every instance (six) of "proper name" with "proper noun" in WP:NCCAPS. The two are synonymous, so I believe my edit should be uncontroversial. At MOS:CAPS "proper name" appears 41(!) times. I can't help but think "proper name" introduces confusion and allows for these capitalisation wars to occur. Even on Wikipedia proper name is a redirect to proper noun so clearly the latter is the COMMONNAME for the term. Should the same substitution be done at MOS:CAPS? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

That was reverted. To some people, there is a difference. See the proper noun article: "A distinction is normally made in current linguistics between proper nouns and proper names. By this strict distinction, because the term noun is used for a class of single words (tree, beauty), only single-word proper names are proper nouns ..." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also from the article: but this distinction is not universally observed. Why should we observe it? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

One more thing. I think some editors want to turn the issue into a philosophical debate over proper name (philosophy), and I don't think that helps us build an encyclopaedia. It muddies the water and introduces "uncertainty" over what proper noun "really means". There is no debate over what a proper noun is. [1] TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That source seems very well aligned with Wikipedia, such as "The 16th president of the United States was President Lincoln." There is also the behavioral observation perspective – that the way to tell whether something is a proper noun or not is primarily to just observe whether people typically capitalize it or not, rather than to try to identify what role a proper noun plays grammatically. I think that question arises for schools of painting that are not the names of institutions, for example. This could bring us back to the "Second battle of Fredericksburg" question, as there's a parallel there with "16th president of the United States". There's also a current church ritual question – to me it seems like if there are tens of thousands of these ceremonies being conducted every week, then the term for that type of ceremony is not a proper noun, but some people seem to have a different opinion. Some cases seem more difficult than others. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

primarily to just observe whether people typically capitalize it or not One of the problems is that editors don't agree what "typically", "consistently", "usually" mean. Personally, I think that if it is capitalised more than 50% in the last few decades then we should capitalise it also, other editors disagree and believe it should be 80%+ in the last ~170 years, while some think that we should rely only on recent, relevant (preferably academic) RS. That is something we'll have to decide as a community. I have no idea if that should be done at VPP or MOS, but I do hope it eventually happens.

This could bring us back to the "Second battle of Fredericksburg" question I know this isn't a policy-based argument but lowercasing only the middle word just looks weird to me, it looks like a typo. In prose "second battle of Fredericksburg" would only make sense if Fredericksburg is the name of the conflict, i.e. second battle of WWII. But Fredericksburg isn't the name of the conflict (as far as I know), "Battle of Fredericksburg" is. Then the question becomes whether "second" is a description of the battle or if it is part of the name, like First World War and Second World War. In this case I would ignore Google Ngrams and look at the relevant, recent academic literature and see whether the majority treats "second" as a name or as a description. This goes back to "what standard should we use?" and again, that is something we'll have to decide with community consensus. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems like it presumes that there is a name for the second notable battle that happened in or around Fredericksburg rather than just having a descriptive identification of such an event (like, e.g., Second presidency of Grover Cleveland and the other eleven "Second presidency" articles). Just in case you have the impression you're dealing with a dogmatist about such matters, I am also reminded of Talk:First battle of Öland (1564)#Requested move 13 November 2024, which I initiated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chicdat

Hello

Apologies if this is redundant - I am unsure as to whether or not you received the message below, but as there has not been any reply, I try again here.

I recently noted that you the person tasked with reviewing and approving a set of 3 edits I made on the Knight article - it is semi-protected - that you may recall as I posted that the British GCMG knighthood is informally known in the UK diplomatic service as "God calls me God".

After your approval, curiosity took me to quickly check your webpage to see something of who you are. I was considerably impressed by your "Ten Commandments" and heartily approve of them. They align strongly with my ethos of developing and expanding articles and trying to identify links beyond the ones commonly considered. The great benefit of Wikipedia is seeing the essential interconnectedness of all matters, because well-written articles can lead a reader on a wonderful exploration of the world about us and on to entries that we do not know of or had not previously considered. It should expand the mind.

Did you write these commandments from scratch or compile them with contributions from others or find them pretty much "as is" from somewhere else? I wish that them were widely disseminated across all Wikipedia editors and administrators.

I write as I contacted you earlier today with regards to the List of culinary herbs and spices, asking you to arbitrate in a dispute and a case of disruptive editing / vandalism / edit warring as an administrator. I must apologise for presuming to impose this upon you without your approval.

