User talk:CapnZapp

Wikipedia:Babel

en-4This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

Search user languages

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48. This invitation is based on your being a registered editor that has edited MOS:FILM and film articles.
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

Can you help with a personal attack?

User:Pyxis Solitary isn't using my name, but the note added to this editor's user page on Feb. 4 — just two days after you and others advised us to avoid each other — is clearly referring to things on my user page. It's childish and petty, and bottom line, it's just plain wrong not only to make a personal attack like that but also to be "clever" and attack the other editor using insinuation. I ask for your help or at least your advice: Is it OK for that editor to do this? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No I can't help with a personal attack. Please take the matter through the appropriate procedures, such as WP:DR. Personally, however, I wish to remind you of the first advice over at the WP:NPA page, namely: "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it." In this case, my best advice is to recommend you to simply forget about having visited Pyxis home page at all.

Now, since you specifically asked me, I have given you a brief answer. Please do not discuss this issue with me any further. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Olsen Gang

Jag ser ingenting på talkpagen som tyder på att den svenska titlen inte borde vara med. Vad menar du?★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In English please. Patience, Padawan. CapnZapp (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. But it's fun to get to speak in your mother tough sometimes. :) ★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries - I realized it was my own fault. I didn't consider that adding Babel templates would be taken as an invitation. I realize now that is the obvious implication. CapnZapp (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I kind of took it like that. It's fine though if you prefer to converse in English.★Trekker (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Source for David Faustino

Stop reverting. It's a sufficient source for what it sources. I am not going to get into an edit war with you. Further reverts could result in disciplinary action. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask you to discuss this at the article talk page instead of here? This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the article. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk Corrupt Bargain

Think I fixed it. Appreciate the headsup. jengod (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WFRP

I've moved WFRP to WFRP-FM. WFRP is now a disambiguation page which you can expand. —Guanaco 04:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Great! CapnZapp (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Burgle (surname)

A tag has been placed on Burgle (surname) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Common sense Dab

   It seems i had started an edit on Common sense (disambiguation) before departing for Chamonix and Berlin, so i got EdConf when i tried to finish it! Looks like good work on your part.
   While i've taken to heart the points you made, i'm about to save; i'll then address, at Talk:Common sense#Books, something perhaps related to what you mentioned in a summary re its article. I expect your view on it to be valuable for my thinking.
--Jerzy•t 02:02 & :07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term "relaying" in OpenID article in section "Phishing"

Hi!

On 12 August 2017, you reverted an edit of mine (see above link). Wikipedia sent me your comment:

 Reverted good faith edits by Black Walnut (talk): Relay=recieve and pass on; rely=depend on, trust. (TW) 

Thank you for explaining your rationale.

I agree with the meaning of these words in the English dictionary. However, from the existing text in that same article, I understood that the word "relying" has a technical meaning in OpenID. I should also say that I don't know OpenID -- I came to this article to learn about it. The article says:

 Technical overview

 [..] A relying party (RP) is a web site or application that wants to verify the end-user's identifier.

The paragraph, which I thought wrong and had changed, currently says (italics are mine):

 Phishing

 Some observers have suggested that OpenID has security weaknesses and may prove vulnerable to phishing attacks.
 For example, a malicious relaying party may forward the end-user to a bogus identity provider [..]

The above paragraph uses the term "identity provider". This is an OpenID term. The paragraph also uses the term "relaying party". If I understand this correctly, the term used in OpenID to speak of this party is 'relying party' (see Technical overview, above). Given that this paragraph already uses OpenID terminology and given the similarity of the words "relaying" and "relying", I think it more helpful to the audience to consistently use OpenID's terminology, rather than the corresponding English words. This ensures a user won't get confused into using the wrong term.

If you agree with me, I leave it to you to reapply my change.

Thank you,
--Black Walnut (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes, that consideration escaped my notice before. I suppose you could put quotes around any technical term that otherwise could be mistaken for regular english as in this case: "relying party" instead of relying party. I'd recommend against adopting specific technical terms if it can be avoided - articles are to be written in English for non-experts, after all. CapnZapp (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I see a problem with that idea: the article uses that terminology (relying party, all lower case) everywhere. This instance is the only deviation.

I partially agree with you: jargon should not dominate nor be used without introduction. Nevertheless, humans create specialized vocabularies to facilitate, not to hinder communication. Specialized words, once introduced, enable more succinct explanations. This facilitates understanding.

So, I believe that an article which attempts to explain a specialized matter, especially if it endeavours to cover the domain's jargon, is bound to use that jargon after defining it.

Double quotes get awkward if overused. In this article, almost every sentence includes jargon. So, if we followed your proposal, almost every sentence would contain 1 or more double quoted words.

How do you feel about title-casing jargon words in the article? I.e. we change it to Relying Party. We'd have to do that for all technical terms introduced by the article.

Look it over and tell me what you think.
--Black Walnut (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

At this point I really think we should take a step back and look at the overall article quality. To be honest, this is probably where we need to remind ourselves of MOS:JARGON, our Manual of Style's section on technical language. In short, my answer is: don't do it. Any article with that kind of highly-specific technical language is a poor quality article. You shouldn't feel compelled to keep using the jargon introduced by a previous editor. It's quite possible the article was once created by a simple copypaste of OpenID's user manuals. In that case, what really is needed is a complete rewrite, discarding the existing explanations. My best advice to you is: If you don't feel capable of explaining the article subject without using highly specific language, then don't and leave it to another editor. But I'm certainly no expert myself. Good luck CapnZapp (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The article's talk page supports your view that the article should be rewritten. Personally, I thought the article lacked concision and focus, so I don't disagree. I lack the time to undertake a rewrite.

I reread MOS:JARGON. I still believe that you were wrong to undo my edit (relaying -> relying). That single instance of the word "relaying" is inconsistent with the rest of the article. It confused me, and I had to reread the article. Hence my edit. As an incremental change, I think it was beneficial.

You remain unconvinced, so I am dropping the matter.

I will say this: the OpenID standard uses unfortunate vocabulary. Many standards do. But an article on OpenID that avoided that vocabulary would be unhelpful.
--Black Walnut (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

November 2017 part 1

Please stop adding unsourced content to Jail bait. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017 pt 2- Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Jail bait shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)