![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 34 |
EEng and Timothyjosephwood I saw the recent edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining, and I thought I might be able to help sort this out. I'll copy the paragraph here for ease of reference:
Wikipedia is not about whining. Complaining about editor behavior is appropriate, such as at a relevant
noticeboard, when that behavior is contrary to
Wikipedia policies and guidelines and harms the project. But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy, nor catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's
fundamental principles.
The question is whether it should read "or catharsis" or "nor catharsis". Tjw thinks it should be "or", and provided an edit summary saying "Double negative", and EEng thinks it should be "nor". I don't think "double negative" applies, or is the problem, here. The fact that "nor catharsis" is separated by a comma makes "nor" all right, but perhaps stylistically two "nor" phrases in a row is not optimal. It's like saying "not complaint for its own sake, nor [for/as] group therapy, [and] nor [for/as] catharsis", with the "and" left out. Unless there is a particular reason for separating "catharsis" from "group therapy", if you take out the comma after "group therapy", then "or" is perfectly fine. It creates a phrase of two nouns/noun phrases: "nor group therapy or catharsis", with the entire phrase balancing, on the other side of "nor", "not complaint for its own sake". So, unless a major re-arrangement is made to that part of the sentence, you have two choices:
(a) But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy, nor catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's fundamental principles. (Two "nor's", with the phrases separated by a comma; the three negative phrases highlighted in bold.)
(b) But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy or catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's fundamental principles. (One "nor", no comma after "therapy"; the two negative noun phrases highlighted in bold.)
So, it turns out that you are both right. Both of these are acceptable. Which do you prefer?
On another issue in this sentence, it seems to me that this essay was written to explain when complaining is appropriate and when it is not. I think the beginning of this second sentence is unnecessarily wordy. I think it should read:
I don't think italics are necessary.
Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
nor group therapy or catharsis– removing the comma) but couldn't face the task of explaining. But you're right about Corinne. E Eng 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Thanks, EEng! Tjw, are you suggesting I'm a grammar addict? You may be right. I agree with Timothyjosephwood about "nor", but I still think it would work here if the sentence is simplified. I'm thinking that since this essay is mainly to discourage unnecessary complaining, more down-to-earth language would be best. I would even remove "for its own sake". What do you think of this wording? –
(i.) But complaining should not be done just for the sake of complaining, nor as a substitute for group therapy or catharsis,... [or]
(ii.) But editors should not complain just for the sake of complaining, nor as a substitute for group therapy or catharsis,...
– Corinne ( talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't catch something. Communicating in writing is not as easy as discussing something in person, is it? But I think things are clearer now. I'm delighted to have you both discussing things here, and Tim, you're certainly not a brute. By the way, I also sometimes respond by posting an image. – Corinne ( talk) 02:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
EdChem Thought you might be interested in reading this exchange and the linked discussions: User talk:EEng#Incident board trolling. – Corinne ( talk) 00:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() A small
pond hockey field
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Calorie • Maya mythology Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hello, I hope you don't mind but I have taken the liberty of reverting the section began by an IP sock of a banned user, SPI is [ here]. Case is closed and will be archived shortly. No offense intended. Cheers! Aloha27 talk 19:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Corinne, please don't drink the Cool Aid from this user. I don't know exactly what the problem is, but it looks like he thinks that just because I have a dynamic IP address, which is why it changes a lot, that means I must be sock-puppeting. We're not socks just because our IP addresses change. In case you don't know (you did say that you're not super familiar with the inner workings of computer things), the way a dynamic IP address works is that you have one address for a little while, and then when you're not online, the ISP gives that address to someone else. There may be more than one way this happens, so you never know when it's going to happen or why. But these IP addresses are me; I'm not going around pretending to be other people here. So if you would please give me the benefit of the doubt instead of just buying all that hype, I'd appreciate it. Okay?
75.162.250.231 (
talk)
10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
As for what Corinne's pointed out about your talk page formatting, this is a great example of what I mean by "I'm going to do whatever I like, and since you complained about x, I'm definitely going to keep doing that particular x thing, until you give up, so ha ha ha." A.k.a.
WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior, a.k.a.
WP:Disruptive editing, a.k.a. a
WP:Competence is required failure. Until you actually change, I don't think the community will unblock you, which means you'll continue to get your IP addresses blocked, probably with an entire range block soon enough, even if you're not a sockpuppet of a banned user. Your input here is a net negative for productivity, even if you sometimes have a reasonable edit to make or suggest. It's like having a drunk and violent uncle at one's wedding; if he punches one of your guests, you have your brothers throw him out, even though he is family, he did bring a present, and he proposed a nice toast before he had the seventh beer.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne,
I see that you're a fairly recent contributor to the Manual of Style's talk page. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?
