User:Chuckstreet/help

=TALK HELP=

Welcome!

=TALK MESSAGES ARCHIVED=

Disambiguation link notification for July 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of compositions by Alexander Scriabin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikolai Zhilyayev ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_compositions_by_Alexander_Scriabin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_compositions_by_Alexander_Scriabin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 20:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Brahms compositions
I have performed a page move for you based on the merge you have made on List of compositions by Johannes Brahms. Thank you for any diligence in this matter. However, I advise starting a merge discussion if anyone becomes opposed to a merge; see WP:PM for instructions on starting a discussion. Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  15:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * JalenFolf, when you made the page move from List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number to List of compositions by Johannes Brahms, you inadvertently deleted the existing History for the move-to page. I think WP rules require the History to be preserved. Before this move, the move-to page contained a redirect from a split in 2011, and contained extensive history up to that point. Now it just contains the History copied from the move-from page, which begins in 2011, the date of the split. Please restore the History prior to 2011.


 * The merge you refer to was from List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by genre to List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number, which I'd already completed by following the WP how-to steps, including blanking the merge-from page and adding a redirect, which edit you inexplicably reverted, though your page move a few minutes later auto-reverted your revert and put the redirect back in. That merge-from page has only History back to 2011 as well, as that page was the other fork of the 2011 split. All history of the Johannes Brahms List prior to 2011 is gone – needs to be restored if possible.


 * Chuckstreet (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed everything re the main list. The pre-2011 list's history is at . Graham 87 09:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Brahms Talk discussion
Hello. I put the Arbitrary Break in for a reason, and I find it ill-mannered that you keep changing it. Do you by any chance feel that you OWN that section? You don't. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Referring to your rather abusive comments here and in the edit summary of your last edit on Talk:Brahms:

Nobody is changing your post except you. You've made several changes correcting punctuation and typos. The problem was you added a subsection using wiki markup that I believe you intended as a title to your post, possibly to make it stand out or just divide up the main thread, which is a fine idea, but the markup had the unintended side-effect of subbing (marginalizing) all future posts into your subsection rather than continue in the main discussion thread. I don't believe you intended to do this, so I substituted your equals "=" with a non-wiki-markup symbol like a bullet "•", which you can change to something else if you like. Be aware that once a subsection is initiated by indenting (using one more = than the last section header), it can't be undone - there's no way to END a subsection and go back to the previous section; outline hierarchy doesn't work that way.

Chuckstreet (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh, could you just take it (all) a bit lighter. "Arbitrary break" is a standard subheader when discusions get too long. All no reason to even think of Great Dismal Swamp, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of California Press, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/University_of_California_Press check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/University_of_California_Press?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"Berthold Litzmann" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Berthold Litzmann. Since you had some involvement with the Berthold Litzmann redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Geolodus (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Berthold Litzmann


A tag has been placed on Berthold Litzmann, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that has essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia Foundation project. Please see Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 06:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

New message from DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered
DBaK (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnes (Debussy)
I would like to inform you that I have reverted some of your recent edits on Nocturnes (Debussy), particularly those this and this. Please note that Wikipedia's section of the Manual of Style regarding boldface says that bold cannot be used freely and has a few specific purposes, not one of which is making a title stand out. Also, the section on paragraphs mandates that there should only be one blank line between paragraphs and that first lines are never indented. We have a Manual of Style in order to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance throughout our articles. You are free to make stylistic choices that aren't forbidden by the Manual of Style and aren't obviously a bad idea. If you disagree with any provision of the Manual of Style (abbreviated MoS), you can open a discussion on the talk page.

