Welcome!
Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your host, To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a
soft block using
Template:Anonblock.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
This may seem like a new editor, but is actually 174.141.182.82 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) in disguise. Shhh, don’t tell anyone. |
Hey, I think I disagree pretty strongly with your approach at Talk:Flatpak. Basically you removed sources which had a ton of content about the topic without even attempting to extract any encyclopedic content from them. Why? You can respond there or here, but I opened this as I wanted to have a conversation about the best way to approach Wikipedia and particularly its technical articles.
I also wish you would soften your tone a bit, as I think you're disheartening the well-meaning editor there in a way which doesn't seem gentle - you may not realize it but your tone actually feels harsh to me. It's that type of thing which contributes to the long-term decline of Wikipedia.
As a general rule on "philosophy" of things like reliability and verifiability, I do not believe it is appropriate to handle sourcing the same in all sorts of topics. You may be aware that we have a variety of special rules: for example, there is a General notability guideline which, for people, requires substantial coverage (not passing coverage), but for academics, meeting ANY of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria confers a presumption of notability. And, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is built by a community to inform people - the 5th pillar really is that "Wikipedia has no firm rules". II | ( t - c) 06:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You posted a question at the help desk about a page with a level 1 heading, but didn't tell us what page it was. Please add which page it refers to. RJFJR ( talk) 20:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, before I take this matter up on the talk page, could I ask your more general opinion on the Early Life section of that article? We state that She wrote that Barnett had, at the age of 12, developed a novel theory of relativity that was validated by physicist Scott Tremaine, and that it would put him in line for a Nobel Prize,[ref:The Spark] repeating these claims on talk news programs during the promotion of The Spark.[22][23] In Barnett's 2012 TEDxTeen talk, after comparing himself to Albert Einstein, Barnett stated that he had solved a problem and "created an original theory of astrophysics".[13] These claims were not true.
I have found the relevant sentences in The Spark on Page 230. Here is a transcript.
Is "validating" a theory effectively implying that "it has held" or can validating simply mean that it exists? Does the claim in the second sentence follow from the first? Evidently it did in the mind of KB, but as far as I can see she offers no further evidence in support of it, and that the proof readers of The Spark may have been culpably negligent. But Tremaine does appear to uphold the existence of this theory, even if it was of no consequence, and this calls into question whether our claim that JB developed original theory is "false" (ugh I hate our use of that F word). Also, KB does not directly write that her son's theory development would put him in line for a Nobel Prize, so I am not sure that we should be accusing her of writing that.
Your thoughts? Viewfinder ( talk) 09:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
These claims were probably not true.— 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It reads like the personal take of an outraged physicist.Exactly! It’s just trying so hard to discredit Barnett in every dubiously justifiable way. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There is enough good coverage of Barnett like this to make him BLP notable. All we need to say about the unreliable material about him developing ground breaking theories and Nobel is that it was dismissed by scientific and skeptical inquiry. Further analysis of his pre-teen delusions - which the media did him no favors by promoting - do not belong in his biography, and I have decided to discontinue debating them on the talk page. By the way when I was 12 I too thought I was going to change the world! Viewfinder ( talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This editor had the right idea. What he left behind was stable for two years. Viewfinder ( talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
… they surely did not mean scientific theory, the articles were written by non-scientists for non-scientists.That could certainly be argued for. It’s also possible that the writers didn’t quite know what a scientific theory was, as distinct from the colloquial sense. I don’t know which was the case. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just notifying you of the new RM at Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop reverting until you get consensus for your change on the talk page. You'll just be blocked or get the page protected otherwise. -- NeilN talk to me 16:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of context: I attempted to remove a former article title as an example from WP:NCF after the article was turned into a redirect. Apparently, former titles are valid examples of current practice. Who knew? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
If I am confused by your edits, I do apologize. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it,which is how most of these edits have gone. And WP:PGCHANGE even says
It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance.You can feel however you want about how guidelines should be edited, but your view doesn’t seem to be the consensus view. @ Dlohcierekim: No objections here to that; just let me know when and where. @ Betty Logan, I’d appreciate the same from you in the future, for any related discussions such as the one you mentioned. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 21:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Kiznaiver, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have already been warned several times on the article's talk page against the wholesale deletion of content from the article. — Farix ( t | c) 03:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you for keeping calm and civil throughout all of this, Unfortunately at times with this place it's 1 step forward 2 steps back however there are means and ways of doing things so your patience and calmness will pay off I promise! :), |
