User talk:Caballero1967

Welcome to Caballero//Historiador's talk page. Tips for the angry new user (a good rented idea). Hi! I welcome your constructive comments and will respond as time allows me. Please: 1. Be Civil, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Seek dispute resolution if you must. 2. Please be sure and let me know what article you are referring to by providing a wikilink. 3. Create a new section at the bottom when starting a new topic. 4. Do not edit or move comments. This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks. 5. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Click here to leave me a new message!

Archives

1, 2, 3

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

Hello, I saw you listed as a peer review volunteer and am wondering if you would be interested in reviewing [Draft: Christopher Hollins]. It is about an American politician who is leading the charge in making sure all Harris County, Texans are able to vote by mail in the upcoming election. Harris County is a major county to watch because it is slated as a County that could determine whether Texas goes red or blue in November 2020 and Mr. Hollins' work will be instrumental in the outcome. BostickLaw (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your message about removing my links from the article on infant baptism. The links were to a scholarly book I have written that is quite relevant to the topic. Were they removed because they linked to Amazon? If so, can I re-list the reference without the link and provide just the ISBN?

Thanks for any help!

Elleos1212 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Elleos1212[reply]

@Elleos1212: Thanks for contacting me about your edits. You may have noticed that I left another message on your talk page (here). The issue is that authors are expected not to add their works to Wikipedia because of WP:COI. A link to Amazon those does not help either. But as I mentioned on your talk page, there are plenty you can contribute with at WP. The Teahouse is a wonderful place to start. And since your book (which is of interest to me too) should have an updated bibliography, you would be in a unique position to revise the ones we have here, and help to polish our articles from a neutral position WP:NPOV. Please, let me know how could I help. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Beverly 90210 hills off the air please thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.231.171 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @75.171.231.171: Could you explain, please? I am not sure what you mean. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm slightly confused by your comment on the above. It is an abandoned draft which has not been edited for six months and therefore is eligible for speedy deletion. It is not a submitted draft via AfC. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Eagleash: I was confused as well when I did not find the button for rejection. That's why I left the comment. I must be missing something here. My intent was to make sure the article is either deleted or improved. As it seems there is no one to improve it, then, to have it deleted. But there was no option for suggesting it. Thanks for your help. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be a button for rejection, as the draft has never been submitted: see WP:G13 (one of the criteria for speedy deletion). Eagleash (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, what happens with them? Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are tagged with {{Db-g13}} which produces the CSD notice at the top of the article and one of the Admins. who 'monitor' the CSD lists will delete it. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks for the info. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 06:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing in response to the removal of my edit on Alejandro Jodorowski as "not being constructive." Jodorowski, in his own words, is an admitted rapist. His bio should not simply contain praise, but an overview of his doings and accomplishments. He is quoted admitting this act in the book about the film El Topo, and his admittance is referenced on Wikipedia here.

I believe it is very constructive for those who are learning about the man to have a full picture of exactly the type of human being that he is. To discount this, to sweep it under the rug, is negligent. Drollison1983 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)drollison1983 12/7/16Drollison1983 (talk)[reply]

@Drollison1983: Thanks for writing and responding to my revert. If it is as you claim, follow these steps. 1) Place a note on the article's talk page with wording similar to what you just wrote here. 2) Rather than just reverting my edit, rewrite your contribution in a way that does not appear as you are vandalizing the article or disrupting editing. Perhaps add the wikilink you provided above, but make sure that it follows the narrative in the article's text--certainly not in the lede unless you have strong reasons for it, which you would have to justify in the talk page. 3) And, more importantly, provide a reliable source (WP:RS) to back your claim. These steps will ensure that your contribution would be seen as in good faith (WP:GF), and will increase the chances of staying longer in the text. Articles about living people are patrolled closely and we prefer to err on the side of a positive image than on the opposite. So, please, consider your intention carefully, and let me know how to help. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Why you can't accept my helpfull link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil0072 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Emil0072: Thanks for asking. Wikipedia cannot accept this type of link because it is considered promotional. Please, take a look here: WP:PROMO. Let me know how to help. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 08:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Festivus

Air grievances, enjoy meatloaf (vegetarian or not) and challenge others in feats of strength! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Merry Christmas Merry Christmas Caballero1967!! Hi Caballero1967, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