Thanks if so, 174.23.157.73 ( talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?
Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initial abbreviations such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms [even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased]), or just calling them "initialisms" or "initial abbreviations" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?
Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?
And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?
Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?
Thanks for your opinions, and then we'll go from here, 174.23.157.73 ( talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay, guys. Thanks for your willingness. And thank you specifically, Corinne, for letting us use your talk page for this.
I just figured it would be better to know if I could work with people because I didn't want to start a discussion that would just turn into a fight. And if you have certain beliefs generally (such as that MOS normally applies everywhere, or that non-acronym abbreviations shouldn't be labeled as "acronyms," or that things are better when they're cleared up rather than when left foggy, then it wouldn't matter what context you found them in; I'd have the idea that we'd be on the same page and not get in a fight together. And then we'd go to where the context is, already knowing that there would be peace, and fix the problems peacefully. Ya get what I mean now?
McCandlish, I thought you were nice and reasonable enough not to laugh at someone else's expense (like mine, in this case) in your edit summaries. Will you please not do that?
But all right, from here I'll show you the context. Now, I already did read the MOS, and that's why I know about MOS:TENSE. It's not really stylistc stuff; it's about 1. applying the MOS because it exists, so it doesn't make sense for one editor to think he has more say to kick against it, and 2. applying other improvements for clarification purposes, which this other editor doesn't understand.
With that, I've started our discussion so that we can go back and restore the improvements that were already made to Commodore CDTV that this disruptive editor insists on destroying.
Thanks,
75.162.196.158 ( talk) 07:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Corinne, I'm not deleting my posting at the talk page. I'm doing everything I can to do the right thing to have a discussion (you know, part of "B/R/D") over there. And I would take your suggestions, but we have a few trolls who keep deleting my efforts on us there. Will you help stop them please?
75.162.222.177 ( talk) 20:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
On the side matter: No one wants to see paragraphs double-spaced apart. It's visually annoying, makes a mess of the discussion (later replies look like part of the end of the double-spaced material) and no one else does it. If others aren't doing it here, you shouldn't either. This, too, suggests that you're here to impose your own idiosyncratic style ideas. Re: "it would be better to know if I could work with people" – You have to be able to work with everyone here; this is a collaborative environment, not a deathmatch video game. Heh.
If you're working in an indented reply, you can introduce paragraph breaks, without producing mangled lists in the rendered HTML, by using the HTML paragraph tag inline: :::Blah blah.<p>More here.</p><p>And yet more.</p>
If it ends up being long and hard to read in the source, you can use HTML comments to split the inline paragraph markup to separate lines without affecting the :-delimited (<dl><dd>...</dd></dl>
) list output, as I've done in the comment I'm writing now, though few people bother with this; it's a "Web coder nerd" thing. Regardless, please remember the closing </p>
tag if you use paragraph markup; leaving it off messes up the output of the syntax-highlighting scripts many of us use.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
21:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh, I was gone all day, and... whooo boy, it looks like I have some messes to clean up! It even sounds like some of you want to block me just for doing what I thought you were supposed to do... What the heck?! Okay, the best way for me to do this is just in chronological order of the replies. Right? And some of you suggested that numbering would be useful. Right? Okay, here we go:
1. SMcCandlish:
A. LOL, no. See, according to your new reply, you've misunderstood what I was trying to do based on :TENSE. You thought I was trying to enforce the past tense? Haha, no. I was trying to have done what the MOS says to do, which is what you already did now, and thanks: bring the article into the present tense. How did you misunderstand that? And what's "wrong" with using the word "enforce," when: in the past when I made edits that were against the MOS (unknowingly, of course), editors insisted that the MOS way was the way to do it, and I must not do it another way. Okay then, so why should I not follow their lead by having other editors do the same?
