User Talk: LieutenantZipp

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

A belated welcome!

thumb|The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm! {{smiley}} ↗

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, LieutenantZipp! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions ↗. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

{{Div col|colwidth=18em}}

Introductory tutorial ↗

Your first article ↗

Contributing to Wikipedia ↗

Five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

Article development ↗

Help desk ↗

{{Div col end}}

If you have questions, '''{{edit|Special:MyTalk|just use this link to ask for help|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}'''; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center ↗.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Again, welcome! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits ↗ 17:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the region of South Asia ↗ (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups''', 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 ↗.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days ↗ in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }} signed, '''''Rosguill''''' ''talk'' 17:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:So I shouldn't have made the edit in the first place because I mentioned the BJP and wasn't logged in (never mind not having 500 edits)? Fine, but I still don't think the changes made by the other editor were actually an improvement. Can someone more qualified to edit it take a look, then? LieutenantZipp (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''LieutenantZipp'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Are changes on the C.K. Raju page actually an improvement?}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Are changes on the C.K. Raju page actually an improvement? ↗}}.


See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

<div></div>
</div>
|}

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | see revision history of Calvin and Hobbes ↗ Robloxguest3 (talk){{#invoke:Icon|main}} 19:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
|}

Invitation to the Guild of Copyeditors

{{GOCEinvite}} Robloxguest3 (talk){{#invoke:Icon|main}} 15:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes ↗

On your recent edit on the article Calvin and Hobbes, I noticed you reverted 2 edits without explaining in the edit summary. I have reverted your edit. Robloxguest3 (talk){{#invoke:Icon|main}} 02:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

:Without explaining? Excuse me? Look again—I clearly said "''It seems to me the citations clearly indicate the proposition for which they're cited.''" LieutenantZipp (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::That still does not explain it. Maybe you could say why here? Robloxguest3 (talk){{#invoke:Icon|main}} 02:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
:::The previous edits claimed a citation was needed for a statement. I reverted those edits because that statement was already evidenced by the sources associated with it. That seems to me a sufficient basis to have made the edit, and it's exactly what I said in my edit summary. What about what I've said does not explain my basis for reversion? LieutenantZipp (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::Welp i think i just screwed up. I was wrong. sorry about that
::{{self trout}} Robloxguest3 (talk){{#invoke:Icon|main}} 02:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Thank you for admitting that. Now please revert your reversion of my edit so it doesn't look like I'm edit warring. LieutenantZipp (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::::{{done}} Robloxguest3 (talk){{#invoke:Icon|main}} 02:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. LieutenantZipp (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Also, I have a quick query with which you might be able to help me. I absolutely HATE it when my edits are reverted. Having the page restored to the version I thought better only helps somewhat because it still means that, every time I look back at my Contributions page, I'm reminded of that tarnishing instance of having had my thoughts and work reverted (I know it's not that serious, but it still frustrates me). So the question is: if the edit that reverted my edit is itself reverted, is there any way to make note of that on my edit or retroactively remove the "''Reverted''" status from it or something? LieutenantZipp (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::I don't think so. It doesn't allow you to edit the tags on edits. Robloxguest3 (talk){{#invoke:Icon|main}} 03:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Darn. LieutenantZipp (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Designated contentious topic: American politics

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗.  AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, I know. I actually do that with some frequency—Mayoralty of Zohran Mamdani ↗ is my third-most edited page after Assassination of Ali Khamenei ↗ and Scott Boras ↗, for instance. Was this reminder just spurred by the especial notability of the fact that it was on Donald Trump ↗ (ignoring any potential issues with my editing)? Either way, I do appreciate the reminder. LieutenantZipp (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in :2026 NBA Finals ↗. There is a Manual of Style ↗, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. ''Term "Game 1" is a generic term so stop misinterpreting MOS:SPORTCAPS ↗.'' – sbaio 03:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:First of all, I would like to make clear that I absolutely agree that the word "game" is generic in a general context, like "the nth game of the series". That said, I decided to check every year's NBA Finals page since 2000, going back in time. Since 2008, every single page uses "Game N" rather than "game N", and since at least 2000, every page except 2003 at least sometimes uses "Game N" over "game N". NBA Finals articles have therefore consistently used "Game N" for nearly two decades. While I know precedent is not controlling, it is consistent with the capitalization used by independent sources, which is the consideration MOS:SPORTCAPS ↗ directs us to apply. I therefore repeat the argument I made previously: MOS:SPORTCAPS ↗ says that "specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources", and "Game N" is very consistently capitalized in independent sources. To that end, I offer five different sources for five different games this year, all of which use "Game 1/2/3/4/5" instead of "game 1/2/3/4/5":
:https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/03/sport/nba-finals-game-1-final-score
:https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7336541/2026/06/05/knicks-spurs-nba-finals-game-2-score-results-takeaways ↗
:https://www.npr.org/2026/06/09/nx-s1-5850248/nba-finals-game-3-knicks-fans-jeer-trump-spurs-win
:https://nypost.com/2026/06/27/sports/reliving-knicks-improbable-nba-finals-game-4-comeback/
:https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/48940704/2026-nba-finals-biggest-takeaways-highlights-san-antonio-spurs-new-york-knicks-championship
:Furthermore, "Game N" is the conventional designation of specific competition events within the NBA Finals. "The nth game" would not be, and you would be right to call that generic, but this is referring very specifically to a "Game 1" or a "Game 2", both of which are specific NBA competition events within the NBA Finals. Whether the word "game" is generic in other contexts is beside the point. The MOS directs editors to look to how specific sporting events are conventionally capitalized in independent sources, and on that front the guideline seems clearly to support "Game N". LieutenantZipp (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

C. K. Raju ↗

Recently a user is removing source content in this article and doing POV pushing by removing the negative aspect of the person in the article and even reverted your edits too. I have restored the full version for it IndianWarriors456 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:I agree, and I appreciate your help in the matter. Thank you.

:Edit: My version may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better at covering the actual scope of and controversy about Raju's claimed accomplishments. Shantisundaram keeps treating Raju with kid gloves that treat every claim he or the "Telesio Galilei Academy" as inherently legitimate, which frustrates me. LieutenantZipp (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)