February 2017
	Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted! The admin said it was full of "alternative facts." What do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow project participants. Not sure how many users are still active as normal Wikipedia editors but felt the need to attempt to get a gauge on who can be called on for help with articles falling under the umbrella of the African diaspora project. According to the project's article table there are over six thousand articles related to the African diaspora; there's not a hundred at FA/GA grade and there's over twelve hundred that are unassessed. With Wikipedia being one of the major information reference points in the world today we should consider this unacceptable. Much work needs to be done on the rating of the importance of articles as well. With more communication amongst participants and a dedication to addressing the articles on the to-do list I believe we can make this WikiProject one of the most well organized and thorough on the site. If you are interested in collaborative work with some of your fellow project members, have certain expertise on any particular subjects, ideals on/about the WikiProject, etc. simply drop your name under the "Project revision" section I've created on the project's talk page and state your intentions and main points of interest in our WikiProject and we can attempt to move forward from there. Hoping to hear from everyone soon! WikiGuy86 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is not the correct place to ask for help. I recently created an article for David Benac, but it needs reviewing. Any help would certainly be appreciated. It is wonderful that you offer your time. :) Thanks Nicool9 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Nicool9[reply]

This edit has copyvio links to copyright material kept on Google drive. Could you please remove the links, just cite the books. Thanks.Doug Weller talk 18:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Thanks, but I could not find any copyvio issues in my short contribution on Dec. 25, 2015, which was a small step to help rewrite the article's lead and have already been changed. I would like to see what you saw, since, as I recall, I copied my words from no place. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 19:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not your words. Wasn't it you that added the Google drive links? Those are the links I meant. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''[[User:Caballero1967|<span style="color:#44018F;font-family: Herculanum">Caballero<span style="color:#145073">/</span></span><span style="color:#006E0D;font-family:Lucida Blackletter">Historiador</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Caballero1967 |<u> ⎌</u>''']]</sup>''' : Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

to

[[User:Caballero1967|<b style="color:#44018F;font-family:Herculanum">Caballero<span style="color:#145073">/</span></b><b style="color:#006E0D;font-family:Lucida Blackletter">Historiador</b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Caballero1967 |<u> ⎌</u>]]</sup> : Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Thanks. You made it easy to change it. I just did. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas article can be rated class=start. You left a message saying class=stub.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dthomsen8: I apologize for the long wait in responding to your comment. I noticed it only after I reformatted my user talk page and made viewing easier. Regarding your implied questions, I think it still fits better as a stub article. Look, for example, at the Quality scale for the religion project here. With some more effort, the article will quickly rise to the next level. Would you help? Did you notice the request for pics above? I would certainly want this article expanded and polished. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 11:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Thanks for taking the time with a nearly outdated submission. I will look over at the new data and see if there is nothing new that may have changed and perhaps justified the submission. Again, thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proper use of WP apps is not merely to identify incidents that are off but resolve them. Accussing someone of what is not true is not the best use of WP apps. I would suggest that if it is the intent to use WP apps for editing that the proper time and effort be used for due dillegence so that it is found out that what is found is an unfortunate mis-correction of a mistake rather than vandalism. If you have the use of WP apps conveyed after special consideration then that should mean that the proper means are make to avoid a misunderstanding.2605:E000:1301:4462:EC3E:AE50:96D8:6F9 (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2605:E000:1301:4462:EC3E:AE50:96D8:6F9 Thanks for correcting the typo, which was a mistake from both sides. I appreciate all the work you do, and can relate to your reaction to the vandalism tag, but please, do not take it personally. The app identified an intervention that happens too commonly as vandalism. If I would have paid a bit more attention I would have noticed that I was making a mistake too, but the “change” had all the marks of a vandal: 1-a common typo, 2-from an anon, 3- no comments. The good news is that you came back to fix it. Again, please, accept my apologies and continue making useful contributions to Wikipedia. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that some editors are in too much a haste to perform due diligence and threfroe find what is the problem with what they encounter instead of just recognising it as it is--a mistakje and correct it themslvesx without drawing attention to the matter. Accussing people of things that are not true is not for the best of WP.2605:E000:1301:4462:EC3E:AE50:96D8:6F9 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 02:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you undid my edit here[1]. For background, two editors removed a paragraph from the lead (that had some duplicate information) to address the lead-too-long tag. I reinstated that removal while transferring and consolidating the most pertinent info into an existing paragraph. I also changed the order of paragraphs 2 and 3. Was the reordering the problem or the consolidation? 199.127.56.86 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 199.127.56.86. After several readings of the material, I have reluctantly decided to undo my own reversal and allow your changes to stand. I would suggest, however, to include a useful comment (not simply "specify") when editing sensitive pages like this one. More importantly, I urge you to sign up and become a more active editor at Wikipedia. Please, consider it. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 02:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you're reading my edits wrong? The one with edit summary "specify" only changed "the server" to "Clinton's server." [2] The consolidating edit has a more detailed description.[3] Either way I appreciate it and thanks. 199.127.56.86 (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so, at least, not in my re-readings. I thought you were removing necessary material, but then I realized that much of it was implied, and that the lede was too long indeed. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

The article in dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_North_America

The line "Many have called Donald Trump fascist. He was endorsed by self-proclaimed fascists, his father participated in fascist rallies, and he has openly supported fascists" is misleading and false.

