User talk:DonBeroni

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ^SMason_Garrison 14:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't revert this warning, like you did with the last one, without seriously considering the issue I've raised. Removing a warning without any discussion indicates that you've read and understood the concern being raised. ^SMason_Garrison 14:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis slave owners indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavian Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ensign.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:21st-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:20th-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:17th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:18th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the French Revolutionary Wars involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the Thirty Years' War involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:18th-century Welsh slave traders has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 04:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Combat occupations of the early modern period has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 04:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving France has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello there. You have edited many of the Earl of Dundonald's and called them "British". But they are Scottish. Obviously, Scots are Brits since Scotland is part of the island of Britain. But Ewan McGregor, James McAvoy and Sean Connery are all called "Scottish" and not "British". So why shouldn't the Dundonald's? They are Scottish. Please get back to me with your reasoning. Cherryblossomgirly (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there; thanks for your query. My reasoning for the particular issue you have raised is the same for why I have described Sir Henry Moore, 1st Baronet as "British" even though he was born in Jamaica and died in New York. You will notice that in many of the Earls of Dundonalds' pages which I have edited I have not changed their identities to "British". However, for those who were most prominent as agents of the post-1707 British state (i.e. government officials, colonial administrators and army officers), British is preferable to Scottish, English, Welsh, Jamaican, etc. This is also why Thomas Carlyle is described as a Scottish writer but Ramsay MacDonald is described as a British statesman on their WP pages; the latter was most prominent as an agent of the British state whereas the former was not.

You will also note that the majority of reliable sources describe them as such; for example, the sources on Archibald Dalzel describe him as British even though he was born in Scotland, since Dalzel was most prominent as an administrator of a British, not Scottish, colony. Once last thing: I note that you have added "Scottish" in front of the "British Army officer" descriptor on Thomas Cochrane, 8th Earl of Dundonald's page. This is unnecessary and in contravention of established Wikipedia practise; British army officers, like all army officers, do not need an ethnicity descriptor in front of their job title and trying to imply that Thomas Cochrane was "Scottish" as opposed to "British", in particular without reliable sources, is unhelpful as best. The current state of the page does not imply his nationality or ethnicity, which is helpful given how contested they can be even in reliable sources. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Doing a little research on the rules, you may be correct. I think it's a little odd though to say that you need a reliable source for the nationality of the Earl of Dundonald, who was born and raised in Scotland, a Scottish Peer and served as an MP for a Scottish district.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I fully concur with you that its a tricky issue, but if I may say so I'm pretty sure WP requires a reliable source for everything! In regards to the 8th Earl of Dundonald, the way his article currently stands allows for us to dodge the tricky issue of his nationality, since he was also a British subject for most of his life and British Army officer and British government official for all of his life. Obviously such an individual could well be described as both British and Scottish, but the current WP compromise regarding those who were most prominent as agents of the state and those who weren't is in my view the best current solution. DonBeroni (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

To agree with brianyoumans, i don't think you need reliable sources on someone's nationality. If he was born and raised in Scotland, that would make him Scottish. Surely that's not up for debate. Even though WP requires good sources for it's info, surely that sort of info doesn't need a source if it's just obvious facts. However, you have much more experience editing than i do, so i trust your judgement. I now understand the reasoning for the actors i mentioned being called Scottish but not Ramsay MacDonald. Thank you for the explanation. I apologize for the unhelpful placement of "Scottish" in front of "British army officer". I apologize for thinking i knew all about this subject, despite my in fact, lack of knowledge in the subject. I should've done more research instead of just editing without a 2nd thought. I haven't checked before replying to see if you undid all my incorrect edits, so if not, i will undo them all now. Thanks again. Cherryblossomgirly (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited York Light Infantry Volunteers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subaltern.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1797), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evening Mail.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Action of 1 January 1800, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Porter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please could you add a source for your changes to the article regarding the makeup of the Haitian civil war? My works used do not specifically cover this, so I'll otherwise revert that bit. Thanks for the copy editing! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to change "British government" to the specific ministry involved in these instances. Does it really matter to Napoleon's fate exactly which British ministry was involved? The result is also likely to be confusing to many general readers who would know what the British government is but might be puzzled about what a "Liverpool Ministry" is. I have kept the link in the unlikely event that readers would like to know who were the members of the government of the day. Also please leave proper edit summaries explaining the changes you have made. Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Royal Danish Navy personnel has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Please populate the categories you make, and please add all the parent categories. ^SMason_Garrison 03:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Look, I apreciate your edits, but this is not a the way to behave on wikipedia. If you are gonna keep reverting edits that don't have a consensus I am gonna notify the admins.

