User talk:G.-M. Cupertino

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, G.-M. Cupertino, 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 discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Alekjds ^talk 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator for emergencies

EyeSerene^talk G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nogueira Ferrão

You may be interested in cleaning up the article Nogueira Ferrão. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Karl Albrecht of Austria

I see that you have been able to work out the issue with the ancestry template for Karl Albrecht. Please let me know if you require any more assistance--I'm always happy to help! --Caponer (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see what you mean (I thought you were saying that the Karl Albrecht template was not working properly). After playing with the article's code for a half an hour, I'm still unable to ascertain why the templates aren't showing up correctly. I even modified the succession boxes at the bottom to see if that was causing a problem, but it isn't. I'll continue to inquire with the template powers that be. --Caponer (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal articles

I am an inclusionist, but I usually only create articles for princesses who marry sovereign rulers or other major European royals, especially when they have produced issue who are notable individuals. In order to have articles, princesses have to have some measure of notability or else administrators tend to delete them. --Caponer (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Anyone can give Barnstars for any reason! --Caponer (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ting Tings

Thanks for your well-worded response, that certainly clears a few things up. I apologise if I appeared abrupt or rude in my message, it was just that my edits were being undone without any explanation, and some of which I had spent some time doing, such as painstakingly researching and adding the specific dates of performances, as well as removing other vandalism.

However, I still feel that dates are just that, dates, not titles of episodes, some programmes such as chat shows do not technically have episode titles, so a simple date stating when they appeared on that particular show is more suited to the list. Furthermore, episodes are not italicised anyway, if you check any proper Wikipedia article on TV series, you will see that episodes are merely wrapped in quote marks like "this". Once again though, thanks for your reply. Feudonym (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please read WP:MOS. It states that episode titles are not to be in italics. Double quotes such as "this" are to be used for episode titles, songs, and short stories. Whereas italics are to be used for film titles, television show titles, and titles of plays. Dismas|^(talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

You asked how to find out what articles a particular editor has edited. That can be found by looking at their contributions. To do that, go to either the User's page or their talk page and click on the "User contributions" link in the toolbox on the left hand side of the page. Dismas|^(talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I'm curious about something. You never seem to leave an edit summary and often times when I leave reasons for my edits in my summary, you don't seem to be reading them. So I just wanted to make sure that you knew they were there. You can also see all the summaries if you go to the history of an article. So, were you aware of them? Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't meant as arguments. They're meant to point out the guidelines that I'm following when I'm making my edits. Partially, so that others can learn why those edits should be made. So when you ignore them, it leads to a lot of frustration. It would do you a lot of good to read the guidelines and policies that are linked in those summaries. Dismas|^(talk) 13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification re wikilinks

I think I need to clarify some of the statements I've made about wikilinking dates, since I've noticed that you seem to be taking my comments out of context and using them to justify edit-warring with other editors.

As a general rule, the only wikilinks that should be present in an article are those that add depth to that article. We do not link common words, dates etc unless there is a very good reason to do so. Practically, this means that we would only add such wikilinks in exceptional circumstances - the vast majority of articles should not include low-value links. There is, as I said previously, some room for discretion... but not very much. Your insistence on adding inappropriate links, especially where other editors have agreed they should be removed, is becoming disruptive, and edit-warring to keep such links in an article - even if you were right - is specifically against Wikipedia policy. Please take a moment to reconsider next time you find yourself getting into one of these essentially trivial, and easily avoidable, disputes; further disruption may result in this account being blocked. EyeSerene^talk 13:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The problem is that these, too, are seen as 'minor' links because they add little extra value to an article. Personally I think they have some value, but current guidelines and consensus seem to be pretty strongly against them... and that's what we all have to abide by, whether we agree or not. Anyone who has been here a while has been on the wrong side of a consensus, but that's just Wikipedia; the best course is to give in with as good grace as possible, drop it, and move on ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]