"It's not clear from the context what role Fred Trump played in the brawl. The news article simply notes that seven men were arrested in the 'near-riot of the parade,' all of whom were represented by the same lawyers. Update: A contemporaneous article from the Daily Star notes that Trump was detained “'on a charge of refusing to disperse from a parade when ordered to do so.'” Source on that is an article used as citation: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlottesville-latest-donald-trump-father-fred-arrested-ku-klux-klan-kkk-rally-riot-queens-new-york-a7891701.html

Donald Trump has not "openly supported fascists." Retweeting something someone says does not mean you agree with everything they say, and it absurd to believe so. "Trump retweeted three video clips, titled 'Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!,' 'Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!,' and 'Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!'" Source on that is an article used as citation: https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-is-now-openly-supporting-fascists/ Literally none of that is even fascist related.

A Google Search is not a citation: https://www.google.com/search?q=american+fascist+endorsement+trump&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS566US567&ei=WfadW5-7A4HEsAWc467QDw&start=10&sa=N&biw=1600&bih=794 is useless and misleading to use as a citation.

Being endorsed by some random person has literally no bearing on the person being endorsed. If it were the case, Hillary Clinton would be a member of the KKK. Citation for that claim: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

Literally, not figuratively, but literally, the only true and non-misleading statement in that line is "Many people have called Donald Trump ^a fascist" but adding that as a footnote has no bearing on the article, and only serves to be misleading political information.

This is why I removed the entire line and citation links. You've been very prompt in reverting it to the format before the edit, so I expect you will read this soon.

68.186.202.48 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Damian[reply]

@68.186.202.48: Hi Damian, thanks for reaching out to me. Let me first explain the reasons of my intervention, and then of my own position on the topic. These are the reasons I reverted the changes, in order of importance:

1- The justification in the comments did not conform to the state of the article/citations. It claimed: “Removed false information and fake news articles.” The Independent, The Washington Post, etc., are legitimate mainstream and reliable publications. So, to start with, the change was based on a false premise. 2- The topic in question is highly volatile, so related changes/edits should occur within the context of discussions among editors—-- preferably from a consensus and with references to discussions in the article’s Talk page. But there was none of that in the change I reverted. 3- Given the brisk nature of the deletion, it seemed that a partisan impetus motivated the change/edit. 4- The article history implied that there had already been edit wars or something similar on this same issue. 5- It came from an anon with no previous participation in the article’s talk page nor in the main text, so awfully suspicious.

At least, another editor perceived the changes as disruptive or vandalism (Here). But the fact that I did not come back to join the ensuing edit war should tell you that I saw my role then only as a guardian against vandalism.

On my position on the topic:

I agree that the two sentences at the center of the issue here are not the best Wikipedia can offer. In fact, they read terse, out of context, and odd. They need context and good editing. One thing is sure, however, there should not be an article about fascism in North America without mentioning Trump. And this is not because he is or not a true fascist, but because he has helped provoke a scholarly and political conversation about fascism, and he is at the center of the largest production of academic literature on the subject in US history.

If we fail to include him, we would be trying to cover the sun with our thumbs—It would read as dishonest; as if Wikipedia editors have been led astray by partisan winds rather than following academic and scholarly standards. But again, since I am new to this article, I would keep a low profile on the matter for the time being. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 19:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not vandalizing on Wikipedia I am just updating Things from my region I am from botswana I only updated the new name of the ministry but if you feel that its better to mislead students who use wikipedia with outdated information then yes I'm vandalizing

Real vandalizers are out there now adding vulgars to pages but you are here

There are no sources covering schools of botswana Most news are still in paper this side Most schools do not have websites I'm very angry @caballero RonaldMoa (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldMoa:, I am glad you are not wanting to vandalize WP, and I apologize for aiding you in getting angry. I quickly noticed that some of your contributions had been useful. But even if what you did not intend to disrupt, in a few places it was not constructive editing. For example, you changed the ministry's name to "Basic Education," while the government's official page has it as Ministry of Education and Skills Development (see here), as we have it in WP.

However, your contributions could become consistently more helpful if you 1) make sure of the info, 2) offer comments/explanations for your changes, 3) cite your sources, and 4) ask/discuss the matter in the article's Talk page if you are not sure about an issue and yet wants to help. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 18:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying but like I said Most websites of my country are outdated.They take time to update them The cabinet changed on March 2018 along with names of MINISTRIES including Ministry of Education

But Wikipedia is still behind on it but we use this website for research I study Development studies It covers these topics

For instance The minister of education is no longer Mrs Dow Its Hon Moiseraele Goya

Go on google now and check RonaldMoa (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(see here) This is just wrong and proves my point from last reply. RonaldMoa (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldMoa:, I suppose that like me, you would like to have all your country's article updated, accurate and well written. Further, you would not want someone claiming to bear the correct information but without convincing evidence to intrude and rewrite them. That's why WP requires reliable sources (WP:RS). Without them, we are lost.