I don't get why you can't wait a bit? There is no deadline for these things. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for correcting Experiment in the infobox - I made a few errors in that! I don't think your addition of Coatles' full name and different rank were in the sources I used, what's your source for that? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. In regards to the rank, Ship-of-the-line lieutenant is what Lieutenant de vaisseau is in English. I prefer to have the ranks in English whenever possible to avoid confusion, though that obviously isn't possible with ranks like Schout-bij-nacht (the Dutch equivalent to rear admiral). If you want to change it back to the French rank I won't oppose it. As for the full name, it can be found in Les marins français sous Louis XVI, guerre d'Indépendance Américaine (1997). I'll add it in the article shortly. DonBeroni (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a great help. I'd been slightly miffed to have to leave him without a forename. I'm happy with the rank translation; personally I tend to leave them for the sake of consistency. The likes of Chef d'escadre are wont to become confusing otherwise! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If it's of any interest to you for further research, it appears he was a brother of Théobald René de Kergariou-Locmaria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It is; thanks for letting me know. Always a pleasure when our paths cross! DonBeroni (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Please be careful to include an edit summary when you change a Wikipedia article. Explaining what you have done and why saves other editors' time and is a matter of common sense as well as good manners. Tim riley talk 07:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to William Jones (Welsh radical). This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. calling your edit a copyedit when it actually removed the word "radical" from the first sentence, despite the title of the article, was misleading and could easily have been missed. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, it won't happen again. DonBeroni (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

At Robert Hooke, you left the edit summary Resized infobox image, which is true but pointless. It tells us what you did (which is obvious from the diff) but not why you did it. In general, MOS:IMAGESZ disapproves of setting a size in pixels, though an infobox might be an exception to that rule. In the absence of an explanation, I am reverting your edit. (I will leave the SD change, the reason you should have given is WP:HOWTOSD, max 49 chars.) If you have a convincing reason, please use it in the edit summary if you restore.

For your convenience, here is the long version:

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks!

I strongly recommend the "remind me", having learned the hard way that it is too easy to forget and annoy fellow editors. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @JMF:; thank you for being so helpful in your messages. Allow me to just explain why I resized those images. As I'm sure you know, the default size of all Wikipedia infobox images used to be 220 pixels until very recently; now, the image is by default often much larger. Now I understand why this rule was changed, but in my view most high quality images of historical figures tend to be a bit too large as a result of this change. Do you feel that 220 pixels are too small for the Hooke and Beale pages? If so I won't contest your decisions, but I'm curious about how you feel in the matter. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

260 is not "much larger" than 220. And, as mos:IMAGESZ explains, we can't make assumptions about the resolution of a reader's screen. You have no idea how 220px (or 260px) is going to look, or even how the reader needs it to look. So let the default stand unless there is a very convincing reason to change it. In such a case, the edit summary may be too short to explain properly and you will need to use the talk page to elaborate. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Grigory Spiridov when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jan Hendrik van Kinsbergen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinope.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Ramsay (painter), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Cochrane.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your edits to Wikipedia. I wanted to follow up about an edit where, Category:African-American slave owners was removed from a parent category.

This category is part of a group that falls under WP:EGRS, which covers categories based on ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability. These categories are typically set up as non-diffusing. That means when a page is added to a subcategory like this one, it's still meant to be included in the parent category as well.

This is important because removing someone from the parent category can unintentionally change who appears to "belong" there. Over time, that can make the main category look less representative than it actually is, which the EGRS guideline is designed to avoid.

If you're not sure whether a subcategory is non-diffusing, you can often check the category page itself; many include a note or template. You can also read more at WP:EGRS and in the section on the final-rung rule. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse. I've restored the parent category. Please don't remove non-diffusing pages like this again. ^SMason_Garrison 20:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The rationale behind the original edit is clearly stated and sourced: the concept behind the "pizza effect" conflicts with the history of Pizza as described in the relevant WikiPedia page. Which is linked to. Whether you personally like or dislike that fact is neither here not there Gotofritz (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR, "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source. Do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly". Please read up on Wikipedia rules before leaving such comments. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Capture of the Grand Mughal Fleet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglo-Mughal War.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit wars do not help anyone.