B. Thanks for REmaking the edits, so far, and making a new one, that were not only to apply the tense MOS rule, but also to clean up the area regarding non-acronym abbreviations and adding back the specificity of the floppy disk drive. Now there's still one more issue: that of where it says, "stereo-like," which I already brought up. What kind of stereo: a home rack component? A car stereo? A conventional boombox, or a docking station boombox? Or a personal stereo system with headphones? And then "instead of a computer"? What kind of computer? You see why I say we need words like "traditional" or "conventional," and "home," etc.? So what if we were to write something like I had already written (one editor gave me his point that even more specificity would be better), something like, "like a conventional home stereo system component from its (the CDTV's) era, instead of a conventional desktop computer"? (Remember, by "traditonal" or "conventional," I don't just mean from a certain time period; rather, I mean a certain shape. For a long time these were the conventional shapes, but there may have been some unusual shapes even then, so I just want to signal to readers that we're only talking about the usual fare of equipment shape. Can we do that, please?
C. As for adding extra space between paragraphs... wow! Who knew someone could get so upset by such a small thing as a little extra space? And nice job on assuming that the reason I do it is supposedly to "impose" my view on other editors. Look, I don't give a crap how you guys space your paragraphs. Please "excuse me" for doing something that I thought would be helpful! Wow, talk about biting people's heads off! The reason I do--oh, um... I guess I mean "did"--it was because I was writing a lot and I thought breaking things up with a little more space between--Wait, did you not read what I already explained to Corinne? I thought I was helping people's eyes to have a bit of rest between blocks because I know that if I see huge blocks of text I tend to go "TL;DR," and I do my best to explain things shortly but I think people see the big block and go, "Ughhh, oh my gosh, this is overwhelming to read!" But if they see one small block, then a little visual rest, and then another block, I figured that they wouldn't be so overwhelmed. But OMG, wow, if that bothers you so badly, then I'll try to make sure I don't do that! So I never suggested it was some kind of dumb "deathmatch video game," geesh. "Sorry" for trying to help!
D. Okay, I've looked and I can't see a difference: What is the <p></p> pair of tags supposed to do that just a plain carriage return doesn't do?
75.162.250.231 ( talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:
-delimited indent. That is, the parser treats "line which starts with :
and ends with a CR/LF" as the indented "thing", technically a <dd>...</dd>
list entry if you do "View source" on the resultant page that's sent to your browser. It ignores HTML paragraph markup. Ergo, you can insert an HTML paragraph, or other block element, such as a <blockquote>...</blockquote>
, as long as there is no linebreak, no matter how long the line gets (line meaning "that which is between one CR/LF and another" not "text I see shown to me visually on one line before it soft-wraps at whatever my present window width calls for"). An exception is that a linebreak inside a <!-- ... -->
HTML comment will be ignored by the parser. I takes experimentation to figure out MediaWiki's goofy, buggy, and very limited list syntax. For example, your attempts to use #
list markup here did not work, because the #
-delimited numbered list entries are not contiguous, and thus both items ended up number "1."; I've fixed that with manual numbering for you. I also fixed (with single blank lines) your broken manually-formatted "A., B., C. ..." lists; the parser treats non-list text all as one big paragraph when there's not a blank line (not just a CR/LF) between the blocks. For a list to display as a list, it has to use actual list markup, and the list element cannot have blank lines between them (other than by using the HTML-comment trick).2. Sb2001:
A. Why do you feel like the other editors would've somehow been "justified" (in quotes because that's only your idea) for laying into me for asking more than one editor what they believe about certain ideas, without necessarily having a specific article in view at the time? Why should such discussion be forbidden here? There are editors who say that when we have a dispute in the editing process, we must seek consensus. Indeed, that's part of the Wikipedia rules to avoid edit-warring. Okay, so what, then, is so "wrong," as you would say, with calling editors to the discussion? What I see here is a contradiction of instructions: On one hand, you guys say we should seek consensus. But on the other, then you slap my hands for it! How's a guy supposed to get anything done if he's supposedly not allowed to alert a few editors that the discussion is out there to be had? And then what's so "wrong" with asking a few of them questions to see which ones are most willing to work with me? What do you do you just randomly pick one guy and he says something like "Nahh, man, I don't know about that subject; I'm sorry. Good luck!"? You're just SOL, dead in your tracks, simply because you picked the wrong guy and you're "not allowed" to try anyone else because somehow that's just "wrong"? Well, if it's not wrong to move on to someone else who is more likely to be of help in discussing the issues, then why should it be so "wrong" to bring attention to a handful of them at once in the name of not having to wait until one says he's not really good for that discussion?
B. What's so "wrong" with criticizing others' edit summaries for what seemed to be a bit of incivility (and my bad if it was not), if other editors have criticized mine for the same kind of reason and they don't get suggested not to do it? Why should it be any different for me?