@ Nihonjoe: Thanks for adding this header here! Yep, my provider is indeed Hotwire Communications (who apparently have no WP article), and I would be the only one editing from this address; if that changes, I’ll say something about it here. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to " Parallelism (grammar)" a few weeks ago, in particular this one and this one. The article is both clearer and more informative as a result of your changes. However, there appears to be a minor inaccuracy in some wording you introduced to the article here. Below the table comparing parallel and non-parallel sentences you wrote: "The first two nonparallel examples have a mix of gerunds and infinitives." While this is true of the first example ("She likes cooking, jogging, and to read"), it is not true of the second example ("He likes baseball and running"), which mixes a gerund with a regular noun. I've tweaked the wording to remove the inaccuracy, but I'd appreciate it if you'd review my edit to ensure I haven't introduced any inaccuracies of my own. Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 02:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Something you still don't seem to get, as demonstrated by this edit regards editing posts. You claimed here that you were quoting from the closer's talk page but then added text that was never in the text that you quoted. That is simply unnaceptable. Never do that. If you want to comment on something that someone has said, you do as AlexTheWhovian said and make a new comment. WP:TALKNO is quite clear on this when it says to be "precise in quoting others". Adding your own text to the quote is not being precise, it's misrepresenting what was said. TALKNO goes on to say " Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures", which is also relevant. Even editing your own posts is generally to be avoided, as explained in WP:REDACT. After you have opened a discussion such as an RfC, requested move, or deletion discussion, once there are any replies you should not change the nomination at all, with the exception of closing it. As explained by WP:REDACT, "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." WP:REDACT does say that you may change your comments but this should not be done to the nomination text, regardless of how minor you think it is. Everyone visiting an RM, RfC or deletion discussion should see the same nomination otherwise the process becomes corrupted. Any changes you make to your other posts should be obvious. If the changes are significant, then sometimes it is best to completely retract the post and start a new one altogether if somebody has replied. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
<ins>
would indicate an addition to his comment.
Square brackets indicate an editorial comment. I don’t know why you don’t understand this, but I trust Wikipedia editors at large to be competent enough to recognize what square brackets signify within a quote, and to compare to the source if in doubt. But to assuage your fears, I’ll add an explanatory note. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 04:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
<ins>
would indicate an addition to his comment." If someone were to change that to "The underlining of <ins>
would indicate an addition to his comment but I agree that I am completely wrong" and you didn't notice, who is to know that you didn't write it without looking at the edit history? Because it's not immediately obvious we simply don't edit (or insert stuff into) posts made by others.Square brackets indicate an editorial comment.They do not on Wikipedia talk pages. Per WP:REDACT, which you appear not to have read, "Any inserted text should marked with
<u>...</u>
or <ins>...</ins>
, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted." It's really that simple. Rememeber, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style and that is what we follow. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:REDACT, which you appear not to have read…Actually, I had to point out and explain that markup, as well as the extra timestamp the guideline goes on to recommend, in that very RM: [1]. Still don’t know why it didn’t seem to be visible to you. Weird custom CSS, maybe? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 10:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
From my perspective, I didn’t change the original text of my move request; using <ins>
/<del>
(particularly with a new extra timestamp) preserves the original text quite clearly. Is there a guideline that recommends against applying
WP:REDACT in certain scenarios? Or is it more a matter of personal preference? I haven’t seen anything at
WP:RM.
As for that example of editing a user’s comment in place… yeah, that’s absolutely unacceptable vandalism. And not what happened. If you quoted me elsewhere and added that line like that, you’d still be in the wrong, but that wouldn’t give me (let alone a third party) license to go editing your comment just because it had some of my words in it. I’d leave a comment calling attention to it and strenuously asking you to self-revert. And I would also be confused as to what it was supposed to make people think: that I supposedly added the phrase sometime before you copied it? That I came along sometime later and added it to your comment? That you belatedly filled in the rest? The markup just doesn’t make sense there.
But none of this is germane, because what I did wasn’t misrepresentation. I simply included some missing context to ensure the quote was precise, pointing out what he was somewhat vaguely referring to in spots, like “exception to the consensus”
(what consensus? The one about genres). If you disagree that “documentary” is an entirely different dab from either “2012 TV series” or “2012 TV series”, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. If you think pointing out what he was referring to somehow alters the meaning, I’d have to ask if you weren’t sure you hadn’t originally been misreading it; if someone came along and replaced any word “you” in this comment with “AussieLegend”, nothing whatsoever would change unless the reader somehow thought I was talking to someone else, in which case that kind of clarification is absolutely needed. Or did you think the addition implies that he was aware of the fact when that’s not necessarily the case?