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Pizza effect) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Raphael J. Moses when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Lee (general), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 103rd Regiment of Foot.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I started another dispute about the Pizza Effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pizza_effect,_take_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotofritz (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidency of James Madison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Secretary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @DonBeroni. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 5 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind. DonBeroni (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Trafalgar campaign when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

In case you were wondering why I changed it yet again, see Wikipedia talk:Short description#Uses of spaces between dates. (Fwiw, spaced ndash looks better IMO but thems the rules. I couldn't object if you wanted to change it yet again to c. March 1633 – c. October 1699 though IMO that would be clutter in the opening sentence. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Your edits are becoming disruptive. You have been warned multiple times about the need to use preview to check your edits, yet you continue to introduce unknown parameters into articles. You did this again at First expedition to Palembang when you modified the page, you once again did this. If you continue your disruptive editing, you may find yourself blocked from editing. Please take the time to review your edits moving forward. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Your editing is becomming disruptive due to your failure to heed the multiple warnings that have been given. Please understand that one of the requirements for editing on Wikipedia is communicating with fellow editors. While you are not required to respond to every comment on your talk page, failure to respond to any of the multiple warnings, or to heed the advice that has been given, indicates an intentional failure to communicate. Please respond to this message and acknowledge that you understand that communication is required. Additionally please ensure that you have read the multiple warnings that have been given to you on your talk page. Failure to communicate may result in you being blocked from editing. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Claude François Ferey

added a link pointing to Arapiles

Jean Guillaume Barthélemy Thomières

added a link pointing to Arapiles

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that you have changed the nationality of some naval officers from the time with Denmark-Norway from "Norwegian-Danish" to "Norwegian".That is at least the case with Peter Norden Sølling and Johan Peter Wleugel, both of whom continued their careers in the Royal Danish Navy after the dissolution of the personal union between Denmark and Norway in 1814. As for Sølling, he was born to two Danish parents in Norway (where his father was stationed for some years as part of his career) but moved to Denmark as an infant, he spent most of his career in Denmark, he continued his career in the Danish navy, he published his memoirs in Danish in Denmark, he died in Denmark and is buried in Denmark. As for Wleugel, he was born to a Dutch father and a Danish mother in Norway but spent most of his career in Denmark, he founded a number of Danish institutions, he continued his career in the Danish navy (and so did his son, another notable naval officer), he died in Denmark and is buried in Denmark. In general I'm not a fan of the term "Dano-Norwegian", which is rarely used outside the Wikipedia bubble, but based on the listed facts, which anyone who has read the two biographies should be familiar with, I really don't get why you insist on referring to them as Norwegian rather than Norwegian-Danish (with a link to the Denmark-Norway article as a help to readers unfamiliar with the personal union). If you go solely by the place of birth (and I don't see any other arguments), the nationality of a lot of people should be corrected here on Wikipedia. And you didn't even bother to leave an edit summary to explain your rationale. If anything, they should be referred to as "Danish" or "Borway-nptm Danish".Ramblersen2 (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If you want to change their nationalities I won't contest such edits. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but my comment was in no way a rant or meant as such (feel free to report me to whoever if yoy disagree),. I took the time to try to explain why I disagreed with your edits and merely wanted to avoid future edit conflicts back and forth. Either way, I am sorry that you understood as a rant, it really wasn't meant as such. Cheers.:)Ramblersen2 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi DonBeroni. Can you explain why you are systematically removing the names of artists and museum collections from the captions of images, with edit summaries that state simply "ce caption"? I can't see any reason why a well-known artist, especially one who has his own WP article, should not be credited in the caption to one of his paintings; the information is directly relevant to the image, and helpful to readers in the same way that the date of the painting is helpful. Can you point to any policy that discourages the inclusion of such information in image captions? MOS:CAPTION says only that captions should be succinct, and the amount of additional space occupied by the name of an artist or museum is negligible. Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Per MOS:CAPTION, "Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page or in the main text". I would argue that this includes to varying degrees the dates and artists of the artwork in question- along with the museums they are in- since not only can such information be found by readers on the file page itself but also is of questionable relevance to the understanding of the articles such files are featured in. I will note that however that if you further peruse my edits you can see that I have left the dates and artists in several captions, depending on the context. Wikipedia is of course a collaborative project, and I would never presume that my way is the only correct way: are there any specific captions you feel would benefit from adding back the dates, artists and museums? If so I will not contest any such edits by you or anyone else for that matter. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ah yes, you're right. I didn't look very closely at many of your edits; I just noticed a couple like this one, where the names of artists were removed. But I see now that you do indeed retain them frequently, so my comment above about systematically removing them was a mischaracterization, for which I apologize. I don't think we really disagree about the meaning of succinct, and I certainly agree with edits like this and this and this and especially this (!). In any case, like you, I have no desire to substitute my judgment for that of others in matters that boil down to individual preference. Many thanks for your temperate reply. Crawdad Blues (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bali Strait incident, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)