C. I wasn't just trying to involve myself in the MOS. It just happens to be the reference I used to remind the first troll that he was wrong to keep reverting against it. And why should I do anything different from what other editors have said to me in the past when they told me stuff like, "No, you can't edit that way; the MOS says to do it this way"? And why is it that when I apply the MOS rules here, it fails, but then when SMcC does it, it sticks?
D. What's so "wrong," according to you, with just editing as an IP editor, if Wikipedia makes it available to us? Geesh, ya'd think that if they didn't want to allow someone to do something, they'd prevent it. Right? So why should you breath down my neck to make an account, like I'm somehow "in the wrong" for not doing it, if editing without one is already allowed?
E. Wait, ask? Did you not actually read the message I sent a few editors? Was it not full of questions about how they believed things should be in given cases? Not only that, but it's funny that you're telling me to ask someone how to apply the MOS to an article. Why should I ask if it's "okay" to apply the MOS if I already know it is? Why should I ask someone something like, "Hey, if the MOS tells us to use present tense, should we go ahead and apply present tense to the article, or should we feel constrained to ignore the MOS? Why should I ask someone what the definition of a word (such as "acronym" is) instead of just telling them, when I already know what the word means, and am just imparting the truth to them, because I've already seen that asking them for that brings up the wrong answer? Geeze, why are so many Wikipedia editors so opposed to consistency?
F. Again with that "forming your own little groups" thing. Since when was I doing that just by asking people how they believed? And even if someone does that, so what? Again, just read what I already asked about that in A. here, and tell me how you're supposed to find editors to seek consensus from if you supposedly can't even talk to them about what they understand (as I explained with my case in point that one editor felt he wasn't really cut out for the discussion)?
75.162.250.231 ( talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
[[MOS:DATE]]
. You have only mentioned SMcCandlish to have a go at him. I shall not engage in that sort of slaying of other editors.Nuff said. E Eng 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Chris troutman Hello, Chris – Do you feel like placing some kind of warning on this editor's talk page? See this edit and the one before the bot edit at Homo floresiensis. – Corinne ( talk) 04:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Corinne,
Thanks so much for taking the time to peer review the article! Here are some replies to issues you raised on my Talk page:
1) A few times, I changed a number such as "10" to the word for the number, "ten". I usually do that for numbers of one or two digits (except in a science or math article). However, I stopped changing the number to the word about half-way through the article, particularly for number of enemy planes shot down. I thought I'd ask you first what you thought.
4) In the first paragraph in Formosa Air Battle#Background you introduce the Sho plan. In the third paragraph of that section you discuss Sho 1 and Sho 2. The first mentions of those are un-hyphenated, and I added a no-break space between Sho and the number so it wouldn't break between them at the end of a line (the number will stay with the word). Then, at the end of that paragraph, you have "Sho-2", with a hyphen between Sho and "2". I left it as it was, but I have to ask you which you prefer: hyphenated or un-hyphenated. These should be consistent.
5) I paused at the phrase "such overwhelming enemy air power". All I could see in the preceding sentences that could remotely be seen as "overwhelming air power" was "Surprise U.S. carrier strikes against the Ryukyu Islands". I don't see any indication that anything was overwhelming. I think you either need to provide details as to how the U.S. air power was overwhelming or change "the response to such overwhelming enemy air power" to "the response to these attacks (or strikes)".
7) I found most of the article quite well written and clear (and I know little about either World War II or air battles). In the third paragraph of the Formosa Air Battle#Aftermath, however, you lost me. I had to read it several times to figure out what this was about. I think it might help to add the adjective "Japanese" before "634th Naval Air Group" so the reader knows which side this is about. Those familiar with the names of battle groups and units will probably know that this was a Japanese air group, but the average Wikipedia reader might not. It might help, also, to give an indication of when the events in the second and third paragraphs happened. I know the third paragraph contains the phrase, "By January 1945", but the second and third paragraphs seem kind of lost in space and time when compared with all the other paragraphs. Adding to that impression are two phrases that mystify me: "Freshly constituted carrier units" and "land-based air power". For the non-expert, these don't mean much. (When I read "freshly constituted", I think of orange juice reconstituted from a frozen state, and I wonder how air power can be land-based.) Well, that's all.