But I guess it’s really just down to my use of square brackets, isn’t it? Did you think they seemed like they could have been part of his own comment? Even where I used them in the first two paragraphs of the quote? Neither you nor Alex touched those, so what was different about them? Oh wow, I really did much that one up. Just saw his comment on the review and realized there was a preexisting bracketed phrase.
Hoping to work out all our disagreements here, and I’m sorry for getting bent out of shape over the reversions. I’m asking all this because I’m sure these problems will recur if we don’t nail them down. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 11:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) edit 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page. As I've already pointed out above, WP:TALKNO says to be "precise in quoting others". Inserting your own text, for whatever reason, is not being precise. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN: What exactly is disruptive about editing my own discussion comment for clarity? Or do you refer to something else? Thanks. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 06:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
**comments ~~~~ in the quotation rather than [comments]
? —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Should note I’m not averse to breaking up the {{
talkquote}}. Just wondering if timestamped newlines would be clear enough without doing that. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've lifted your block. You should work out the formatting here, just to be safe. The text needs to be clear as to who is saying what without relying on the reader to pick up on subsequent notes. --
NeilN
talk to me 06:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@
NeilN: Actually, I’m not at all clear on whether my other insertions (which have remained untouched) are considered improper: not arbitrary sole "exception to the consensus [against disambiguating by genre]" … If this [referring to (TV series) disambiguator] does not resolve …
. Thoughts? —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- "I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page. Note I'm inserting my commentary in square brackets with red text suffixed by -67:" --
NeilN
talk to me 06:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You know, it’s obvious now that you mention it… I’ll just do exactly that. Thanks! —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Have a great rest of your holiday season! If you do not, then you should know that I have acquired a very particular set of skills on my time on Wikipedia. Skills that make me a nightmare for people who do not enjoy themselves. If you do not have a great time this year, I will find you... And I will block you.
But seriously, happy holidays.
Dark
Knight
2149 22:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Welcome!
Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your host, To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a
soft block using
Template:Anonblock.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
This may seem like a new editor, but is actually 174.141.182.82 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) in disguise. Shhh, don’t tell anyone. |
Hey, I think I disagree pretty strongly with your approach at Talk:Flatpak. Basically you removed sources which had a ton of content about the topic without even attempting to extract any encyclopedic content from them. Why? You can respond there or here, but I opened this as I wanted to have a conversation about the best way to approach Wikipedia and particularly its technical articles.
I also wish you would soften your tone a bit, as I think you're disheartening the well-meaning editor there in a way which doesn't seem gentle - you may not realize it but your tone actually feels harsh to me. It's that type of thing which contributes to the long-term decline of Wikipedia.
As a general rule on "philosophy" of things like reliability and verifiability, I do not believe it is appropriate to handle sourcing the same in all sorts of topics. You may be aware that we have a variety of special rules: for example, there is a General notability guideline which, for people, requires substantial coverage (not passing coverage), but for academics, meeting ANY of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria confers a presumption of notability. And, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is built by a community to inform people - the 5th pillar really is that "Wikipedia has no firm rules". II | ( t - c) 06:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You posted a question at the help desk about a page with a level 1 heading, but didn't tell us what page it was. Please add which page it refers to. RJFJR ( talk) 20:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, before I take this matter up on the talk page, could I ask your more general opinion on the Early Life section of that article? We state that She wrote that Barnett had, at the age of 12, developed a novel theory of relativity that was validated by physicist Scott Tremaine, and that it would put him in line for a Nobel Prize,[ref:The Spark] repeating these claims on talk news programs during the promotion of The Spark.[22][23] In Barnett's 2012 TEDxTeen talk, after comparing himself to Albert Einstein, Barnett stated that he had solved a problem and "created an original theory of astrophysics".[13] These claims were not true.
I have found the relevant sentences in The Spark on Page 230. Here is a transcript.
Is "validating" a theory effectively implying that "it has held" or can validating simply mean that it exists? Does the claim in the second sentence follow from the first? Evidently it did in the mind of KB, but as far as I can see she offers no further evidence in support of it, and that the proof readers of The Spark may have been culpably negligent. But Tremaine does appear to uphold the existence of this theory, even if it was of no consequence, and this calls into question whether our claim that JB developed original theory is "false" (ugh I hate our use of that F word). Also, KB does not directly write that her son's theory development would put him in line for a Nobel Prize, so I am not sure that we should be accusing her of writing that.