I have found that your other edits have been satisfactory. You have really helped the article, thanks for working on it! To contact me back, please append your message with "". From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edits you made. There's no MOS "violation" here. I've read it and the only thing it frowns on is first-line indent of paragraphs, so I removed those and added a (single) blank line between paragraphs instead (though not between list items). There's nothing in MOS that prohibits bold in level 2 section headers; it just says wiki automatically ADDS bold to level 3 and greater so adding your own bold is redundant and does nothing. MOS doesn't even use the word "freely" anywhere. And your reference to using bold to make a TITLE stand out has nothing to do with SECTION HEADERS. As for blank lines, the problem is there are NO blank lines between paragraphs and sometimes between section headers and the preceding paragraph, normally. So I added a single blank line for easier delineation.
 * Anyway, when you did a mass revert, you undid some other edits that have nothing to do with your complaint; please pay attention next time. Better yet, there was already a discussion on the talk page about the unique formatting I've experimented with: you should have posted your comments there (instead of on my talk page here), otherwise your edits can be construed as disruptive. Your constructive comments and suggestions are welcome in that discussion, of course! I am soliciting them in order to make the page better; that's the goal! But please don't fling around "MOS violations" when you don't know what you're talking about or you think that I don't know what I'm talking about. Chuckstreet (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Chuckstreet, do you know WP:BRD? To avoid edit wars, whenever you are reverted, don't revert back but discuss on the article's talk page, even if you are sure you are right. In this particular case, I already started that discussion, because I agree with . I won't revert you, but please discuss why you believe this article should look different from all others I know. - I remember that in my beginning, I bolded many things, for extra attention. I came to like to bold very little, for neutrality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure I know BRD, but I guess AnUnnamedUser doesn't. He reverted instead of joining the discussion. What was funny was that he reverted himself, his previous 3 edits! And also your previous edit (it removed authority control). And also some corrections I had made to the instrumentation. That kind of editing is disruptive and frustrating to fix. But you say you agree with him, however you have a completely different angle. You are making some constructive comments and suggestions and asking questions about it. AnUnnamedUser was just throwing around supposed rules (which for the most part were fictitious) complaining that I was violating them. Very different way of "contributing". Your way is better of course. I might take his way seriously if he wasn't so full of it, and if he had discussed on the article's talk page instead of on mine. Anyway, I replied to your comments/suggestions on the Nocturnes talk page. Chuckstreet (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "I agree with him" was short (little time) for "I agree with his look at the formatting", not for "I agree with his way of contributing". Strictly speaking, AUU was correct: when things look like conflict, restore the state before. I rather go for discussion, - on the article talk now, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But what's funny is he didn't do what you're thinking he did. He didn't revert me at all. He reverted himself and you! The edit history shows it: he made 3 edits, then his fourth was to revert back TO the last good version by ME. Then in the same edit, he made changes to a bunch of things, good and bad, making a mess. Chuckstreet (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Nocturnes (Debussy). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon: I made no attacks. But that doesn't apply to vandals anyway. Though I made no personal attacks on vandals either. I tend to just laugh at their antics. Better for my health. :) Chuckstreet (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Editors who enforce the MOS are not vandals.  The MOS doesn't say that exceptions are not permitted because it doesn't need to say that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon: Okay I know the difference between vandalism and disruptive editing. I should have said "disruptive editor". But any editor that claims to be enforcing (strong word) MOS, isn't necessarily actually doing so. AnUnnamedUser was a disruptive editor. He'd rather fling mud instead of discussing intelligently the issue at hand. And (back to the initial subject here) that's not an "attack" on my part to point that out and say that. It's also not an attack to revert someone, and explain why in the edit summary, though editors will sometimes "see red" after they've been reverted, and take it as a personal attack. I know: I've been there. :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Further note: It's also not an attack if an editor deletes disruptive behavior, especially if it's done on one's own talk page. AnUnnamedUser continues to post to my talk page with his nonsense (as he did just a minute ago), and then he complains about my comment in the edit summary telling him to "go away you weirdo". He IS a weirdo! :-| Oh, and disruptive editing, if repeated many times IS considered vandalism. Sometimes it's a pain to correct, but I still have to laugh at these guys! And if my laugh is called an attack, then tough titty! :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Chuckstreet. CodeLyoko talk  00:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that I did not file this, but are just notifying you. CodeLyoko  talk  00:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not interested in GreatDismalSwamp but thank you. I think. I've got better things to do... excuse me, my body's finished with digestion, time to take out the colloquial trash... Chuckstreet (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Does it take so long? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes actually it does sometimes :-/ But not to be too gross, I need a break. Needed to get out of bed and work on some things around the house and get some things going and get some other things a-gone, and uh yeah, that sorta thing, you know... I'm deliriously tired again. Too much WP. But I was working offline too. Now we just have to get rid of whatsisname so we can have a peacefully edittalk time. Chuckstreet (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

=SANDBOX HELP=