I'll work the context into the article over the next couple days before I push this into GA Review. Thanks again for all of your help here. Best Regards, Finktron ( talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Corinne, you kindly performed a GOCE cleanup at Balfour Declaration a few months ago. I just wanted to let you know that the article is now at WP:FAC in case you would like to comment further. Best regards, Onceinawhile ( talk) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 34 |
EEng and Timothyjosephwood I saw the recent edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining, and I thought I might be able to help sort this out. I'll copy the paragraph here for ease of reference:
Wikipedia is not about whining. Complaining about editor behavior is appropriate, such as at a relevant
noticeboard, when that behavior is contrary to
Wikipedia policies and guidelines and harms the project. But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy, nor catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's
fundamental principles.
The question is whether it should read "or catharsis" or "nor catharsis". Tjw thinks it should be "or", and provided an edit summary saying "Double negative", and EEng thinks it should be "nor". I don't think "double negative" applies, or is the problem, here. The fact that "nor catharsis" is separated by a comma makes "nor" all right, but perhaps stylistically two "nor" phrases in a row is not optimal. It's like saying "not complaint for its own sake, nor [for/as] group therapy, [and] nor [for/as] catharsis", with the "and" left out. Unless there is a particular reason for separating "catharsis" from "group therapy", if you take out the comma after "group therapy", then "or" is perfectly fine. It creates a phrase of two nouns/noun phrases: "nor group therapy or catharsis", with the entire phrase balancing, on the other side of "nor", "not complaint for its own sake". So, unless a major re-arrangement is made to that part of the sentence, you have two choices:
(a) But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy, nor catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's fundamental principles. (Two "nor's", with the phrases separated by a comma; the three negative phrases highlighted in bold.)
(b) But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy or catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's fundamental principles. (One "nor", no comma after "therapy"; the two negative noun phrases highlighted in bold.)
So, it turns out that you are both right. Both of these are acceptable. Which do you prefer?
On another issue in this sentence, it seems to me that this essay was written to explain when complaining is appropriate and when it is not. I think the beginning of this second sentence is unnecessarily wordy. I think it should read:
I don't think italics are necessary.
Best regards, – Corinne ( talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
nor group therapy or catharsis– removing the comma) but couldn't face the task of explaining. But you're right about Corinne. E Eng 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Thanks, EEng! Tjw, are you suggesting I'm a grammar addict? You may be right. I agree with Timothyjosephwood about "nor", but I still think it would work here if the sentence is simplified. I'm thinking that since this essay is mainly to discourage unnecessary complaining, more down-to-earth language would be best. I would even remove "for its own sake". What do you think of this wording? –
(i.) But complaining should not be done just for the sake of complaining, nor as a substitute for group therapy or catharsis,... [or]
(ii.) But editors should not complain just for the sake of complaining, nor as a substitute for group therapy or catharsis,...
– Corinne ( talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't catch something. Communicating in writing is not as easy as discussing something in person, is it? But I think things are clearer now. I'm delighted to have you both discussing things here, and Tim, you're certainly not a brute. By the way, I also sometimes respond by posting an image. – Corinne ( talk) 02:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
EdChem Thought you might be interested in reading this exchange and the linked discussions: User talk:EEng#Incident board trolling. – Corinne ( talk) 00:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() A small
pond hockey field
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Calorie • Maya mythology Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Hello, I hope you don't mind but I have taken the liberty of reverting the section began by an IP sock of a banned user, SPI is [ here]. Case is closed and will be archived shortly. No offense intended. Cheers! Aloha27 talk 19:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Corinne, please don't drink the Cool Aid from this user. I don't know exactly what the problem is, but it looks like he thinks that just because I have a dynamic IP address, which is why it changes a lot, that means I must be sock-puppeting. We're not socks just because our IP addresses change. In case you don't know (you did say that you're not super familiar with the inner workings of computer things), the way a dynamic IP address works is that you have one address for a little while, and then when you're not online, the ISP gives that address to someone else. There may be more than one way this happens, so you never know when it's going to happen or why. But these IP addresses are me; I'm not going around pretending to be other people here. So if you would please give me the benefit of the doubt instead of just buying all that hype, I'd appreciate it. Okay?
75.162.250.231 (
talk)
10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
As for what Corinne's pointed out about your talk page formatting, this is a great example of what I mean by "I'm going to do whatever I like, and since you complained about x, I'm definitely going to keep doing that particular x thing, until you give up, so ha ha ha." A.k.a.
WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior, a.k.a.
WP:Disruptive editing, a.k.a. a
WP:Competence is required failure. Until you actually change, I don't think the community will unblock you, which means you'll continue to get your IP addresses blocked, probably with an entire range block soon enough, even if you're not a sockpuppet of a banned user. Your input here is a net negative for productivity, even if you sometimes have a reasonable edit to make or suggest. It's like having a drunk and violent uncle at one's wedding; if he punches one of your guests, you have your brothers throw him out, even though he is family, he did bring a present, and he proposed a nice toast before he had the seventh beer.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Corinne,
I see that you're a fairly recent contributor to the Manual of Style's talk page. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?
