Please add new talk topics in new sections, at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes will expand into your signature).

I will reply here, and expect you to be watching my user talk page, even if you are Nyttend.

Another styletip ... Quotations: allowable typographical changes Although the requirement of minimal change in direct quotations is strict, a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be conformed to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment. These include the following: Use the style chosen for the article: unspaced em dash or spaced en dash. Set apostrophes and quotation marks straight, not curly. Remove spaces before punctuation such as periods, colons, and %. When integrating the quotation into the grammar of a larger sentence, downcase the first letter of a quotation that is in upper case purely because it starts a sentence in the source (It turned out to be true that "a penny saved is a penny earned"). But generally preserve bold and italic face, and the variety of English. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in ((Styletips))

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C ☎ 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For your work in standardising article titles in line with the now consistent MOS:JR guidance, I present you this accolade. Your continued work in this regard, and in others, has been appreciated. It may have taken years, but much was accomplished. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For an eternity of super-gnoming at WP:Requested moves to rein in entire swathes of article-titling chaos and bring them into order. I'm sure it can seem thankless work at times, so thanks!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is said by many that A picture is worth a thousand words. Wikipedia articles are vastly improved and enhanced by the use of images. Dicklyon's user page displays just some of the over 500 images he has added to Wikipedia articles making the articles more enjoyable and interesting for our most important commodity, our reader. WP:Photography. He is a long-time veteran editor with over 137000 edits (58% in mainspace) who always uses the edit summary to clarify his edits and communicate his intentions to following editors. He also participates in various timely and important WP:Manual of Style discussions to improve what and how we do things around here. A trusted, productive and helpful editor that deserves recognition as an Editor of the Week.

The Original Barnstar

I've started to note the many scholarly contributions of this author, beginning with editing of the Wikipedia Cintel pages. For images and vision, I've had a lifelong career in color grading for feature films, tv commercials, videos, etc. with telecine and other systems worldwide; as a musician, 'Human and Machine Hearing' will certainly be fascinating. Thank you to Richard F. Lyon for providing the PDF of this work to all. Lingelbach (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Fighting the Good Fight Barnstar
		For resisting those who would like Wikipedia’s capitalization rules to resemble a corporate brochure or a government press release —Wallnot (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is for your really thorough clean up after the Armenian genocide move discussion. My watchlist is full of your edits since days. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you! Biggerj1 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that's for these hacks:

• 
  Permutation test
• 
  Correlogram
• 
  Correlogram

	The Minor barnstar
	SO MANY MINOR EDITS! Thank you for your work. -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There we go again, commenting on the quantity of my edits instead of the quality. But minor thanks anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add new topics at the bottom please.

@SounderBruce: Thanks for your revert here. I'm not sure how it happened that I was getting warnings about unknown template parameters while editing that page, but I went ahead and removed them. Perhaps the template was transiently broken? Anyway, sorry; I'd do a "thanks" there, but apparently I can't while blocked. Your revert also including undoing my lowercasing at this edit. Did you disagree with those, or was that just collateral damage that I should fix again? Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's a template breakage issue, I may be able to fix it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea; the "no such parameter" messages came up on two consecutive edits. I didn't so anything about it the first time, then wen't back to "fix" it. I just tried editing the case-fixed version again, and still get the warning when I preview it. Same on the version before my edit. And same on the current version, now that I check. So, yes, something is still broken; not a transient. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SMcCandlish: let us know if this is something you can figure out. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. The problem was that quite a number of aliases had been added for various parameters, but no one added them to the error-checking code at the bottom of the template. As for the claim here that "the rounds are proper names and referred to as such by media", that's very dubious. Looking through news material, the capitalization (even of "MLS Cup playoffs" sometimes) is mixed, outside of headlines which tend to be title-case and/or to use capitalization for emphasis/attention. I regularly edit in other sports articles, and it is completely abnormal for WP to be capitalizing "semifinals", "finals", and other round terms. They are descriptive labels of segements of an event, not events in their own right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the fix. The other part of the discussion ended up at Talk:2020 MLS Cup Playoffs after SounderBruce ignored here and reverted me at his talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Took a look, then a long look through actual sources, and as usual it's another case trying to mimic the style of primary "official" sources and ignoring the overwhelming lowercase found in independent RS. Why am I not surprised.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So in general, when I see such warnings, I shouldn't just remove the unrecognized parameters, but rather check what they do, or call you for help? Sheesh, what good is a warning that's so broken? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Dicklyon,

