User talk:Sapphaline

It seems so rude and careless to make me, a person with thoughts, ideas, humor, contradictions and life experience to read something spit out by the equivalent of a lexical bingo machine because you were too lazy to write it yourself.
Do you not enjoy the pride that comes with attaching your name to something you made on your own? It's great!
No, don't use it to fix your grammar, or for translations, or for whatever else you think you are incapable of doing. Make the mistake. Feel embarrassed. Learn from it. Why? Because that's what makes us human!

- It's insulting to read your AI-generated blog post

Welcome!

Hi Sapphaline! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of missing aircraft/styles.css

Hello, Sapphaline

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Sophisticatedevening, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, List of missing aircraft/styles.css, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Sophisticatedevening}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 13:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea why OneClickArchiver won't go to the latest archive?

I can't tell from code, and nocachein'g the js file didn't seem to matter? Thanks for trying to help keep it all clean. The talk is a circus. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use it so I don't know. Perhaps manual archiving is the only possible way here. Sapphaline (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it's reading the archive config and it's set for a max size of 512k:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk/Archive_2&action=history

That's not there yet. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sapphaline (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ok, turning down the archive size works too. I figured that was default, I just had turned it from 3d (excessive for current situation) to 12h. I guess we'll see next one. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually archive 2 is still below the threshold. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we got it sorted:

Good eye on that for what you saw. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, now I have no idea. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's gotta be, only logical thing unless the volume/caching/EC's are that busted. Let them roll to archive 2, for now. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave others comments alone generally

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Charlie_Kirk&diff=1311153953&oldid=1311153701 FYI. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 linter error on this page related to the <q> somewhere in the code, which template:tq produces. Sapphaline (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest posting a new comment section to ask for experienced editors to look rather than editing others content, or ask on the tq talk page. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Editing others' comments to fix lint errors is fine, its pretty common. They didn't change what they said at all, just the formatting. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you all even seeing those? I use monobook skin? It just looked like a plain old tq quote. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

special:pageinfo/Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk. Sapphaline (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing at ANI

Hello; please take a moment to read over WP:INVOLVED. It's important editors don't close discussions they started that have ongoing discussion or involve possibly contentious matters such as at ANI. An uninvolved admin will close the thread when appropriate. Best, CoconutOctopus talk 12:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom templates

I have reverted your changes to Template:ArbComOpenCase. This follows a dedicated format (including the height of subheadings) as approved by the Committee. Changes should be run through the clerks and/or the Committee, who will make changes to these templates themselves. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any place where I can discuss my changes? Sapphaline (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Clerks noticeboard. Daniel (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Template:IndyLB roster, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please test changes in the /sandbox version of templates, then use the /testcases page to test your edits. Check the "Page information" page of the /testcases page for Linter errors. Only after these steps should those changes be moved to the live template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not constructive"??? That </ul> was intentional because the previous list wasn't closed otherwise. sapphaline (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You left behind a stray </ul> tag that did not have a corresponding opening tag, and you inserted {{ubl}} in a place where it caused div tags to be unmatched, all without doing any testing in the sandbox or on the testcases page. All of this in a live template that is transcluded in 110 articles, causing Linter errors to appear in all of those articles. Please be more careful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Template:Nonstandard list

Template:Nonstandard list has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Row headers are row headers. Aren't they?

Hello Sapphaline.

In your partial reversion of one of my edits to Demographics of Germany you were good enough to provide an edit summary, which said, "these are not row headers though". You removed scope="row" from the left-hand cells on several tables. But of course they are row headers. To find the life expectancy by period for 1960–1965, one looks in the Life expectancy in years for Germany, 1950–2015, by five-year period table for the row headed "1960–1965", and on that line we see "70.0" (the data in the Life expectancy column).

I did make at least one mistake with a column heading in another table; thank you for correcting it to !scope="col"| Life expectancy. But the widespread removal of scope="row" seems incorrect to me. How can they not be headers? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they are row headers - how so when the "1960-1965" cell in your example is already named by the "Period" column header? sapphaline (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Period" column header is the header for the column containing "1960-1965". The "1960-1965" row heading is the heading for the row containing "70.0". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The newly split articles on Trump Falsehoods

It appears that your proposed split has gained consensus. Once you have finished with all the splitting etc., the new pages will all need to be protected per WP:CTOP. Either ping me or post a request at WP:RfPP. FWIW, I think the split is overdue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Hello Sapphaline. I'm just letting you know that I closed the split proposal you started a month ago with consensus to split. Feel free to start splitting the article. {{being split}} didn't display properly, so I left {{split}} in place. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't see @Ad Orientem's post! Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC) [reply]

@Chess enjoyer No worries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. sapphaline (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for carrying out the split. Your edit summaries at the new child articles are probably compliant with the Wikimedia Terms of Use for copying content, but just to make sure, why not follow our WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline next time, and use these words when copying content (large or small) to other articles, in order to fulfill the required attribution to the original authors:

Copied content from [[Page name]]; see source page's history for attribution.

No need to add additional attribution to the edit summaries of the child pages at this point; just something to keep in mind for next time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]