Home	Talk	Pages	Commons	Wikisource

Archives

Archive 1

I was disappointed in your edit to Mary Ramsey. You did a disservice to readers by creating a disambiguation paged where there was only one other Mary Ramsey. A Hatnote at the top of Mary Ramsey would have been far more effective WP:Hatnote WP:D2D. BuffaloBob (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going back and forth which to do, but the lack of any sources in the musicians article lead me to believe that it wasn't particularly the primary topic. I didn't think the other article was primary either (WP:NOPRIMARY). I don't know about calling edits you disagree with a disservice to readers. If we want to change it back it shouldn't be to difficult. Cakelot1 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On which wiki could be the additional details that were in the Natural Disaster Survival article, although I am concerned about the images that may be being used in the article. ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 16:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex, I was just posting a message on your talk page page explaining in more detail my revert. Fundamentally, all content on Wikipedia needs to be based on Reliable sources (see WP:V). Much of the content is available on The Roblox Wiki, images and all. I'm sure they'd be very appreciative of enthusiastic editors looking to work on Roblox articles. We can't keep images anyway if they are not absolutely necessary to understand the text, per WP:NFCC. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cakelot1 But are you sure that the article can still be understood without the other details that were in it? ~ Alex | Leave me a message on my talk page! 16:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a real world perspective. As I said we are not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. So if by understand you mean be able to learn how to play the game, then that's not the goal. Instead, a reader should be able to read the article and understand how it's been used to in Disaster Preparedness Education [Per (Findlay 2017)] or what windows central has to say about it, ([1]). It is on the basis of these sources that the article looks like it's going to be kept at [AFD] with the understanding that the article be re-worked to use them. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. if you want a wider discussion on the direction the article it would probably be good to discuss them at the article's talk page Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Natural Disaster Survival, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's recently brought them back, Here is the source. https://www.today.com/today/amp/rcna111457 23.245.47.124 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because Teletoon became Cartoon Network on March 27th. 23.245.47.124 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Unawoken (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cakelot1. Thank you for your work on Smoky (Olympic mascot). User:Skynxnex, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the nice little article about a fun subject!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Skynxnex}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Skynxnex (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User

                  Even if the latest edit I had made to the article related to NNN is not supported by the source, it makes sense in the article and for the reader. Please kindly revert the edit.

Thank you Y-7.html (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Y-7.html, The reason I have linked to WP:OR in each of my reverts was to hopefully explain why we can't we can't include thing just because makes sense in the article and for the reader when they aren't supported by the sources. Too explain it further we prohibit original research and require that every claim made be Verifiable by a Reliable sources (see WP:V). I'll also point you too some essays that may be helpful: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source.

If you want the content included, I would advice you to find a Reliable sources that make the claim your trying to make (see WP:RSP for examples of good and bad sources) and then include it in a footnote. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agreed. From next time I will come with a reliable source for my edits.

Thank you Y-7.html (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as per MOS:LEAD, In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. that is why Destroy Dick December is there at the start, and if it is in the start then (per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT) Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section hope this make sense FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and MOS:LEAD, thank you. I don't think it's important enough a part of the topic to be included in the lead (seeing as it only has one source and in my view takes up far to much of the article's body as it is). However, I don't have as strong opinions on this as you do, so I'm quite happy to leave it how you like. Perhaps in future, however, you could try to assume a bit more good faith and not use such patronizing edit summaries such as implying other editors are confused, when they may just disagree with you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well you should advise yourself before reverting edits without discussion, at least I am here and not just reverting edits of experienced editors without discussion.

And If it is more 30% of the article I think it is "important" FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. You may notice it's not Bold, Revert, Revert & Chastise.

As I say I don't particularly care but I personally don't think that that amount of the article is WP:DUE, seeing only 1/6th of the sources are about it (and that source in question is the yellow WP:DAILYDOT). The whole DDD thing could probably be paired back to a short sentence in the main section. The article is set up now (in my view) gives disproportional weight to DDD. Then again the whole topic of NNN is only very marginally notable itself, so who knows. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. just to make it clear I'm very happy to leave the article as is and I admit I may have been a bit quick to revert, the article is vandalism magnet and, particularly during this month, major changes to it are often less well thought out. Additionally if the bold text is in the lead you may want to redirect Destroy Dick December to be pointing at the lead instead. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, I understand the in November this article is attacked constantly. Thanks for keeping an eye out and sorry for sounding a little bit patronising. I should have known better. take care FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually gone a-head and reduced the content to the a single sentence after going back over the daily dot source (and seeing that like half of it's coveredge is about the far-right & NNN). It just wasn't very WP:DUE imo. I don't think this should affect the lead however and I'm happy to leave that as is. Many Thanks Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you edit and I really I do not think it fits WP:DUE which is normally used for differing views. I think what you removed is actually useful for the reader and I hope you can revert the edit yourself. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PROPORTION we should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. I just don't see how one WP:DAILYDOT twitter trend piece with about as much to say about the Far-right & NNN as it does about DDD, justified what in my view are extremely trivial and pretty WP:ORish sentence about the total number of ejaculations a challenge involves (when that isn't in the source). Now I know Routine calculations are allowed but I wouldn't consider these routine and if the one middling quality source we have for this doesn't think it worthy of motioning we shouldn't either. I also don't think usefulness is a good argument to keep the content when that's not how we decide what goes into articles.

If we are going to continue this conversation it would probably be best to move it onto the articles talk page. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]