Your thoughts? Viewfinder ( talk) 09:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
These claims were probably not true.— 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It reads like the personal take of an outraged physicist.Exactly! It’s just trying so hard to discredit Barnett in every dubiously justifiable way. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There is enough good coverage of Barnett like this to make him BLP notable. All we need to say about the unreliable material about him developing ground breaking theories and Nobel is that it was dismissed by scientific and skeptical inquiry. Further analysis of his pre-teen delusions - which the media did him no favors by promoting - do not belong in his biography, and I have decided to discontinue debating them on the talk page. By the way when I was 12 I too thought I was going to change the world! Viewfinder ( talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This editor had the right idea. What he left behind was stable for two years. Viewfinder ( talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
… they surely did not mean scientific theory, the articles were written by non-scientists for non-scientists.That could certainly be argued for. It’s also possible that the writers didn’t quite know what a scientific theory was, as distinct from the colloquial sense. I don’t know which was the case. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just notifying you of the new RM at Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rob Sinden ( talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop reverting until you get consensus for your change on the talk page. You'll just be blocked or get the page protected otherwise. -- NeilN talk to me 16:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of context: I attempted to remove a former article title as an example from WP:NCF after the article was turned into a redirect. Apparently, former titles are valid examples of current practice. Who knew? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
If I am confused by your edits, I do apologize. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it,which is how most of these edits have gone. And WP:PGCHANGE even says
It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance.You can feel however you want about how guidelines should be edited, but your view doesn’t seem to be the consensus view. @ Dlohcierekim: No objections here to that; just let me know when and where. @ Betty Logan, I’d appreciate the same from you in the future, for any related discussions such as the one you mentioned. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 21:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Kiznaiver, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have already been warned several times on the article's talk page against the wholesale deletion of content from the article. — Farix ( t | c) 03:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you for keeping calm and civil throughout all of this, Unfortunately at times with this place it's 1 step forward 2 steps back however there are means and ways of doing things so your patience and calmness will pay off I promise! :), |
@ Nihonjoe: Thanks for adding this header here! Yep, my provider is indeed Hotwire Communications (who apparently have no WP article), and I would be the only one editing from this address; if that changes, I’ll say something about it here. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to " Parallelism (grammar)" a few weeks ago, in particular this one and this one. The article is both clearer and more informative as a result of your changes. However, there appears to be a minor inaccuracy in some wording you introduced to the article here. Below the table comparing parallel and non-parallel sentences you wrote: "The first two nonparallel examples have a mix of gerunds and infinitives." While this is true of the first example ("She likes cooking, jogging, and to read"), it is not true of the second example ("He likes baseball and running"), which mixes a gerund with a regular noun. I've tweaked the wording to remove the inaccuracy, but I'd appreciate it if you'd review my edit to ensure I haven't introduced any inaccuracies of my own. Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 02:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Something you still don't seem to get, as demonstrated by this edit regards editing posts. You claimed here that you were quoting from the closer's talk page but then added text that was never in the text that you quoted. That is simply unnaceptable. Never do that. If you want to comment on something that someone has said, you do as AlexTheWhovian said and make a new comment. WP:TALKNO is quite clear on this when it says to be "precise in quoting others". Adding your own text to the quote is not being precise, it's misrepresenting what was said. TALKNO goes on to say " Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures", which is also relevant. Even editing your own posts is generally to be avoided, as explained in WP:REDACT. After you have opened a discussion such as an RfC, requested move, or deletion discussion, once there are any replies you should not change the nomination at all, with the exception of closing it. As explained by WP:REDACT, "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." WP:REDACT does say that you may change your comments but this should not be done to the nomination text, regardless of how minor you think it is. Everyone visiting an RM, RfC or deletion discussion should see the same nomination otherwise the process becomes corrupted. Any changes you make to your other posts should be obvious. If the changes are significant, then sometimes it is best to completely retract the post and start a new one altogether if somebody has replied. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
<ins>
would indicate an addition to his comment.
