Jump to content

User talk:Castncoot: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
March 2019: nonsense
Line 122: Line 122:


:What you don't understand is that these articles have evolved out of consensus. Are you saying that a bevy of other editors cannot make a decision in unison? [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot#top|talk]]) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
:What you don't understand is that these articles have evolved out of consensus. Are you saying that a bevy of other editors cannot make a decision in unison? [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot#top|talk]]) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

== March 2019 ==

[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list [[Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people|should have]] a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Notability|notability]] guideline. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-badlistentry --> [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 14:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Per a multitude of edits, and the note you received last year [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Castncoot#A_page_you_started_(List_of_journalists_in_New_York_City)_has_been_reviewed!]. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 14:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

: Anon IP, it doesn't work that way, you may just be entering Wikipedia as a new user. The bottom line is that they should be able to have the potential for a standalone article, not necessarily already have one. [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot#top|talk]]) 14:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

**An additional note: you've edited here a long time, so you must know that sneaking links to common surnames to make it look like a person is notable isn't acceptable practice. I've removed many such examples from one article, and suspect there are many more in the New York journalists listing. [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 14:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

::No, again not true, your understanding as an anon IP (or are you a sockpuppet?) is limited. Kindly stay off my Talk page with this nonsense. [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot#top|talk]]) 14:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:26, 12 March 2019

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Little India (location), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackson Heights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renaissance Technologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantitative analysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead map image (New Jersey)

In the New Jersey article, I would like to change the lead map image to New Jersey in United States (zoom).svg. Can you please open up a discussion on the New Jersey talk page to establish consensus please? Thank you. --192.107.120.90 (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good-faith suggestion! Unfortunately, your proposed picture blocks out some of the U.S. Midwestern states and would therefore violate the standard format for U.S. state lead infobox maps. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (List of journalists in New York City) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of journalists in New York City, Castncoot!

Wikipedia editor DGG just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please remember that these lists are supposed to contain only those people notable enough for WP articles. I have not removed the others, because many of those listed there but without articles should probably notable enough for articles to be written. The most helpful thing you could do at this point is to write articles for them; pattern them after the similar ones that have already been written,

To reply, leave a comment on DGG's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Asian Americans

As someone who edited Asian Americans in the past two weeks, I invite you to participate in a discussion about some recent edits. Specifically, there is a question about whether to include South Asian ethnicities in the discussion about Asian Americans. --Ishu (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the problem has been addressed. Best, Castncoot (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Castncoot, your creation of WP:COATRACK list articles and making WP:COATRACKs of existing lists is indeed problematic. Please see WP:WTAF. If you continue edit-warring to include non-articles in lists, you will probably end up reported to administrators and possibly end up topic-banned from lists. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, your understanding of this issue is not correct. Did you happen to see the note left above by the reviewer of a new article I created? The standard is that those listed with refs who could warrant their own page qualify to remain in the notable people section, rather than people who already have Wikipages created. But your thinking defies logic, because you're implying that until a Wikipage is created, one is not notable - but a Wikipage cannot be created in the first place unless one is notable. Do you understand? Castncoot (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TEU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For continuous edits in many fields; a very fair editor. IWI (chat) 22:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Castncoot. 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]

Borough maps

Good afternoon. I do now recall talking about this; I had completely forgotten about it. I really cannot see why the Earth map is needed for a New York borough. They’re essentially areas within the city and probably don’t even need a pushpin map at all, if someone wanted to know where New York was, they could just go to that article. IWI (chat) 13:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there- on the flip side, some readers do think it's informative and helpful, and it's easier just to let them have it at their fingertips rather than force them to rummage. Certainly doesn't cause any harm. All of the boroughs (except Staten Island, which then just tags along for consistency's sake) maintain global prominence anyway, receiving large numbers of foreign immigrants; each of those four may as well have its own city scale of an article, if not already so. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they are areas within the city. I’m British, if I were going to move to New York, well, I would move to New York, not even thinking about which borough; I group them all into just New York. I think your argument is invalid. IWI (chat) 05:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion continues below referencing Brooklyn as a specific example.) Castncoot (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the article as it is now. That was collateral damage of a mass revert of a large number of edits by the previous editor, who was introducing errors in the settlement_type parameter of {{infobox settlement}} in articles on every US capital city. (I tried to exclude any edits from the reversion that did not introduce that issue, but apparently a few were included.) Unfortunately, I can't control whether the tool applies the minor edit flag or not. General Ization Talk 01:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t it a small world; that editor was me. IWI (chat) 04:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really think General Ization should be more careful with rollback; I would never blindly rollback many edits without checking each one. If you can’t control the tool correctly, don’t use it. IWI (chat) 05:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles

Due to the length of time that it said Los Angeles, the version it should stay as until consensus is that. IWI (chat) 17:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been at "Los Angeles, California" for a much longer time period. Castncoot (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yea it has but it has been Los Angeles since October, which they consider to be stable. IWI (chat) 05:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey

If you can’t see that three old looking confusing image maps should be removed, then I don’t even know what to say. There’s no way the community would agree to that. IWI (chat) 08:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! IWI (chat) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I saw your fine work on New York City where you added an interactive map. I'm hoping you could give me a clue as to how to do this, or should I check in with @Epicgenius:? Is there some doc on this? I'm guessing a missing link is the id parameter in {{Maplink|frame=yes|frame-width=300|frame-height=300|zoom=8|frame-lat=40.782|frame-long=-73.965|type=shape-inverse|id=Q60|title=New York City}}, which somehow links to Template:Attached_KML/New_York_City ? If I do put together a procedure I'd be glad to create some doc for it, obviously not here. Thanks. --Cornellier (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The ID parameter is represented by the Wikidata item number, with the link to that page being in the left hand column of your geographical article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. That was indeed the missing piece of the puzzle. --Cornellier (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LIst of New York City journalists listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LIst of New York City journalists. Since you had some involvement with the LIst of New York City journalists redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

You can’t even discuss this issue with me to come to some sort of agreement, you’re a respectable editor, don’t do this. Removing my comment twice is plain insulting. IWI (chat) 01:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IWI, this should be something self-evident to you, that Wikipedia works based on consensus, and the consensus with regard to this issue of the nomenclature of New York City is that, by and large, people want the disambiguation word "City" added to the term. You have a noticeable tendency to truncate wording just because you feel that the meaning should be obvious when truncated, but that's not how an encyclopedia works, because you cannot simply make this assumption every time. My suggestion seriously would be to take a short Wikibreak from NY-related (and maybe US-related) topics and come back refreshed with an open mind. Castncoot (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you read my ping on my talk page, but apologies for the way I acted; I was out of line and behaved inappropriately. I hope you can understand. IWI (chat) 01:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted! Castncoot (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pls read

Not sure why your going out of your way to make articles non accessible but can you read over WP:GALLERY... WP:UNDUE....MOS:ACCIM...WP:SANDWICH. Not sure how many more people need to point this out to you.-Moxy (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't understand is that these articles have evolved out of consensus. Are you saying that a bevy of other editors cannot make a decision in unison? Castncoot (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]