Thanks if so, 174.23.157.73 ( talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?
Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initial abbreviations such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms [even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased]), or just calling them "initialisms" or "initial abbreviations" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?
Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?
And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?
Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?
Thanks for your opinions, and then we'll go from here, 174.23.157.73 ( talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay, guys. Thanks for your willingness. And thank you specifically, Corinne, for letting us use your talk page for this.
I just figured it would be better to know if I could work with people because I didn't want to start a discussion that would just turn into a fight. And if you have certain beliefs generally (such as that MOS normally applies everywhere, or that non-acronym abbreviations shouldn't be labeled as "acronyms," or that things are better when they're cleared up rather than when left foggy, then it wouldn't matter what context you found them in; I'd have the idea that we'd be on the same page and not get in a fight together. And then we'd go to where the context is, already knowing that there would be peace, and fix the problems peacefully. Ya get what I mean now?
McCandlish, I thought you were nice and reasonable enough not to laugh at someone else's expense (like mine, in this case) in your edit summaries. Will you please not do that?
But all right, from here I'll show you the context. Now, I already did read the MOS, and that's why I know about MOS:TENSE. It's not really stylistc stuff; it's about 1. applying the MOS because it exists, so it doesn't make sense for one editor to think he has more say to kick against it, and 2. applying other improvements for clarification purposes, which this other editor doesn't understand.
With that, I've started our discussion so that we can go back and restore the improvements that were already made to Commodore CDTV that this disruptive editor insists on destroying.
Thanks,
75.162.196.158 ( talk) 07:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Corinne, I'm not deleting my posting at the talk page. I'm doing everything I can to do the right thing to have a discussion (you know, part of "B/R/D") over there. And I would take your suggestions, but we have a few trolls who keep deleting my efforts on us there. Will you help stop them please?
75.162.222.177 ( talk) 20:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
On the side matter: No one wants to see paragraphs double-spaced apart. It's visually annoying, makes a mess of the discussion (later replies look like part of the end of the double-spaced material) and no one else does it. If others aren't doing it here, you shouldn't either. This, too, suggests that you're here to impose your own idiosyncratic style ideas. Re: "it would be better to know if I could work with people" – You have to be able to work with everyone here; this is a collaborative environment, not a deathmatch video game. Heh.
If you're working in an indented reply, you can introduce paragraph breaks, without producing mangled lists in the rendered HTML, by using the HTML paragraph tag inline: :::Blah blah.<p>More here.</p><p>And yet more.</p>
If it ends up being long and hard to read in the source, you can use HTML comments to split the inline paragraph markup to separate lines without affecting the :-delimited (<dl><dd>...</dd></dl>
) list output, as I've done in the comment I'm writing now, though few people bother with this; it's a "Web coder nerd" thing. Regardless, please remember the closing </p>
tag if you use paragraph markup; leaving it off messes up the output of the syntax-highlighting scripts many of us use.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
21:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh, I was gone all day, and... whooo boy, it looks like I have some messes to clean up! It even sounds like some of you want to block me just for doing what I thought you were supposed to do... What the heck?! Okay, the best way for me to do this is just in chronological order of the replies. Right? And some of you suggested that numbering would be useful. Right? Okay, here we go:
1. SMcCandlish:
A. LOL, no. See, according to your new reply, you've misunderstood what I was trying to do based on :TENSE. You thought I was trying to enforce the past tense? Haha, no. I was trying to have done what the MOS says to do, which is what you already did now, and thanks: bring the article into the present tense. How did you misunderstand that? And what's "wrong" with using the word "enforce," when: in the past when I made edits that were against the MOS (unknowingly, of course), editors insisted that the MOS way was the way to do it, and I must not do it another way. Okay then, so why should I not follow their lead by having other editors do the same?