Square brackets indicate an editorial comment. I don’t know why you don’t understand this, but I trust Wikipedia editors at large to be competent enough to recognize what square brackets signify within a quote, and to compare to the source if in doubt. But to assuage your fears, I’ll add an explanatory note. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 04:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
<ins>
would indicate an addition to his comment." If someone were to change that to "The underlining of <ins>
would indicate an addition to his comment but I agree that I am completely wrong" and you didn't notice, who is to know that you didn't write it without looking at the edit history? Because it's not immediately obvious we simply don't edit (or insert stuff into) posts made by others.Square brackets indicate an editorial comment.They do not on Wikipedia talk pages. Per WP:REDACT, which you appear not to have read, "Any inserted text should marked with
<u>...</u>
or <ins>...</ins>
, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted." It's really that simple. Rememeber, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style and that is what we follow. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:REDACT, which you appear not to have read…Actually, I had to point out and explain that markup, as well as the extra timestamp the guideline goes on to recommend, in that very RM: [1]. Still don’t know why it didn’t seem to be visible to you. Weird custom CSS, maybe? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 10:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
From my perspective, I didn’t change the original text of my move request; using <ins>
/<del>
(particularly with a new extra timestamp) preserves the original text quite clearly. Is there a guideline that recommends against applying
WP:REDACT in certain scenarios? Or is it more a matter of personal preference? I haven’t seen anything at
WP:RM.
As for that example of editing a user’s comment in place… yeah, that’s absolutely unacceptable vandalism. And not what happened. If you quoted me elsewhere and added that line like that, you’d still be in the wrong, but that wouldn’t give me (let alone a third party) license to go editing your comment just because it had some of my words in it. I’d leave a comment calling attention to it and strenuously asking you to self-revert. And I would also be confused as to what it was supposed to make people think: that I supposedly added the phrase sometime before you copied it? That I came along sometime later and added it to your comment? That you belatedly filled in the rest? The markup just doesn’t make sense there.
But none of this is germane, because what I did wasn’t misrepresentation. I simply included some missing context to ensure the quote was precise, pointing out what he was somewhat vaguely referring to in spots, like “exception to the consensus”
(what consensus? The one about genres). If you disagree that “documentary” is an entirely different dab from either “2012 TV series” or “2012 TV series”, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. If you think pointing out what he was referring to somehow alters the meaning, I’d have to ask if you weren’t sure you hadn’t originally been misreading it; if someone came along and replaced any word “you” in this comment with “AussieLegend”, nothing whatsoever would change unless the reader somehow thought I was talking to someone else, in which case that kind of clarification is absolutely needed. Or did you think the addition implies that he was aware of the fact when that’s not necessarily the case?
But I guess it’s really just down to my use of square brackets, isn’t it? Did you think they seemed like they could have been part of his own comment? Even where I used them in the first two paragraphs of the quote? Neither you nor Alex touched those, so what was different about them? Oh wow, I really did much that one up. Just saw his comment on the review and realized there was a preexisting bracketed phrase.
Hoping to work out all our disagreements here, and I’m sorry for getting bent out of shape over the reversions. I’m asking all this because I’m sure these problems will recur if we don’t nail them down. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 11:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) edit 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page. As I've already pointed out above, WP:TALKNO says to be "precise in quoting others". Inserting your own text, for whatever reason, is not being precise. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN: What exactly is disruptive about editing my own discussion comment for clarity? Or do you refer to something else? Thanks. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 06:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
**comments ~~~~ in the quotation rather than [comments]
? —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Should note I’m not averse to breaking up the {{
talkquote}}. Just wondering if timestamped newlines would be clear enough without doing that. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've lifted your block. You should work out the formatting here, just to be safe. The text needs to be clear as to who is saying what without relying on the reader to pick up on subsequent notes. --
NeilN
talk to me 06:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@
NeilN: Actually, I’m not at all clear on whether my other insertions (which have remained untouched) are considered improper: not arbitrary sole "exception to the consensus [against disambiguating by genre]" … If this [referring to (TV series) disambiguator] does not resolve …
. Thoughts? —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- "I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page. Note I'm inserting my commentary in square brackets with red text suffixed by -67:" --
NeilN
talk to me 06:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You know, it’s obvious now that you mention it… I’ll just do exactly that. Thanks! —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 06:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Have a great rest of your holiday season! If you do not, then you should know that I have acquired a very particular set of skills on my time on Wikipedia. Skills that make me a nightmare for people who do not enjoy themselves. If you do not have a great time this year, I will find you... And I will block you.
But seriously, happy holidays.
Dark
Knight
2149 22:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |