User talk:Chesapeake77

Use {{cite-web}} or {{cite-news}} when adding new sources

Hello, you have been working on the article about the Siege of Mariupol and adding new information and new sources to support it. However, the references are not being properly formatted. Please, check {{cite-web}} and {{cite-news}} to see how to properly format them. You can also check the source code of the article if you need a concrete example of how to use them. If you still have questions, you can also contact me. Thank you for help expanding the article and good editing. Ridanbp (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to brush up on these citation methods.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waldorf, Maryland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hughesville. 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) 06:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

A tag has been placed on Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Moves

Disambiguation pages

Please note that disambiguation pages like Holly Williams are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
• Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation

If you don't like how Holly Williams (journalist) and Holly Williams (writer) are disambiguated, then open a move discussion. But they are correctly done. We aren't here to fix Google, which you seem to be overly concerned about. As I've told you before, we don't further describe the subjects if the dabs are distinct. (journalist) is distinct from (writer), so we're done. If you think they should both be described as (journalist), then we can find out whether there is a consensus to change them to Holly Williams (Australian journalist) and Holly Williams (Welsh journalist) (she was born in Wales and unless we have sources that say she prefers to be described as British, we use her birthplace within the UK). Maybe you should research her, expand the article, and maybe in the process you'll find out if she has a preference. I suggest you wait until your boggle of a page move for the musician is corrected. Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to appeal your revert and your warning to a higher level of administration. Please tell me how I do that.

All I posted was an honest critique of how American City articles are currently affected by the current guidedelines on Wikipedia.

I never once said in that post (critique of the guidelines) that was reverted that people were "trying to harm" Wikipedia.

Thanks.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually didn't revert you, but I do agree with that editor's edit summary: {{[[Template:"No useful basis for discussion of this page, just whining about reverted edits to Waldorf, Maryland"|"No useful basis for discussion of this page, just whining about reverted edits to Waldorf, Maryland"]]}}. Also, your tone was far too sarcastic to really be conducive to a good-faith discussion, hence the warning. I could have just warned you for vandalism or disruptive editing, but I felt the Good Faith warning was less of a slap, and it links to some useful advice pages. As for an appeal for the revert, you can try posting at WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I'd advise against it. They'll probably tell you the same thing I'm going to say now:

• Don't post such comments on the guideline talk page at all, as it's irrelevant to your editing of the Waldorf article. Instead, post on that article's talk page, but leave out the sarcasm and hurt feelings, and try to post in a neutral manner about the issues actually involved. Work out your differences on the talk page in a useful and collaborative manner, with the goal of improving the article. Your points may well be valid, and the other editors involved may accept some of your suggestions. Conversely, you'll better understand their reasons for reverting your work.

Now, you're free to ignore that advice, and post your appeal to the admins, but beware the WP:BOOMERANG. BilCat (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I never once mentioned the Waldorf article in that post.

It only critiqued the Wikipedia guidelines on "city" articles.

I see that you did not make the revert.

But there wasn't one word of sarcasm in it, nor was there any mention of the "Waldorf article" anywhere in it.

You said: "Don't post such comments on the guideline talk page at all, as it's irrelevant to your editing of the Waldorf article."

That post of mine did not mention Waldorf, not even once, it critiqued the Wikipedia guidelines.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)