I wanted to reach out because, re-reading some discussions and understanding how the ongoing disagreement regarding NFL Draft capitalization has been going, I want to make clear that I bare no ill will towards you and I hope that feeling is mutual. I respect and appreciate what you do and I don't want you to see me as an adversary.

Based on my comments about your block, I was concerned how you might think I feel about you. I do believe you deserved a short term block for edit warring (which came from the wrong person), but I don't want it to go beyond that. I don't believe you should need to be warned not to edit war prior prior to being blocked for edit warring because I think you should know better at this point. I'm simply not aware of any other editor who has been blocked more times for edit warring, as we typically see people blocked before they can rack up an 11th block for it.

With all that said, I like you and appreciate the knowledge you have. I'm not always going to be butting heads with you and I am with you a variety of issues. I'm sorry if at any point you've felt attacked or concerned that I may be targeting you or being unfair in any capacity, it's certainly never been my intention and I'm sorry I've come across as more of an asshole than I've meant to. It's been weighing on me a bit about how our interactions may have been interpreted, so I wanted to clear the air a bit. Hope you're well and stay well Dicklyon. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Josh, accepted. We're all human and need to be reminded of that sometimes. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Versailles Palace or Versailles palace? —Alalch E. 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tough call. It's majority but not consistently capped in sources. Expect pushback if you lowercase it even though guidelines say we should. Same with "palace of Versailles". Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep thinking about it. —Alalch E. 18:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Palace of Verailles" is fairly strongly but not overwhelmingly majority capitalized [1], between a 2:1 and 3:1 ratio. The ratio is much closer with regard to "Versailles Palace" [2], a comparatively disused term. I don't think I would want to try downcasing at least the former of these; the feeling is generally going to be that like Gardens of Versailles it is a proper name, since Versailles itself is properly the commune in which the palace is located and after which it is named (Versailles, Yvelines). "Versailles palace", however, seems to be more of a loose descriptive designator. By inverse comparison, Edinburgh Castle is pretty uniformly treated as a capitalized proper name, while "the castle of Edinburgh" is a diused descriptor. People are apt to make a strong WP:CONSISTENT argument, that if most such castle/palace/manse/fort/etc. names are capitalized (that is, the main one used for each is capitalized) that this one should be too. We probably shouldn't be using "Versailles Palace" or "Versailles palace" since they are not the WP:COMMONNAME. PS: Château de Versailles is overwhelmingly capitalized in English-language sources [3], but the opposite is true in French [4], because of the language's different capitalization conventions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am so sorry! I stomped on your re-edit of dynamic tonality. I had stepped-over myself several times in the past day (from going back to old copies via an article's "read" link to recover a URL that I hadn't correctly copied, or thinking better of an edit after several perfectly necessary edits, etc.) and I thought I'd done it again. Could you please re-check the article? I have to make an appointment this evening, and it's a long job figuring out what you did: I have changed text throughout the whole article since your update. Again, sorry for the abrupt and rude edit ruination.

And by the way, I agree with you: Some of my formatting changes might be supercilious; I was aiming at making technical musical notation (for example, C^{sus 4}) more legible / more familiar to casual readers by using music-book-style typesetting, but some of it could be over / under done. I don't have especially wide experience reading well-formatted musical text: Most of the music-books I read are on folk-music / harp music, set in flat, plain-ASCII type, or sheet music, but on-page notation isn't always the same as what shows up in text. (And all of this started just because a writer used the forbidden slanty-bar fractions. Then I got carried away by the trashy refs., and the rest is there on the page.)