B. Thanks for REmaking the edits, so far, and making a new one, that were not only to apply the tense MOS rule, but also to clean up the area regarding non-acronym abbreviations and adding back the specificity of the floppy disk drive. Now there's still one more issue: that of where it says, "stereo-like," which I already brought up. What kind of stereo: a home rack component? A car stereo? A conventional boombox, or a docking station boombox? Or a personal stereo system with headphones? And then "instead of a computer"? What kind of computer? You see why I say we need words like "traditional" or "conventional," and "home," etc.? So what if we were to write something like I had already written (one editor gave me his point that even more specificity would be better), something like, "like a conventional home stereo system component from its (the CDTV's) era, instead of a conventional desktop computer"? (Remember, by "traditonal" or "conventional," I don't just mean from a certain time period; rather, I mean a certain shape. For a long time these were the conventional shapes, but there may have been some unusual shapes even then, so I just want to signal to readers that we're only talking about the usual fare of equipment shape. Can we do that, please?
C. As for adding extra space between paragraphs... wow! Who knew someone could get so upset by such a small thing as a little extra space? And nice job on assuming that the reason I do it is supposedly to "impose" my view on other editors. Look, I don't give a crap how you guys space your paragraphs. Please "excuse me" for doing something that I thought would be helpful! Wow, talk about biting people's heads off! The reason I do--oh, um... I guess I mean "did"--it was because I was writing a lot and I thought breaking things up with a little more space between--Wait, did you not read what I already explained to Corinne? I thought I was helping people's eyes to have a bit of rest between blocks because I know that if I see huge blocks of text I tend to go "TL;DR," and I do my best to explain things shortly but I think people see the big block and go, "Ughhh, oh my gosh, this is overwhelming to read!" But if they see one small block, then a little visual rest, and then another block, I figured that they wouldn't be so overwhelmed. But OMG, wow, if that bothers you so badly, then I'll try to make sure I don't do that! So I never suggested it was some kind of dumb "deathmatch video game," geesh. "Sorry" for trying to help!
D. Okay, I've looked and I can't see a difference: What is the <p></p> pair of tags supposed to do that just a plain carriage return doesn't do?
75.162.250.231 ( talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:
-delimited indent. That is, the parser treats "line which starts with :
and ends with a CR/LF" as the indented "thing", technically a <dd>...</dd>
list entry if you do "View source" on the resultant page that's sent to your browser. It ignores HTML paragraph markup. Ergo, you can insert an HTML paragraph, or other block element, such as a <blockquote>...</blockquote>
, as long as there is no linebreak, no matter how long the line gets (line meaning "that which is between one CR/LF and another" not "text I see shown to me visually on one line before it soft-wraps at whatever my present window width calls for"). An exception is that a linebreak inside a <!-- ... -->
HTML comment will be ignored by the parser. I takes experimentation to figure out MediaWiki's goofy, buggy, and very limited list syntax. For example, your attempts to use #
list markup here did not work, because the #
-delimited numbered list entries are not contiguous, and thus both items ended up number "1."; I've fixed that with manual numbering for you. I also fixed (with single blank lines) your broken manually-formatted "A., B., C. ..." lists; the parser treats non-list text all as one big paragraph when there's not a blank line (not just a CR/LF) between the blocks. For a list to display as a list, it has to use actual list markup, and the list element cannot have blank lines between them (other than by using the HTML-comment trick).2. Sb2001:
A. Why do you feel like the other editors would've somehow been "justified" (in quotes because that's only your idea) for laying into me for asking more than one editor what they believe about certain ideas, without necessarily having a specific article in view at the time? Why should such discussion be forbidden here? There are editors who say that when we have a dispute in the editing process, we must seek consensus. Indeed, that's part of the Wikipedia rules to avoid edit-warring. Okay, so what, then, is so "wrong," as you would say, with calling editors to the discussion? What I see here is a contradiction of instructions: On one hand, you guys say we should seek consensus. But on the other, then you slap my hands for it! How's a guy supposed to get anything done if he's supposedly not allowed to alert a few editors that the discussion is out there to be had? And then what's so "wrong" with asking a few of them questions to see which ones are most willing to work with me? What do you do you just randomly pick one guy and he says something like "Nahh, man, I don't know about that subject; I'm sorry. Good luck!"? You're just SOL, dead in your tracks, simply because you picked the wrong guy and you're "not allowed" to try anyone else because somehow that's just "wrong"? Well, if it's not wrong to move on to someone else who is more likely to be of help in discussing the issues, then why should it be so "wrong" to bring attention to a handful of them at once in the name of not having to wait until one says he's not really good for that discussion?
B. What's so "wrong" with criticizing others' edit summaries for what seemed to be a bit of incivility (and my bad if it was not), if other editors have criticized mine for the same kind of reason and they don't get suggested not to do it? Why should it be any different for me?
