Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Template:Pound (currency) was small but not minor. For the long version, see WP:MINOR but briefly it is used for trivial corrections to spelling, grammar or formatting that has no material effect on the 'message' of the article. Changing "not" to "now" is just a one letter change but is certainly not minor.
Please use the edit summary box to let other editors know what you are doing and why. See Help:Edit summary.
No harm done, these mistakes are made by almost all new editors. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Please use the edit summary box to let other editors know what you are doing and why. See
Help:Edit summary.
Again. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
23:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
While I'm here, I notice that you are removing claims that have no supporting citation. Applause.
If you see something that is unsupported but at least looks like it might be true, you can append a {{ citation needed}} (or just {{ cn}}) [remove the tl|, just used to show the syntax without actually invoking it]. Ideally you should revisit the page in say a month to check if it has been reseolved.
But if, as you say, you have made a reasonable search for evidence and found none, go ahead and delete. It is for those who have that page on their watchlist to make good. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
You may notice that I revised the citation you added to Pound Sterling, so best I explain what I have done as I guess you will want to use this a lot. But first and most important, finding citations is the hard bit – anybody can make them look pretty. So if you only have time to a simple citation, then just do that and someone else will polish it.
You wrote:
I changed it to
for these reasons:
&pg=PA838
. It took me years to discover that trick!page-url=
but it does have a chapter-url=
which we can use in this case because it coincides conveniently with the page we want.url-status=live
unless you also give archive-url=
and archive-date=
. Life is too short to go digging in archive.org etc for such things, leave it to an automatic process to provide.access-date=
for web pages and things likely to change. You don't generally need to do so for books (though you may need to provide edition=
Here endeth the lesson! I hope you will find it useful. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, TheCurrencyGuy!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
nearlyevil
665
22:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
|
I suggest that you take heed of OGS's block because your contribution to talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling was perilously close to a similar WP:NPA violation. (It would have been better had you self reverted, but I've done it now.) How did you think that such a fit of pique would advance your argument? On the contrary, it could only result in entrenched positions. Yes, you are correct that fillibuster has no place on Wikipedia and indeed has resulted in editors being referred to WP:ANI and getting blocks and even topic bans for their pains. Persistent production of reliable sources is the best way to achieve consensus. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
{Canuck
lehead}
05:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you're responsible for tbe sockpuppetry or not, thats not why I'm contacting you, I'm contacting you to say if you were to open up an ANI thread about OGP's behaviour, I will support you'd like me to. He's treading extremely thin ice, casting aspersions, literally admitting to hounding, and generally being uncivil. Please reply and ping me if you would like my assistance. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Er, OGP has just been indeff'ed for personal attacks. Happy editing I guess once you're cleared of the SPI I guess haha. A right proper mess... X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
If OGS's behaviour had not been so egregious, you would both have been given a temporary block. I advise that you be a lot more circumspect. Please pay attention to the comments made at talk:Pound sterling and take them into account in your editing. Hoping to slide your POV in by a series of minor edits or changing a pipe to use a redirect article is at best childish and at worst will provoke a counterproductive backlash.
BTW, when I wrote that redirect targets are in bold, that only applies to genuine, widely used, alternative names and not for spelling errors or constructed alternatives like shilling sterling. John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TCG’s faits accomplis. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
IBAN request. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I've just created Sterling crisis as a disambiguation article (it was previously a rather useless redirect to Currency crisis). At present, there are no specific articles for 1931, 1947 or 1967 so I have pointed readers at (rather thin) material in other articles. Maybe you might like to try your hand at creating a new article? If so, I advise that you start with just one, because it will have to go through the approval process which is rather exacting (standards are higher now than they once were). If so, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Help:Your first article. Have fun! John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI, when you change a section title, especially one like "quid (slang)", it is considered good practice to create an WP:ANCHOR with the old name. Fortunately you don't have to learn the complex coding because we have templates for that. Just append {{subst:anchor|quid (slang)}} (as the case may be) to the new section title (without the nowiki tags, of course). Regrettably, not a lot of people bother. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC) More info at {{ anchor}}. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:Currencies of Asia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"SlushFlame"? I think you better cool off. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Under other circumstances, it might be cute, but given the nature of the thread you started,
this term of reference to SnowFire drifts well in the realm of ad hominem attacks. —
C.Fred (
talk)
22:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and recognize that you're upset by the way things have gone, and I appreciate and understand that. That said, the interactions you have dealt with have been pretty standard for Wikipedia. Here's a sincere wish for all the best, editing or otherwise, and I hope your day only gets better. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 22:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
18:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
