This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Environmental Barnstar | ||
Thanks for creating the new article Solar power in Mexico and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Dear Apteva, please accept this award in recognition of having recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia.
Thank you for improving and expanding the topic of solar power in the encyclopedia, and for all your contributions. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Technology Barnstar | ||
For your tireless work on creating solar parks' articles. Beagel ( talk) 13:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Current Events Barnstar | ||
Thanks for creating the new Karadzhalovo Solar Park article, about this new solar park in Bulgaria. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Environmental Barnstar | ||
Thanks for creating the new Solar power in South Dakota article, and for your efforts to expand Wikipedia's coverage of solar power related topics Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for the nomination and the heads-up.-- MrRenewables ( talk) 08:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey- just so you're aware, there's nothing wrong with redlinks when they link to viable articles, and there's no need to remove them or force people to write the articles. Red links help Wikipedia grow, and removing them could even be damaging. Even featured articles often contain a large number of redlinks, but, if they're linking to viable topics, that's certainly not a problem. J Milburn ( talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop trolling on the bird discussion on this page. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! ( BOOM!) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've not looked at the specific page in question. But I know Apteva to be a good editor and steady contributor in the renewable energy subject area. He has struck me as a knowledgeable person who has much to contribute to WP discussions. Johnfos ( talk) 04:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Apteva, I see you have posting an advertisement for an RFC at several user talk pages. Are you aware of the provisions of WP:CANVAS? See these diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
Take care.
Noetica Tea? 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
"I am contacting you, and all past participants in recent discussions on this issue, because there is now a new RFC. ..."
You recently added File:Dashes.png to the dash article. So perhaps it would be easy for you to correct the prominent typo "hypen" to "hyphen". Art LaPella ( talk) 00:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for consolidating these discussions. Part of the reason RMs is so backlogged is editors not properly doing multiple page moves properly. I never thought before to consolidate them myself, but you've done so in a respectful, neutral manner that I may try to emulate in the future. -- BDD ( talk) 22:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As soon as you are back online, please take a look at your RfB page. It would be good if you were to withdraw the RfB at this stage. Given both the current !voting margin and the substance of the concerns that have been expressed, there is no chance of its passing.
Some users have speculated that you might have meant to file a request for adminship rather than a request for bureaucratship. Could you clarify if this is the case? If it is, the sooner you withdraw the mistaken RfB, the better. I'd suggest you then wait for at least a few weeks before filing for RfA instead.
Of course, your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, and should continue regardless of which titles you might have or aspire to. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Apteva, I read through your two talk page archives and being a bit confused: I see you were blocked, confronted with multiple accounts, and finally a failed RfA. Yes, that is really old stuff, but normally a failed adminship candidate should read the "documentation" how to be successfully next time. As it seems you didn't that - and really - I believe you're doing a great job to improve the encyclopedia ("autoreviewer" right), I highly doubt that you are ready. When I said "Although I don't know you, [...]", I hadn't recognized you before. Why? Because I was 4-8 weeks "offline" and in that time you started to be active in the WP/WT space. Regards, mabdul 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Apteva! Thanks for framing my question about "Marine" into an appropriate discussion. However, there is a slight difference between my question and the way you stated it as a heading. Here's what you wrote: "When referring to individuals who are a member of a branch of service, such as the Marines, should they be referred to as marines or Marines? Apteva (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)" However, my question is based on the change to NY Times policy (as of Feb 2009), at which time it was changed to agree with other manuals of style (including that used by the Associated Press) to capitalize "Marine" -- but NOT to capitalize "sailor" or "soldier." Your statement implies the question refers to all members of the various branches of service. The way I am asking the question is: "When referring to individuals who are a member of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Coast Guard, should they be referred to as marines or Marines, and coast guardsmen or Coast Guardsmen?" I just reposted the exact quote from the NY Times article on the MOS discussion page to clarify the decision of its editors:
Thanks! NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Apteva. Please do not edit my message; especially, please do not duplicate or use my signature. In Wikipedia, I am held responsible for word for word of what I write; therefore, I have the right to be held only and only responsible for what I write, not what others write in my name. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Apteva, many of spent most of the first half of 2011 hammering out a broad consensus on what the MOS should say about dashes. Probably you were lucky enough not to get dragged into that, but don't think that there will be much appetite to revisit these things so soon. You can see some of the discussion at this section and earlier archive pages; somewhere in there is a link to the subpage where it was taken off at the behest of ArbCom, who have ruled again more recently that such things (edits to policy and guideline pages involving style and titles) need to be treated in a non-disruptive way or there will be trouble. Sorry you had to stumble in this way. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Apteva, you removed the RM tag at Talk:Comet Hale–Bopp with this edit. I'm sure this was a mistake, but please be careful in the future. I was also a bit surprised to see that the nomination and first vote were added in an by Anthony Appleyard, who was neither the nominator or the voter. Do you know if he moved the discussion from elsewhere? -- BDD ( talk) 19:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Lorimerlite, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DO NOT edit my comments to imply that I support your idea for a renamed page. Add your own by all means. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I see I'm not the only one wondering where you picked up the idea that our MOS says "proper names use hyphens" (as opposed to en dashes). I think the MOS is clear that it depends on the relationship between the connected elements. Many proper names are styled with en dash, when things are named after two people, or two places, for example. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Whether comet will be treated as a word like equator or as a part of the name like System remains to be seen. And whether they decide to use a hyphen or an endash also remains to be seen. I can imagine using Comet Hale-Bopp for a comet discovered by Hale and Bopp and Comet Hale Lennard-Jones for one discovered by Hale and Lennard-Jones to avoid the ambiguity of Comet Hale-Lennard-Jones. But I can imagine a lot of things. If WP was a work of fiction I could put all of them in. It is not. It is a record of fact, and as far as I have been able to determine, based on a majority of books using a particular proper name, no names use an endash. Bear in mind though, this is a guideline we are dealing with, and we expect there to be exceptions. If one was found there is zero need for inclusion, because the MOS is expected to have exceptions. If there were thousands of exceptions, than mentioning them is acceptable, but not if there is only one. Apteva ( talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals (see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30 – PDF file); e.g., Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. "The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules. [9]
Until you find consensus for a new WP style, you should avoid making wholesale changes to article styling based on your idiosyncratic interpretations. In the Comet Hale–Bopp article in particular, if there's a URL in which somebody put an en dash where a hyphen is needed, by all means fix it. But I have not been able to spot such in your diffs, so the best I could was revert the whole thing. What have I missed? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
(moved from WP:MOS talk page)
In recent weeks, User:Apteva has been the most active contributor to this talk page, pushing his idiosyncratic theory about hyphens, dashes, and proper names. He has started at least three RMs based on this theory. As far as I can see, he has not been able to convince anyone to buy into his theory, and his RMs have been roundly opposed, as have his proposals here. I have not had time to read everything that he has written here recently, but on scanning it appears to be just same old same old. I think the vigorous pushing has become too disruptive, and needs to stop now. Does anyone agree, or have a good idea how to encourage a good resolution to this dead horse? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Prolific is OK, but dominating a talk page and multiple other sites with a campaign for an odd theory and change that you're finding no support for has become disruptive. As for who is doing what on WT:MOS since you showed up with your en dash theory on 24 Sept, see this tool, which shows you in the lead with 93 edits, Noetica next with 67, and falling off from there (I'm in 8th place with 15, just behind a new IP who sounds like he might be you). Noetica's contributions have been in a variety areas, not all related to your focused campaign against en dashes, which is the primary disruption. So slow down, educate yourself about en dashes, and back off on the disruption, OK? [User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon] ([User talk:Dicklyon|talk]) 22:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
(moved from WP:MOS talk page)
Mea culpa. I try to use "he or she" when I'm not sure, but sometimes I slip into the default he. Do you have a preferred type of reference or would you rather be addressed ambiguously? It may help to state your preference on your talk page, although of course you're under no obligation to do so. -- BDD ( talk) 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. That was a complete error! I have a new smaller laptop and I'm struggling to get used to it. Very sorry! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The sections deleted were clearly irrelevant to the subject. -- Apteva ( talk) 05:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
Can I fix the headers for your two requests? The H2 header usually is just the name of the person against whom sanctions are requested. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In your withdrawal of AE complaint, you seem to have added a charge of incivility against me. What's that about? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
For the record, you are officially hereby warned to yourself heed the arbcom advice that you've been throwing around: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus." You have brought personalized charges against Noetica, Neotarf, JHunterJ, and myself, for trying to restrain your outrageous behavior on WT:MOS. Cool your jets, man. If you continue to swear to fix "errors" that you see because your personal opinions differ from the advice of the MOS, particularly on things like the en dash in Mexican–American War, you are threatening to re-open a deep and painful wound that took many editors many months to patch up. Nobody is going to welcome that attitude or behavior. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Environmental Barnstar | ||
Thanks for creating the new article Solar power in Mexico and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Dear Apteva, please accept this award in recognition of having recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia.
