User talk:Cengime

Welcome!
Hello, Cengime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --TommyBoy (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

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


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


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


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

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

Closed case
Hello Cengime. These recent edits should probably be removed, since the case is closed. If you think these IPs are being operated by someone who was sanctioned by name in the WP:ARBSAQ case, or in its enforcement log, just file at WP:SPI and identify the sockmaster. Let me know if you do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed my above diff. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Mail
--Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Achilles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elektra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

June 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Atheism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. clpo13(talk) 18:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

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

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

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

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Cengime! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Helding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albrecht of Brandenburg. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * The article is about books which state the dates of their publication. Those books are the source. Please have a look in the books which are the subject of the article, the Compendio della dottrina cristiana and the Catechismo della dottrina cristiana, before once again restoring the former text which is no less unsourced, and also is false. That you found the false date "1908" already existing on Wikipedia is not a justification for repeatedly restoring it to the article in the face of what the sources clearly say. - Cal Engime (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One last time: WP:BURDEN, Citing sources. Veverve (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. ''Please revert your revert. Otherwise, I will open an AN.''. Veverve (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Catechism of Saint Pius X. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Untamed1910 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

"Go (game" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_(game&redirect=no Go (game] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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


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