C. I wasn't just trying to involve myself in the MOS. It just happens to be the reference I used to remind the first troll that he was wrong to keep reverting against it. And why should I do anything different from what other editors have said to me in the past when they told me stuff like, "No, you can't edit that way; the MOS says to do it this way"? And why is it that when I apply the MOS rules here, it fails, but then when SMcC does it, it sticks?
D. What's so "wrong," according to you, with just editing as an IP editor, if Wikipedia makes it available to us? Geesh, ya'd think that if they didn't want to allow someone to do something, they'd prevent it. Right? So why should you breath down my neck to make an account, like I'm somehow "in the wrong" for not doing it, if editing without one is already allowed?
E. Wait, ask? Did you not actually read the message I sent a few editors? Was it not full of questions about how they believed things should be in given cases? Not only that, but it's funny that you're telling me to ask someone how to apply the MOS to an article. Why should I ask if it's "okay" to apply the MOS if I already know it is? Why should I ask someone something like, "Hey, if the MOS tells us to use present tense, should we go ahead and apply present tense to the article, or should we feel constrained to ignore the MOS? Why should I ask someone what the definition of a word (such as "acronym" is) instead of just telling them, when I already know what the word means, and am just imparting the truth to them, because I've already seen that asking them for that brings up the wrong answer? Geeze, why are so many Wikipedia editors so opposed to consistency?
F. Again with that "forming your own little groups" thing. Since when was I doing that just by asking people how they believed? And even if someone does that, so what? Again, just read what I already asked about that in A. here, and tell me how you're supposed to find editors to seek consensus from if you supposedly can't even talk to them about what they understand (as I explained with my case in point that one editor felt he wasn't really cut out for the discussion)?
75.162.250.231 ( talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
[[MOS:DATE]]
. You have only mentioned SMcCandlish to have a go at him. I shall not engage in that sort of slaying of other editors.Nuff said. E Eng 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Chris troutman Hello, Chris – Do you feel like placing some kind of warning on this editor's talk page? See this edit and the one before the bot edit at Homo floresiensis. – Corinne ( talk) 04:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Corinne,
Thanks so much for taking the time to peer review the article! Here are some replies to issues you raised on my Talk page:
1) A few times, I changed a number such as "10" to the word for the number, "ten". I usually do that for numbers of one or two digits (except in a science or math article). However, I stopped changing the number to the word about half-way through the article, particularly for number of enemy planes shot down. I thought I'd ask you first what you thought.
4) In the first paragraph in Formosa Air Battle#Background you introduce the Sho plan. In the third paragraph of that section you discuss Sho 1 and Sho 2. The first mentions of those are un-hyphenated, and I added a no-break space between Sho and the number so it wouldn't break between them at the end of a line (the number will stay with the word). Then, at the end of that paragraph, you have "Sho-2", with a hyphen between Sho and "2". I left it as it was, but I have to ask you which you prefer: hyphenated or un-hyphenated. These should be consistent.
5) I paused at the phrase "such overwhelming enemy air power". All I could see in the preceding sentences that could remotely be seen as "overwhelming air power" was "Surprise U.S. carrier strikes against the Ryukyu Islands". I don't see any indication that anything was overwhelming. I think you either need to provide details as to how the U.S. air power was overwhelming or change "the response to such overwhelming enemy air power" to "the response to these attacks (or strikes)".
7) I found most of the article quite well written and clear (and I know little about either World War II or air battles). In the third paragraph of the Formosa Air Battle#Aftermath, however, you lost me. I had to read it several times to figure out what this was about. I think it might help to add the adjective "Japanese" before "634th Naval Air Group" so the reader knows which side this is about. Those familiar with the names of battle groups and units will probably know that this was a Japanese air group, but the average Wikipedia reader might not. It might help, also, to give an indication of when the events in the second and third paragraphs happened. I know the third paragraph contains the phrase, "By January 1945", but the second and third paragraphs seem kind of lost in space and time when compared with all the other paragraphs. Adding to that impression are two phrases that mystify me: "Freshly constituted carrier units" and "land-based air power". For the non-expert, these don't mean much. (When I read "freshly constituted", I think of orange juice reconstituted from a frozen state, and I wonder how air power can be land-based.) Well, that's all.
I'll work the context into the article over the next couple days before I push this into GA Review. Thanks again for all of your help here. Best Regards, Finktron ( talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Corinne, you kindly performed a GOCE cleanup at Balfour Declaration a few months ago. I just wanted to let you know that the article is now at WP:FAC in case you would like to comment further. Best regards, Onceinawhile ( talk) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)