User talk:Sampajanna

Sampajanna

— Wikipedian —

GO AHEAD. Underestimate me. You won't be the first.

Sampajanna has been active on Wikipedia for 10 years, 1 month and 5 days.

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY :

This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily

reflect on the value of her/his/their contributions to Wikipedia.

en-5This user can contribute with a professional level of English.

This user has a Diploma in Professional Communication.

This user has a Bachelor of Arts degree.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

This user is a member on the English Wikipedia.

This user studies History at postgraduate level.

WP:HA

This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia.

It is approximately 10:47 AM where this user lives.

Because of real life, this user will be editing on and off.

Please do not feed the trolls

The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

References

Wikipedia NOT a means of promotion

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. See Wikipedia:Advocacy.
2. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.
3. Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
4. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
5. Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

References

A thought bubble

Sampajanna has been active on Wikipedia for 10 years, 1 month and 5 days.

Consensus flowchart

A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.

Impasse outlined

A bargaining impasse occurs when the two sides negotiating an agreement are unable to reach an agreement and become deadlocked. The word may also refer to any situation in which no progress can be made. Impasses provide opportunities for problem solving to provide an insight that leads to progress. Some theorists contend that impasses are used by negotiating parties in situations of imperfect information as a method of signalling to the other side the seriousness of their position. Impasse provides a credible signal that a party’s position is genuine and not merely an ambit claim. Additionally, an impasse may arise if parties suffer from self-serving bias. Most disputes arise in situations where facts are able to be interpreted in multiple ways, and if parties interpret the facts to their own benefit they may be unable to accept the opposing party’s claim as reasonable. They may believe the other side is either bluffing or acting unfairly and deserves to be punished.

Edit warring

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.

Please do not feed trolls ...
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses. WP:HA

Sampajanna has been active on Wikipedia for 10 years, 1 month and 5 days.

NOTE : Please try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

WP:BLP violation

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have just removed your post abusing the subject of the Yassmin Abdel-Magied article. WP:BLP applies to talk pages (WP:BLPTALK refers). Given that you apparently have strong views on this person and feel a need to express them on Wikipedia, despite this being explicitly not permitted per WP:BLP, I would strongly encourage you to keep away from this article in the future given that you may have difficulties editing it in a neutral way. I note that I have previously warned you for BLP violations regarding this article's content. Please see below for the standard notification regarding WP:BLP: please note that this also warning that you may face discretionary sanctions or other penalties if similar conduct occurs again. This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC) @Nick-D: Receipt of your notification above is hereby acknowledged in regard to comments made on a talk page with another editor. Of course, it is your prerogative as a Wikipedia administrator to interpret as you see fit. I am not disputing that fact at all. Nevertheless, what does somewhat bemuse me is your statement that you have previously warned me for BLP violations regarding "this" article's content. How long ago was that? Sampajanna (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC) April 2018, on this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Sampajanna has been active on Wikipedia for 10 years, 1 month and 5 days. @Nick-D: Thank you for responding so promptly and advising that the previous incident was twelve months ago. As I mentioned (further down) on the appropriate talk page with the editor who recently revived the two year old "most hated muslim in australia" discussion, there tends to be a flurry of online activity (especially leading up to Anzac Day on 25 April) surrounding Yassmin Abdel-Magied, often extremely flattering or disparaging. It seems to be a seasonal phenomenom. Naturally enough, things should quiet down again in about three weeks from now when no more Anzac Day media attention is received. The due diligence and vigilance of Wikipedia admins, such as yourself, is always much appreciated. Sampajanna (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC) @Nick-D: Furthermore, my response on this talk page dated 22 April 2018 immediately following the one you linked to above addressed the concerns you raised in April last year. It seems that there was a specific issue with paraphrasing a news story (with a headline echoing comments made by the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) and possible misunderstanding (in good faith) about the sources cited, to which I indicated that I would endeavour to paraphrase or cite more formally in future. Sampajanna (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Sampajanna has been active on Wikipedia for 10 years, 1 month and 5 days.

Do NOT feed trolls

The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

Civil behaviour

Congratulations

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, type {{helpme}} on your own talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Abonnieren and contribute to The Signpost   Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it.

Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

1909 : Group photo in front of Clark University USA.
Front row: Sigmund Freud, G. Stanley Hall, Carl Jung.
Back row: Abraham A. Brill, Ernest Jones, Sándor Ferenczi.