However, if you believe, as it seems you do, that these pages contain outdated information and require revisions, yet we lack the sources to confirm the needed changes, you can still do something about it. You can present the problem in one of the articles' Talk pages and ask for others (WP:RFC) to help out with brainstorming (WP:CO), and if there is consensus (WP:CON) (or no response), you can move ahead with the changes you think are valid (WP:DCL). Wikipedia works as an engaged online community, but unfortunately, there are some subjects that receive less attention, and if you can help out with them, you would be performing a great service for all (WP:EXR). Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.

I mentioned what is spoken by rakhee gulzar about rajesh khanna

It is written in rakhee gulzar wikipedia page

Without checking the authenticity just removing content Ayush Tiwari 16:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtwri (talk • contribs)

@Ashtwri: Thanks for contacting me and for your explanation to your edits here. I appreciate your attempt to help. Please, offer an explanation of your edits in the comments section and sources to backup your edits (see WP:ES). It would also help if you could explain them further in the article Talk page (see WP:TP). Thanks again. Let me know if I can help. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the warm welcome and the information on how to be a better contributor. - Lillian Ldejesus11 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, Ldejesus11. Wish you well with your editing experience in WP. Let me know if I could help. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 11:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I received your message in which you informed me that you deleted my recent edits to the Rudolf Höss page because they were improperly cited. Respectfully, that is not true. If you visit the source linked in footnote 23, you will see that the information I added is a direct continuation of the quote that already appears on the Rudolf Höss page. You can find this at the top of page 6 within the source linked in the footnote. Should I have included a note with my edit explaining what I just explained to you?

Thank you, Megmck1239 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Megmck1239[reply]

@Megmck1239: Thanks for bringing this issue to me. It is my mistake. Upon revision, I noticed that yesterday the pdf in question did not download completely and I could not reach Hughes' translation of the German text (weak connection, perhaps). I will undo my revert at once. I will also point something else in regard to quoting and citing sources, but only after correcting my own error. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 16:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megmck1239: As promised, here is the follow-up. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 04:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cynthia A. Young 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/Cynthia A. Young 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. Natureium (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I work in the Physics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara. Donald Marolf has stepped down as Chair and Claudio Campagnari is now the Chair. What references do I need to give to prove that? He is no longer the head of the physics department and it shouldn't say that he is on the wiki. Call me if you need to talk about it: 805-893-2058 or call the current chair, or call him! Look here: https://www.physics.ucsb.edu/people/claudio-campagnari Dlceder (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Debbie Ceder[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Marolf

@Dlceder: Thanks for calling my attention to the fact that Marolf is not the department's head anymore. I was patrolling new edits; and changes with no explanation or without the support of sources are liable to overturn (WP:LIVE). Thanks, nevertheless, for your kind approach. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just saw a mysterious message when I opened a wiki post, up at the top of the page a banner saying Caballero1967 had removed an edit of "mine" from some topic (King Kong, I think) (User talk:67.103.38.205) I've never edited a King Kong entry! Or any entry (I don't think) Years ago I tried to learn how to edit wikipedia entries - I think it was in order to edit one in my field of expertise (fingerloop braiding) which has some sad inaccuracies. However at the time I somehow got lost in a weird vortex of Wiki underpinnings that I couldn't understand, and I'm pretty sure I never ended up editing anything. Later - like years later - I got a warning from wikipedia that I was being removed or otherwise punished because someone with my ip address had done something bad on wikipedia. It for sure weren't me! I tried to explain this to wikipedia but didn't follow up the email exchange unfortunately. So I don't know what's going on but am worried somebody has hacked into my ip address somehow. Just wanted to let you know that whoever edited the King Kong thing wasn't me. Mystified, ingridcc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingridcc (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingridcc: If there are no other consequence, don't worry. Thanks for letting me know. Hope you could continue contributing to Wikipedia. Cheers. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 02:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Caballero1967: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hi Caballero1967,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caballero1967, you're receiving this message because you were previously listed at the list of volunteers for Wikipedia's peer review process, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the volunteers list, so that the list is kept up to date and editors who do need help can better find active editors. If you become active again and would like to add yourself to the volunteers list again, you can do so at any time by visiting the volunteers list.

Thank you for volunteering to be on the list previously, and all the best on your WikiVoyages! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]