Contents

User talk:SailorGardevoir

Hello, SailorGardevoir, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your nameontalk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! SailorGardevoir, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit at George Szell! I just fixed the float parameter of the external media templates, so no need to delete them :)

Regards -- Gor1995 𝄞 09:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See how this section is structured. I believe this is the reason Australian Aboriginal music is listed how it is in the People section. Caribbean, African, and non-English music section have been meant for popular music, so they shouldn't be mixed with world music like ethnic indiginous music.

At least, that's how I understand the logic of how things have been done before. Feel free to establish some better structure. But reflect those changes back at the Arts/Music section too. Makkool (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makkool Here's the first version of the artist/musicians page. Notice that there is a non-Western art music section and a world music section. This indicates that the non-Western art music section is meant solely for just that. SailorGardevoir (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that looks like a really good system! Makkool (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the split between early modern and late modern is 1815, not 1800 _pbp 19:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89, our own article on the Early modern period states it’s between 1500-1800. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For time immemorial the cutoff at VA has been 1815. Also, your VA5 moves put people in different eras then they are listed at VA4. Ive started a discussion at VA5 about this _pbp 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies for the Umayyads edit...must've hit the wrong button on my phone _pbp 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Record Label Barnstar
	Thanks for all the hard work you are putting into the record label lists. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your housekeeping on these labels for composers; notoriously hard to define, but at least typically consistent for most major post WW2 composers.

Do you have any interest in creating a {{Postmodernism (music)}} with me? Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer! But I think I'll overall pass. I'm not comfortable with creating templates from scratch. SailorGardevoir (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll end up creating it eventually, so feel free to add/remove as you see fit when I do so. These kinds of templates only come into existence when people like us create them; no use waiting around. Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re[1], I'm not finding the relevant text in Wikipedia:Redirect. It also seems like a rather obscure reason to revert, since it's the target page which has a non-MOS:AR-compliant title, but cannot be easily moved because Talha ibn Ubayd Allah already exists as a redirect. The problem is wholly technical, so why make things worse because of obscure guidelines? Anyway, I requested the page move at RM/TR, so we can also get it right in the template. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken:

It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g., {{US presidents}} at the end of George Washington). When a template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template. There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template.

Feel free to revert it back once that apostrophe gets removed. SailorGardevoir (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it's to make sure the link to the article bolds and unlinks at its target page; I forgot about that. It may be better to directly mention that good reason for not using redirects in templates in future edit summaries. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've no idea why you would want to keep removing this template from articles that it contains. We always include templates in all the articles that they name so the linking is bidirectional, that is Wikipedia policy. Interfering with that is disruptive, so please stop at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. SailorGardevoir (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just understood your edit comment, you meant that 'Barley' etc are not in fact linked in that template, as it lists only subsidiary list articles about barley production. My bad. I've put your changes back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppetofRjrya395 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate, @Aurangzebra, @Makkool, @Starship.paint, @Tabu Makiadi, @Purplebackpack89, @QuicoleJR, @49p, @TonyTheTiger, @NegativeMP1. I'm done. You got me. I am Rjrya395, and I have been block evading since my initial block. Condemn me all you want on principle, I don't care. But I will not stand here and watch my edits which I feel firmly falls under "good faith" get undone by someone who has clearly shown to have a vendetta towards me. Why do you feel the need to keep undoing my edits, NinjaRobotPirate? Aren't you worried that you might lose your precious CheckUser privileges? I don't think the Arbitration Committee going to like there has never been a SockPuppet Investigation on me.

I just wanted to participate in a website that I have been visiting since I was ten. But it's clear that there are people here who have no interest in being anything more than little dictators. SailorGardevoir (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: - your reverts have harmed Wikipedia. For example, Dunnie and Margot the fairy are both listed in Template:Fairies, but you [2] [3] removed the template from Dunnie and Margot the fairy just because SailorGardevoir added it. SailorGardevoir removed a duplicated template - and you restored it [4]. SailorGardevoir moved a box to the correct place, and you undid that [5]. SailorGardevoir corrected categories, and you undid that [6] [7]. You even restored unneeded whitespace [8] You have repeatedly undone beneficial changes! starship.paint (RUN) 04:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we can restore all of these edits if we agree that they're constructive, but that we take full responsibility if any of them do happen to be disruptive. But this isn't the case, these edits are clearly beneficial. λ NegativeMP1 17:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SailorGardevoir, you've edited productively for nearly 6 months with over 3,500 edits. It should not be impossible for you to return. I advise you to (a) disavow the personal attacks that got you blocked in 2019 while not blaming anyone else, and commit to not committing them again; (b) admit all of your past sockpuppets and commit to no further block evasion, if you wish to return. It's time for you to take the right path. starship.paint (RUN) 07:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. These two steps shouldn't be too hard, and you were a very productive editor. Worst case scenario, they might make you wait six months, but that isn't too likely. I would hate to see you go like this. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sticking up for me guys. @Starship.paint, is there a way I can talk to you privately? SailorGardevoir (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Email this user". starship.paint (RUN) 00:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]