The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

Macro photography of natural snowflake

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Megan Markle Dutches

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You reverted my edits claiming "Your talk page states that you are a paid editor for someone .." Yes true, but that doesn't mean I cannot make edits to any other Wiki pages. If you know something I am not aware of please send me link to this guideline. Also my edits was based on sources I disclosed! Martinvince (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC) @User:Martinvince - This is what you actually wrote: "The Netflix deal is said to be worth $100 million USD.", and the reasons given for undoing it were "Speculation .... Otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia .." and "Verifiable facts only, please." The WP:CONFLICT was later noticed on your talk page. Sampajanna 12:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Verifiability Gossip: dishing or tattling Gossip is a mass medium or rumour, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. The act is also known as dishing or tattling.

CSS Font Family List

Browsers do not support all the fonts, so you need to use multiple fonts to be on safer side.

CSS font-family defines the priority for the browser to choose the font from multiple fonts.

There are 2 types of font families which you can use –

• Specific Font-Family – This is a specific type of font like Arial, Verdana, Tahoma
• Generic Font-Family – This is a General Font and almost all browsers support
  this generic font family. Example: serif, Sans-serif etc. Sampajanna

References

Exclamation

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No need to mention where the ! came from. I knew, it came from breathless fluff morning talk, it's not encyclopedic approach nor worthwhile use, it's screaming-fan giddiness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC) User:Alanscottwalker : No need to complicate matters unnecessarily and create a need to insert ellipsis points. Sampajanna (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC) That has nothing to do with exclamation points. And, you have now oddly flipped around 'pregnant again'/'again pregnant' several times on that article, not me. And, please, don't mis-use article edit summaries, come to my talk page if you want to tell me something, or if it's really important to an article, go to the article talk page to address me, and talk to me, there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC) User:Alanscottwalker : Remember to breathe. Enjoy the feeling ... Exaggeration is the representation of something as more extreme or dramatic than it really is. Sampajanna (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Sorry, you are not making any sense. It's bizarre for you to mention my breathing, when I obviously am, and post exaggerated pictures in this discussion. Remember to try to stay on topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC) User:Alanscottwalker : Again, "No need to complicate matters unnecessarily and create a need to insert ellipsis points." The reference supplied may help with your grammar. Please read it carefully before commenting further. Sampajanna (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC) You're still not making any sense, and you're still not on topic. That says nothing about exclamation points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC) User:Alanscottwalker : Go to page again by firstly clicking on link here, scroll down to 2nd paragraph. Then, read this part very carefully : "How are ellipsis points used? Ellipsis points are used to represent an omission from a direct quotation when it is cited by another writer." Take your time. Sampajanna (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Are you unable to be straight forward? Just tell me, in your own words, what you think that has to do with exclamation points. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC) User:Alanscottwalker : Okay. Seeing as that is beyond your grasp, go back to your opening comment in this talk. Please try to focus and stay on track : "No need to mention where the ! came from. I knew, it came from breathless fluff morning talk, it's not encyclopedic approach nor worthwhile use, it's screaming-fan giddiness. Alanscottwalker" Be aware that you, Alanscottwalker, made that comment after I explained on the Meghan Markle edit @ 00:59, 16 February 2021‎ Sampajanna "Please read carefully, User:Alanscottwalker : Exclamation is part of news feature title in citation ..." This straightforward piece of English was in response to your earlier comment @ 19:55, 15 February 2021‎ Alanscottwalker →‎Marriage to Prince Harry: "very poor, superfluous, use of quote for a two word phrase, and no need for another citation. And avoid (!) exclamations." To dumb that down even further for you, Alanscottwalker, the exclamation mark that you mention is a part of a direct quote. That is, a news article title, which was included in the reference to support the two-word (noun / adverb) order that you unnecessarily changed in a previous edit. By boldly stating: And avoid (!) exclamations.", you are not allowing for the exception in English where anything left out of a direct quote (in this case) should be substituted with an ellipsis or brackets. In other words, your preferred omission of one character (!) could involve extra characters ( ... ) anyway to justify its absence as it is a part of a direct quote. Sampajanna (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC) It's good you got around to explaining yourself, even with your silly asides. Because now, we can see your errors. I never proposed, nor supported using a quote at all, so I certainly never supported nor proposed using an ellipses. Thus, your commentary on ellipses has been irrelevant and off-track, all along. I had earlier made a very slight word order change in two word text which was not in a quote (the edit summary for which was the abbr. for copy edit), and I never insisted on changing the words to reverse the order thereafter, but you than did multiple flipping of those words, which is quite incomprehensible and unnecessary. (And, by the way, source titles are never good for encyclopedia article content. They are often written as click-bait, and lack context). Hopefully, at least, you now see why, edit summaries are not the place for you to address me. Address the article content in edit summaries. Address fellow editors on talk pages, where discussions can occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC) ______________________________________ Because of real life, this user will be editing on and off. Respond to User:Alanscottwalker : Your magnanimity and exaggeration condescends me. As for using the Royal "we" in your comment above, try clicking the following MOS:ELLIPSIS and accept responsibility for improving your own English language skills in future, instead of wasting time going off on tangents and talking in circles. Sampajanna (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Ellipses Use an ellipsis (plural ellipses) if material is omitted in the course of a quotation, unless square brackets are used to gloss the quotation (see § Brackets and parentheses, and the points below). Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...); do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…) or three dots separated by spaces (. . .) Generally, use a non-breaking space before an ellipsis, and a regular space after it: "Alpha, Bravo,{{nbsp}}... Zulu" But where an ellipsis is immediately followed by any of . ? ! : ; , ) ] } or by a closing quotation mark (single or double), use a non-breaking space before the ellipsis, and no space after it: Jones wrote, "These stories amaze me. The facts suffer so frightfully{{nbsp}}..." "But what of the other cities? London, Paris{{nbsp}}...?" (Place terminal punctuation after an ellipsis only if it is textually important, as is often the case with exclamation marks and question marks but rarely with periods.) Or, if the ellipsis immediately follows a quotation mark, use no space before the ellipsis, and a non-breaking space after it: He continued to pursue Smith ("...{{nbsp}}to the ends of the earth", he had sworn) until his own death. Pause or suspension of speech Three dots are occasionally used to represent a pause in or suspense of speech, in which case the punctuation is retained in its original form: Virginia's startled reply was "Could he ...? No, I can't believe it!". When it indicates an incomplete word, no space is used between the word fragment(s) and the ellipsis: The garbled transmission ended with "We are stranded near San L...o", interpreted as a reference to either San Leandro or San Lorenzo. With square brackets Occasionally, square brackets are placed around an ellipsis to make clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted, for example if the quoted passage itself contains an ellipsis (She retorted: "How do I feel? How do you think I ... This is too much! [...] Take me home!"). ______________________________________ References Do NOT feed trolls The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls." In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

Archewell

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Of course it's subjective. But I cannot see any way that someone would confuse a brand name with an individual. To me, it looks more like a sly plug for Weller. Valetude (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC) A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Sampajanna (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC) References

UPE template

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please feel free to respond on the RfC on whether to say in the UPE template that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template. Before: After: The idea came about from the sockpuppet investigation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive in which over 87 articles got the undisclosed paid editing template, and I'm writing to you because you removed that template from the article on Alan Joyce (executive) on 13:34, 11 January 2021, and so would have some familiarity with the events. My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations). CUPIDICAE💕 has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that. As of this writing nobody else has responded. Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC. Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is one of the traits in the dark triad model, along with psychopathy and narcissism.

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism is a personality trait centered on manipulativeness, callousness, and indifference to morality. Though unrelated to the historical figure or his works, the trait is named after the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli, as psychologists Richard Christie and Florence Geis used edited and truncated statements inspired by his works to study variations in human behaviors. Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale (High Machs) are more likely to have a high level of deceitfulness and an unempathetic temperament.

References

POTUS

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in President of the United States, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC) User:Eyer Thank you for reverting my good faith edit. That is, changing one letter by capitalizing it at the start of a word. Sampajanna (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Sampajanna has been active on Wikipedia for 10 years, 1 month and 5 days.

Archie Harrison

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just posed the question here to avoid any misunderstandings. All the best. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC) @No Swan So Fine: Please do not leave one only message on my talk page, then close it as an 'Off topic discussion'. See comment already left in the edit summary for Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor : Because Archie was born to a U.S. citizen, he is considered a "natural born citizen" Sampajanna (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC) No Swan So Fine : Please do not alter coding on my own talk page in future ... See the request directory for a comprehensive directory of interactive services and assistance that can be requested on Wikipedia. Sampajanna (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC) As I am writing this, I do not know where this message will appear on your talk page. I used the 'plus' button to post a new message earlier, as I have done for all of the new messages I've posted in the last 15 years. It evidently posted itself as an 'off topic discussion', though this was not my intention. I did find your talk page difficult to navigate owing to the use of images. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC) @No Swan So Fine: Get off my page. Wikipedia is not social media. You are being a nuisance while I am trying to repair your unintentional vandalism with my coding. This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Sampajanna (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC) DrKay : Thanks for your input. There was no need for No Swan So Fine to post on my talk page in the first place, as I had already commented in the edit summary of the Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor article. Sampajanna (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC) This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia.

Thomas Markle

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sampajanna, what you have done now is to delete the name of Andrew Morton from the citation. An authorlink= on its own does not display the name on the page. I do not like the Cite book template, but if you are going to edit it you need to understand that it needs three parameters, first=, last=, and authorlink=. Yes, each name appears more than once. No, it is not repetition. Sigh. Moonraker (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Oh dear, Moonraker. Thanks for letting me know. Sampajanna (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring result

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RESULT : User:Sampajanna reported by User:SecretName101 (Result: Both warned)*[1] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC) @SecretName101: Wow. That was fast. I am in another part of the world and not always in front of a screen. You seem to ask for an apology at 23:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC). At 23:54, you report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Then, post also to the Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry page as well, possibly to name and shame me. As this is now a Wikipedia administrative matter, I shall respect SecretName101's privacy by not making any further comment about this administrative matter on this particular talk page. Sampajanna (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC) That does not read to me like a move to "respect my privacy", but rather a move to get the last word. Stop doing this. It was part of my complaint that you prematurely closed another discussion to get the last word. After I asked for an apology, I saw you had already given your opinion on giving an apology to me. "Very droll". No Swan So Fine had asked you to apologize, and that is how you responded. You were granted ample opportunity, as I repeatedly told you that you were being rude. You never apologized. You were specifically asked to apologize by No Swan So Fine, and responded that way. I was not rash in reporting this matter. And, still, I see no apology. You could still apologize. You've been reported, but if you knew you were wrong you'd apologize regardless. You clearly don't realize you were acting wrongly. SecretName101 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC) RESULT : User:Sampajanna reported by User:SecretName101 (Result: Both warned)*[2]Sampajanna (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behaviour, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses.

Nomination of Bob East for deletion

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob East is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob East until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Abu Sayyaf

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Howdy hello! I see you recently made a bunch of "dummy edits" on Abu Sayyaf to try to tell me something. However, thats not really a preferred or effective way of communication. If you have that much to say, it is best to leave a note on the article talk page with a ping, or leave a note on the user's talk page :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC) @CaptainEek: Thanks for your comments. I have since been advised of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob East, one of the academic sources for the Abu Sayyaf. Dr East is a researcher and author whose specialised area of interest is criminality and terrorism in the southern Philippines, specifically Abu Sayyaf. The nomination for deletion tends to supersede my comments to you. Sampajanna (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Quotations

Hi Sampajanna! Thought I'd give some broader context because I saw your edit summary The text or punctuation of a direct quote is normally not altered and though it's something I see sometimes, it's very far from what MOS actually says.

• Per MOS:QWQ, For a quotation within a quotation, use single quotes. That's what applies in this case. The reason is because syntactically in the English language, an open quote, ", closes as soon as the next time the same character appears, " (one nuance at the end). So "From the very first headline about her being "(almost) straight outta Compton" and having "exotic" DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore" actually "quotes" the following passages: (1) From the very first headline about her being; (2) exotic; (3) typographical error with the last quote not being matched to anything. Obviously undesirable. (The one nuance is that this is evaluated "from the inside-out", so that nested quotes like "He said, 'I was listening to a speech and they said, "Punctuation is important."'" parse correctly.)
• MOS:PMC permits changing of a noun within brackets when the context is different e.g. "I was sad" can become "[Smith] was sad".
• Typographical alignments like changing curly quotes within an original text to straight quotes (MOS:CURLY, MOS:CONFORM) are made.
• Links e.g. to Wiktionary if an obscure term is used, or to an article if an obscure reference is made in the quote, are occasionally acceptable under MOS:LINKQUOTE.
• Per MOS:PMC, even corrections of typos are to be done silently, so quoting "It was essentailly a matter of taste" exactly is explicitly disallowed.

Just thought I'd let you know in future, as the actual MOS, A quotation is not a facsimile and, in most cases, it is not a requirement that the original formatting be preserved (MOS:CONFORM), is not always applied correctly. Let me know if you have any questions! — Bilorv (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)