User talk:Abolibibelot

Hello, Abolibibelot, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm Steven, a Wikipedia editor like you, and I noticed that you made a helpful change to List of buzzwords. Thank you for your contributions. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers who want to build a great free encyclopedia, and we need your help. We have five simple rules, but other than that, we just need people like you to be bold and edit.

If you have questions of any kind, feel free to ask me on my Wikipedia talk page or by email.

Best regards, Steven Walling • talk 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don't Look Back (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frédéric Beigbeder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cameo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail[edit]

Hi. Please stop writing all your personal essays and scripts in the form of TV show articles. The encyclopedia exists to be a summary, not a compendium or a literary script. And we have standards for neutral prose that are not thrilling or parenthetical or misspelled. You're putting entire sentences into subsentences, inside of what's already run-on sentences. Please stop writing until you review and understand and comply with WP:NOT WP:UNDUE WP:N WP:RS WP:FANCRUFT. This has wasted a lot of time by a lot of people, to delete it. It has been reverted so many times for so long that this constitutes disruptive editing. Users can be blocked for that. — Smuckola (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double You Tee Eff ?! You talk about excess, perhaps you should consider your own... I found two misspelled words in my recent contributions (“unprofessinal”, “refering”); it was late and I didn't re-read everything, this can be quickly corrected, many native english speakers do worse in that regard on Wikipedia (I regularly correct misspellings myself) and are not (as far as I know) threatened with exclusion. (Regarding “behavior/behaviour”, Grammar.com says : “Behavior is the preferred spelling in American English. Behaviour is preferred everywhere else.” Wikipedia is supposed to be read everywhere, so why should the American English spelling be considered as the only legitimate ?) I can understand the critic about inappropriately convoluted sentences, but that can be corrected later on rather than entirely deleted – which is a waste of my time, definitely more than yours (it took you a few minutes to read and a spit second to delete). You could consider the effort it takes to write decent prose in a secondary language. You could consider that those edits were made in good faith, and see what they bring on the table, rather than what they “disrupt”. For instance, I added a section about Werner Ziegler in the “List of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul characters” article : that character wasn't mentioned once, and yet, for anyone who watched Better Call Saul up to that point, and knows about Mike Ehrmantraut's fate in Breaking Bad, the german engineer should be considered as a major character – certainly more significant than “Spooge”, or Bogdan Wolynetz. Reading the section about Bogdan, I find this quite amusing with regards to those holy standards you mention, quote, unquote :

“When Bogdan hands the keys to the building over to Walter, he taunts Walter by implying that he needs his "woman" to do things for him. Walter, having been riled up by Bogdan, refuses to let him leave with his first American business dollar which had been framed and mounted in his shop. Subsequently, Walter spends that dollar in the vending machine to buy a can of soda.”

(Totally random example, I didn't read the entire article to select the most “gotcha-worthy” sentence.) Is that event significant enough to be mentioned in such an article ? If it is, then everything I added is significant enough and most of your remarks are undue. If it is not, then the entire article, and many, many, MANY other articles about fiction works should be considerably reduced, and in both cases I sure don't understand why you lash out at me in such a condescending manner.

As a matter of fact, on the “Mike Ehrmantraut” article, I noticed that this completely unrelated paragraph which I removed has been reintroduced in the current version :

“Gus removes Walt from the lab and puts Jesse in charge. Fearing for his and his family's lives, Walt frantically works to find a way to eliminate Gus. After a plan to bomb Gus' car fails, Walt convinces Jesse that Gus poisoned his girlfriend's son Brock with ricin, giving Jesse reason to turn on Gus. Based on Jesse's information, Walt gets Hector Salamanca to agree to kill Gus by detonating a bomb Walt attaches to Hector's wheelchair. Hector lures Gus to his nursing home room and succeeds in setting off the explosion, which kills Gus, Tyrus and himself. Walt and Jesse then destroy Gus' meth "superlab".”

How is this specifically related to Mike Ehrmantraut ? Talk about consistency...

I can also quote this sentence that you rewrote :

“However, the prequel series Better Call Saul revealed that Mike, a crooked cop himself, murdered two other crooked cops who had killed his honest police officer son Matt, who had hesitated to involve himself in any corrupt activities.”

(Again, random choice, I didn't thoroughly check all your recent contributions to select the most egregious example.) Isn't that at least as bad as my “parenthetical” sentences ? Again, I accept that particular criticism, but considering the harshness of your message as a whole, your own writing should be the epitome of perfection, which obviously it is not.

Regarding “fancruft”, I checked the article, and well, one could argue that dedicating entire articles to fictional characters in a TV series is already “fancruft”, yet those article exist, and are already very detailed – who says where the “cursor” should be put, who sets the standard of what is encyclopedic and what is not ? Apparently you Know with a capital K, and you alone can decide to remove entire contributions without warning. (By the way, I found it quite unsettling that Todd is described as shooting a boy “without warning” – a disturbingly clumsy phrasing which I tried to improve and which has also been reintroduced in the current version following your reversion – as if it would have been somehow more palatable if he had said something über-cool like : “Hey boy ! Watch out ! I'm gonna shoot you right here right now, cuz' I am the danger, yo, stay out of my territory, bitch !” That must be what they call “displaying one's bad side”. What I mean to say in this convoluted, parenthetical side note, is that “neutral style” doesn't equal “euphemistic style”, it is definitely undue to describe a character who is obviously a wicked psychopath as “displaying his bad side”, or repeatedly emphasize that he is otherwise polite, good-mannered and apologetic.)

--Abolibibelot (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Des fleurs pour Algernon (television movie, 2006) moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Des fleurs pour Algernon (television movie, 2006), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that to describe the plot of a movie, the movie itself was considered as a sufficient source on Wikipedia. As for the technical data, the IMDB link should provide all the relevant informations. This movie was broadcast once on french TV, has been released in DVD (I do have it) but only in France as far as I know, so finding quality sources in english would be difficult; yet I think that this is a worthwhile inclusion on english Wikipedia, for it is an adaptation of a classic english language S.F. novel (which I consider far better than the 1968 movie “Charly”). Incidentally, I added a link to this article on the one about “Flowers for Algernon”, which now leads nowhere. I may try to improve the article, but I'm not sure if it could possibly be enough to satisfy WP's standards, and I feel like I have spent too much time on it already, for the very reason that this movie would be so hard to find for an interested english speaking person.--Abolibibelot (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Abolibibelot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Abolibibelot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Des fleurs pour Algernon (December 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Des fleurs pour Algernon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Des fleurs pour Algernon, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abolibibelot! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response at my talk page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey![edit]

I have also added a reliable secondary source to your draft to help you a bit (I wasn't able to find anything else, all are passing mentions, synopsis + cast mentions...). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Throwaway line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Des fleurs pour Algernon[edit]

Hello, Abolibibelot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Des fleurs pour Algernon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Mr. T. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the individual who added a comment only to ask if the subject of the article was alive or dead, that was so offhandedly offensive that my reply was very benign in comparison. It was more about pointing out as humorously as possible that such a comment demonstrated very bad taste and low respect, than about “attacking” the individual in question (who left this comment 4 years ago, and, I would guess, probably didn't do much in terms of worthwhile contributions, based on the nature of this one). And I've seen much, much worse in terms of personal attacks on Wikipedia (as a matter of fact, there's a much more pointed attack on that user's talk page, dated 2017). I made several other comments on that talk page that same night which were perfectly neutral in tone. But I'll keep that in mind, I ain't no crazy fool, I can also be kind and try to keep my cool. --Abolibibelot (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American History X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raison d'être. 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) 08:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]