I do not wish to curry favour with you on this matter - and I put trust in you to act impartially and independently - but I would like to clearly point out that Ttocserp has acted in a very negative fashion by just repeatedly deleted edits to expand and develop the article saying only "not an improvement" - simply on the grounds that the style, (not content), is either irksome or just disliked: invalid grounds for reversion - without actually contributing anything towards what would be considered an improvement. I suggested the simple conversion to a wikitable - a fair amount of work but relative straightforward to do. Ttocserp just came back with a knee-jerk reversions of even minor tweaks, such as redirecting woodruff to sweet woodruff.

I believe that Ttocserp has a "rollback" option available, that is used without any real thought and contrary to the Wikipedia reversion practices. I consider that "rollback" function is given out too often and too widely, whereupon the privilege is abused. It should only be used on deliberate vandalism or if an edit has caused a massive cascade failure, but not for genuine edits by users trying to improve an article. Its use should be highly restricted as reverts can easily be done manually, though it does take a little longer.

More should be done by Wikipedia to emphasise:

Before reverting
Before performing a revert, carefully consider the consequences of dismissing another editor's contributions, as well as any subsequent edits linked to the original change. Assess the specific elements of the edit that are problematic and contemplate the editor's intentions. Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. If only a portion of the edit is objectionable, a partial reversion may be more appropriate; complete reversions should be used sparingly and are effectively executed using the undo tool.
In the edit summary or on the article's talk page, provide a succinct explanation detailing why the change is being reverted or why the reversion is beneficial. In instances of blatant vandalism, clearly disruptive edits, or unexplained content removal, a brief explanation may suffice. However, in situations involving content disputes, offering a well-reasoned and politely worded justification is important to avoid unnecessary disagreements and to promote constructive collaboration.

This is the crucial factor to be consider before anyone is permitted a reversion.

I work to the principal: "Do something — don't undo — always re-edit."

Also, having the semi-protected status on many, many more articles where edits need a independent approval before it is fully published would effective eliminate vandalism, disruptive editing, and edit warring, though it would place more work on administrators with managing the approval process but systems could be devised to streamline this process so cutting the workload. Delaying by 24 hours the full publishing of edits would be beneficial cutting down rapid cross-editing of entries.

Please can you pass this feedback for consideration and action around the administrators' noticeboards / talking spaces. 94.196.120.45 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this on my talk page. I am currently on vacation, which unfortunately limits my abilities to respond in a timely manner. First, I'd like to note that I am not an administrator, which is a role encompassing many things, such as imposing the semi-protection you mention above. My acceptance of your edits at Knight was exercising my right as a pending changes reviewer, which is easier to obtain than the trust-laden position of being an administrator. The protection of that article, as far as I know, is pending changes protection. As you most likely know, such protection entails free editing, but with the changes being invisible to readers until a reviewer (such as I) accepts it. Also, to your note about my Ten Commandments, I modeled the ten points after the userpage of administrator Hammersoft, but the wording and what I chose to include is mine alone. Now, I return to your content dispute with Ttocserp. I am unfamiliar with the matter, but it appears that the two of you have been engaged in an edit war. An administrator than imposed the most common measure when an edit war happens, and blocked both of you from the page for two weeks. This was an unfortunate measure, as Ttocserp appears to bear more of a blame for the edit war than you. The gold standard for situations like the one you encountered is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Ttocserp failed, as far as I can tell, to satisfactorily discuss the changes on the talk page. Likely the main reason for the response was the general bias toward experienced editors and against IP editors. As to your proposals of increasing protection, many editors feel that it infringes on our principle of "anyone can edit", but feel free to take it up at the idea lab for proposals. (I feel I would be unable to really express the details of your proposal, so you had best do it yourself.) I apologize if you were hoping for an administrative solution, however as I am not an administrator, I feel that would be out of place. Feel free to make a report at the administrators' noticeboard, the usual venue for such reports. I hope this helps. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:21, 27 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) 20:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your statement at ArbCom: ... one retaliatory filing by Cinderella157 against Sammy D III.[2] Do you really wish to allege that the filing was retalitary v one made in good faith because it was battlegroundy incivility that I find unacceptable? As you should be aware, one is never free to cast WP:ASPERSIONS with impunity regardless of venue. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

"I am tired of having my comments blown out of proportion and called personal attacks." The fact that the discussion was snow closed implies the so-called aspersions was quite substantiated. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion was closed Given larger discussions occuring (above)[3] I was asking if you really wanted to go down this particular rabbit hole but given your post at ArbCom, it is apparent that you do. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I removed something on Jeff since it seemed like improper grammar. Should I note that in the description? 74.138.97.32 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. How is "the English given name" improper grammar that needs to be removed? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. Because there were two names listed. 74.138.97.32 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

By all means feel free to add "s" to the word name. Thank you for your edit and welcome to Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay I will do that. :-) 74.138.97.32 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)