Thank you for improving and expanding the topic of solar power in the encyclopedia, and for all your contributions. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Technology Barnstar | ||
For your tireless work on creating solar parks' articles. Beagel ( talk) 13:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Current Events Barnstar | ||
Thanks for creating the new Karadzhalovo Solar Park article, about this new solar park in Bulgaria. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
The Environmental Barnstar | ||
Thanks for creating the new Solar power in South Dakota article, and for your efforts to expand Wikipedia's coverage of solar power related topics Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for the nomination and the heads-up.-- MrRenewables ( talk) 08:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey- just so you're aware, there's nothing wrong with redlinks when they link to viable articles, and there's no need to remove them or force people to write the articles. Red links help Wikipedia grow, and removing them could even be damaging. Even featured articles often contain a large number of redlinks, but, if they're linking to viable topics, that's certainly not a problem. J Milburn ( talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop trolling on the bird discussion on this page. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! ( BOOM!) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've not looked at the specific page in question. But I know Apteva to be a good editor and steady contributor in the renewable energy subject area. He has struck me as a knowledgeable person who has much to contribute to WP discussions. Johnfos ( talk) 04:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Apteva, I see you have posting an advertisement for an RFC at several user talk pages. Are you aware of the provisions of WP:CANVAS? See these diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].
Take care.
Noetica Tea? 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
"I am contacting you, and all past participants in recent discussions on this issue, because there is now a new RFC. ..."
You recently added File:Dashes.png to the dash article. So perhaps it would be easy for you to correct the prominent typo "hypen" to "hyphen". Art LaPella ( talk) 00:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for consolidating these discussions. Part of the reason RMs is so backlogged is editors not properly doing multiple page moves properly. I never thought before to consolidate them myself, but you've done so in a respectful, neutral manner that I may try to emulate in the future. -- BDD ( talk) 22:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As soon as you are back online, please take a look at your RfB page. It would be good if you were to withdraw the RfB at this stage. Given both the current !voting margin and the substance of the concerns that have been expressed, there is no chance of its passing.
Some users have speculated that you might have meant to file a request for adminship rather than a request for bureaucratship. Could you clarify if this is the case? If it is, the sooner you withdraw the mistaken RfB, the better. I'd suggest you then wait for at least a few weeks before filing for RfA instead.
Of course, your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, and should continue regardless of which titles you might have or aspire to. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Apteva, I read through your two talk page archives and being a bit confused: I see you were blocked, confronted with multiple accounts, and finally a failed RfA. Yes, that is really old stuff, but normally a failed adminship candidate should read the "documentation" how to be successfully next time. As it seems you didn't that - and really - I believe you're doing a great job to improve the encyclopedia ("autoreviewer" right), I highly doubt that you are ready. When I said "Although I don't know you, [...]", I hadn't recognized you before. Why? Because I was 4-8 weeks "offline" and in that time you started to be active in the WP/WT space. Regards, mabdul 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Apteva! Thanks for framing my question about "Marine" into an appropriate discussion. However, there is a slight difference between my question and the way you stated it as a heading. Here's what you wrote: "When referring to individuals who are a member of a branch of service, such as the Marines, should they be referred to as marines or Marines? Apteva (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)" However, my question is based on the change to NY Times policy (as of Feb 2009), at which time it was changed to agree with other manuals of style (including that used by the Associated Press) to capitalize "Marine" -- but NOT to capitalize "sailor" or "soldier." Your statement implies the question refers to all members of the various branches of service. The way I am asking the question is: "When referring to individuals who are a member of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Coast Guard, should they be referred to as marines or Marines, and coast guardsmen or Coast Guardsmen?" I just reposted the exact quote from the NY Times article on the MOS discussion page to clarify the decision of its editors:
Thanks! NearTheZoo ( talk) 14:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Apteva. Please do not edit my message; especially, please do not duplicate or use my signature. In Wikipedia, I am held responsible for word for word of what I write; therefore, I have the right to be held only and only responsible for what I write, not what others write in my name. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Apteva, many of spent most of the first half of 2011 hammering out a broad consensus on what the MOS should say about dashes. Probably you were lucky enough not to get dragged into that, but don't think that there will be much appetite to revisit these things so soon. You can see some of the discussion at this section and earlier archive pages; somewhere in there is a link to the subpage where it was taken off at the behest of ArbCom, who have ruled again more recently that such things (edits to policy and guideline pages involving style and titles) need to be treated in a non-disruptive way or there will be trouble. Sorry you had to stumble in this way. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Apteva, you removed the RM tag at Talk:Comet Hale–Bopp with this edit. I'm sure this was a mistake, but please be careful in the future. I was also a bit surprised to see that the nomination and first vote were added in an by Anthony Appleyard, who was neither the nominator or the voter. Do you know if he moved the discussion from elsewhere? -- BDD ( talk) 19:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Lorimerlite, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DO NOT edit my comments to imply that I support your idea for a renamed page. Add your own by all means. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I see I'm not the only one wondering where you picked up the idea that our MOS says "proper names use hyphens" (as opposed to en dashes). I think the MOS is clear that it depends on the relationship between the connected elements. Many proper names are styled with en dash, when things are named after two people, or two places, for example. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Whether comet will be treated as a word like equator or as a part of the name like System remains to be seen. And whether they decide to use a hyphen or an endash also remains to be seen. I can imagine using Comet Hale-Bopp for a comet discovered by Hale and Bopp and Comet Hale Lennard-Jones for one discovered by Hale and Lennard-Jones to avoid the ambiguity of Comet Hale-Lennard-Jones. But I can imagine a lot of things. If WP was a work of fiction I could put all of them in. It is not. It is a record of fact, and as far as I have been able to determine, based on a majority of books using a particular proper name, no names use an endash. Bear in mind though, this is a guideline we are dealing with, and we expect there to be exceptions. If one was found there is zero need for inclusion, because the MOS is expected to have exceptions. If there were thousands of exceptions, than mentioning them is acceptable, but not if there is only one. Apteva ( talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals (see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30 – PDF file); e.g., Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. "The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules. [9]
Until you find consensus for a new WP style, you should avoid making wholesale changes to article styling based on your idiosyncratic interpretations. In the Comet Hale–Bopp article in particular, if there's a URL in which somebody put an en dash where a hyphen is needed, by all means fix it. But I have not been able to spot such in your diffs, so the best I could was revert the whole thing. What have I missed? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
(moved from WP:MOS talk page)
In recent weeks, User:Apteva has been the most active contributor to this talk page, pushing his idiosyncratic theory about hyphens, dashes, and proper names. He has started at least three RMs based on this theory. As far as I can see, he has not been able to convince anyone to buy into his theory, and his RMs have been roundly opposed, as have his proposals here. I have not had time to read everything that he has written here recently, but on scanning it appears to be just same old same old. I think the vigorous pushing has become too disruptive, and needs to stop now. Does anyone agree, or have a good idea how to encourage a good resolution to this dead horse? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Prolific is OK, but dominating a talk page and multiple other sites with a campaign for an odd theory and change that you're finding no support for has become disruptive. As for who is doing what on WT:MOS since you showed up with your en dash theory on 24 Sept, see this tool, which shows you in the lead with 93 edits, Noetica next with 67, and falling off from there (I'm in 8th place with 15, just behind a new IP who sounds like he might be you). Noetica's contributions have been in a variety areas, not all related to your focused campaign against en dashes, which is the primary disruption. So slow down, educate yourself about en dashes, and back off on the disruption, OK? [User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon] ([User talk:Dicklyon|talk]) 22:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
(moved from WP:MOS talk page)
Mea culpa. I try to use "he or she" when I'm not sure, but sometimes I slip into the default he. Do you have a preferred type of reference or would you rather be addressed ambiguously? It may help to state your preference on your talk page, although of course you're under no obligation to do so. -- BDD ( talk) 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. That was a complete error! I have a new smaller laptop and I'm struggling to get used to it. Very sorry! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The sections deleted were clearly irrelevant to the subject. -- Apteva ( talk) 05:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
Can I fix the headers for your two requests? The H2 header usually is just the name of the person against whom sanctions are requested. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In your withdrawal of AE complaint, you seem to have added a charge of incivility against me. What's that about? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
For the record, you are officially hereby warned to yourself heed the arbcom advice that you've been throwing around: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus." You have brought personalized charges against Noetica, Neotarf, JHunterJ, and myself, for trying to restrain your outrageous behavior on WT:MOS. Cool your jets, man. If you continue to swear to fix "errors" that you see because your personal opinions differ from the advice of the MOS, particularly on things like the en dash in Mexican–American War, you are threatening to re-open a deep and painful wound that took many editors many months to patch up. Nobody is going to welcome that attitude or behavior. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)