Regards from the soggy and recently thawed-out part of Oregon Tom L. 166.199.8.39 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left diffs on your talk page that I think show clearly what I did and what you intended. No rush, but I'll leave to you. Near Portland, are you? Sure has been nice near San Francisco. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User_talk:166.199.8.39 for more. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've put the United States Capitol rotunda at uncontroversial moves at WP:RM for uppercasing, due to ngrams and the Architect of the Capitol. Just a heads up if you or pagewatchers find this controversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks to be going to a full discussion. Not universal in ngrams but has a pretty good lead in all the forms I checked. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Had it been a single comment, I might have let it slide, but instead of apologizing or even just dropping the matter, you doubled down. There is no world in which your first comment could be understood as constructive criticism. That is a mean thing to say to a colleague working in good faith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The comment was intended as constructive. He has a hard time looking at his behavior and seeing why it is so disruptive and annoying. If I can't tell him on his talk page, well, I guess I have to just suck it up. Later... Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If you can't tell him on his talk page without being rude, then yes, you have to suck it up. Admins give difficult users constructive feedback daily. We manage to do so without being bloody rude. If you tried, I think you could, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've been so friggin' polite and patient with him recently, and he still keeps up shit like you see at Talk:NBA Conference Finals#Requested move 20 January 2024. "Thorn in my side" is not an overly pointed description of how his behavior affects me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Friction between editors is common, obviously. But if you need to vent, you need to not do that here. If you want to ask someone to change their behavior, you need to do so reasonably. And if someone is genuinely being disruptive, you know where to take the matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, I know. Unfortunately his style of disruption is not something that's easy to lodge a complaint about. There's no rule against starting an RM for a move you don't care about, or refusing to give a reason for opinions you express, nor even about doing a revert when you don't have an opinion on whether the change is appropriate or not. So when I saw that he expresses that he's a WikiGnome, while admitting that he has limited command of English grammar, and while displaying no respect for WP style guidelines, I reacted. OK, it was mildly uncivil, so now I'm blocked for it. I can accept that. Makes more sense than the recent edit warring block anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I had asked him more nicely here, but I guess I didn't really wait and see if that resulted in any behavior change. But afterward he still won't give a reason; no responsive answer before, or so far after, this query, because he seldom has a sensible reason for what he does. He'll claim "consistency", but with what? Not with guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  None of this is meant to claim that my incivility to my fellow editor GoodDay was acceptable – just to show that it may be understandable. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Also note that my complaint was not the first or only one on his talk page about his recent behavior. This one in particular expresses (politely) outrage at his recent disruptions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think you'll find there's a good many people in the admin corps who do not take kindly to long-term civil battleground behavior. It doesn't in any way help enforcement against that behavior, though, when it is met with insults. For the record, I am not endorsing any claims about GoodDay's behavior, I am making a general point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Understood. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Refining

Separate the meeting from the player recruitment process that the articles are mostly about:

Instead of "The National Football League Draft, also called the NFL Draft or (officially) the Player Selection Meeting, is an annual event which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment."

Try a lead like "The National Football League (NFL) draft is the process that serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment. The draft is conducted at the NFL's Player Selection Meeting, an annual event." Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Something like this might also work for MLB, where the actual name of the thing (or some formal process within the thing) is not "the draft" as a whole. Some lead revision already happened there, but it might be more clarifiable still.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. I've reverted your lower-casing at Richard Nixon's infobox. Please take note, that on politician bios, their political offices are capitalized in the infoboxes, even when numbered. Just to name a few - see all the bios of presidents, vice presidents, prime ministers, deputy prime ministers, etc etc. I'm asking you to leave the infoboxes alone, on this matter. In the past an RFC was held on this concerning Joe Biden's page & the result was 'no consensus' for lower-casing. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the closed RFC-in-question. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that I request before mass Draft moves you wait for everything to get finalized, as it could get ugly with edit wars, blocks, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's really no reason that any of this should devolve into edit wars, even if the closure is challenged. It'll all get sorted out in time, there's no rush to implement immediately or to reverse said implementation. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What else needs "to get finalized"? The RfC was closed. —Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]