1. ANI should be the last stop 2. Taking a break when another editor annoys you is encouraged 3. En-Wiki is over twenty years old, no matter how right you might be or how strong your position is, you can not change it in 20 days. Example: Lower-casing "President of the United States" irks me to no end , but I've accepted begrudgingly the community believes that the lower-case makes sense 4. Content creation, rather than stylistic changes will go further in advancing your position 5. WP:RFC is the process to get formal outside opinions on content. Third opinion and dispute resolution are also less formal options. 6. WP:TEA and WP:HD exist to get general opinions 7. Don't take this place too seriously. Slywriter ( talk) 22:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Take a deep breath. If you don't know what do and you're stressed, as some of your recent replies suggest, I'm sure in a few hours you might have a better mindset. Honestly at this point the discussion had nowhere else to go, so you really had nothing to worry about. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Although your efforts to standardise the intros to British currency articles are generally positive, it is a bad idea to express things in terms of a "shilling sterling" which, as John Maynard Friedman points out above, "is not seen in the wild." I'm also very dubious about penny sterling, although there is an article, google turns up little and it is an AfD or requested merge may be in order. It is (in my view) better simply to refer to shillings and pence. Also, I'm somewhat dubious that a threepenny bit, shall we say, should be referred to as a "unit" of currency. Wehwalt ( talk) 11:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I have already advised you that your editing is crossing the boundary into WP:disruption. You have done a lot to improve Wikipedia but if you continue this obsessive WP:POV-pushing of sterling, it is only a matter of time before you get a topic ban on all currency and numismatics articles. Please cease and desist. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are technically correct but nonetheless the construction has become very rare because disambiguation is very rarely needed and to use when no ambiguity arises it is at best pedantic etc. In the Scottish court judgement you cited elsewhere, 'sterling' is postpended to the amount in pounds and pence to make it unambiguously clear that the amount is not in Pound Scots, even though this case is being decided under Scottish law. Just as in articles about weights, we would just write "a gallon of water weighs ten pounds". Not "ten pounds avoirdupois" unless we were making an in joke at a goldsmiths' convention. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
And a rental agreement here. [3]Once you have decided where you want your appeal to be heard you should send that court the completed appeal form N161 and the court fee of £140 (sterling), a postal order or cheque should be made payable to ‘HM Courts and Tribunals Service’
TheCurrencyGuy ( talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Rent: £14,384.24 (Fourteen thousand, three hundred and eighty four pounds and twenty four pence sterling)
Are you actually trying to get blocked or topic-banned? Why do you keep pushing the same two POVs (sterling and the nn/- notation) when you are clearly in a minority of one? You are a constructive editor who has done a lot to improve Wikipedia but your editing has become obsessive and wp:disruptive. Please stop wasting your talents like this.
This is a formal warning that applies to all your changes to British coinage articles:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi TheCurrencyGuy, I have reverted your page move of Kopek to Kopeck. The main reason this was a bad move is that you copied and pasted page content from one page to another. While intuitively this might seem like a reasonable idea, it doesn’t work for Wikipedia because we need to move the whole article and its page history and talk page with it. These need to stay together, because even though anyone can edit Wikipedia, we need to keep the history of exactly who made each edit.
It’s also a little troubling that you moved the page while discussion is technically still open at Talk:Ruble#Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck). I don’t think this is too big a deal, because that discussion wasn’t going anywhere, but usually we avoid making moves like this while discussion is still open (you can imagine the chaos if we let people move pages while their names were still under discussion). At this point, because I don’t think the case for Kopeck over Kopek is clear cut, I recommend starting a move request (see WP:RM for details). If you wanted to pursue a move at Ruble (to Rouble), that would be the most appropriate approach there too. — HTGS ( talk) 00:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I implore you to immediately cease your en masse edits which change currency names into esoteric currency notations, as you have done in here. As I contended when I still went by NotReallySoroka on-wiki, such acts are faits accomplis done without the requisite community consensus. I would also contend that outsiders to the numismatic or economic world would not understand what "Rbl." is, while they could infer what the Soviet ruble is, and as we orient ourselves to readers first and foremost ( Wikipedia:Readers first) we should go with using currency names. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 16:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
TCG, please let me remind you of something I wrote earlier:
“ | TCG, the world is imperfect and you will drive yourself insane if you continue to try to straighten it out. Every page has compromises: you only see the ones that you care about but other editors see you breaking previously negotiated compromises. You really need to take that WP:wikibreak or at the very least stay away from these hot-button topics. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) | ” |
There is no field of human existence where the rules are perfectly clear, unambiguous and unarguable (unless you get into religious fundamentalist belief and even that has disputes about what is truly canonical and what is not.) Try to remember the aphorism "the perfect is the enemy of the good" because perfection does not exist and searching for it is a fruitless endeavour and a waste of time. What you see as cynicism and dismissiveness at the Village Pump is actually that virtually everybody else sees this as a closed and firmly locked topic. You are not the first to have raised this (mainly by Americans!), and the policy is set down in MOS:RETAIN. Even then, war occasionally breaks out over WP:TIES.
Your proposal has a less than zero prospect of being taken seriously, let alone succeeding, but you might find Conservapedia instructive. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please dedicate your talents to productive use and take yourself out of this ever-decreasing circle before you do some serious damage to your wellbeing. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@
TheCurrencyGuy Can you give examples of these “random flips”? I can’t think of a time I’ve seen it in at least the last five years, but I’m also worried that your proposals here would only serve to cause more random flips. In fact, your move to convert ruble to rouble was the closest I’ve seen. Excuse me, I misinterpreted the meaning of “flip”.
And while we’re at it, I haven’t seen any examples of “American English vocabulary and grammar that may not be widely understood” (paraphrased). I would like to see examples if you have them. And—I say this hoping you’ll tread lightly—but if you do see American terminology that does not readily make sense to a global reader, you should be changing it to a more widely—and mutually—understood wording. That is the entire point of MOS:COMMONALITY. (Hopefully it goes without saying that ruble is intelligible enough to the commonwealth reader.) Basically, I see a lot of commenters here responding to the merits of your claims, without consideration for the facts. — HTGS ( talk) 20:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Can I use a techalt?. Thank you.
NotReallyMoniak (
talk)
14:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have closed your RfC at Talk:Ruble. I just want to note to you personally that this is primarily for bureaucratic reasons, and we can still discuss moving the page, but to do that you should open a move request.
On an even more personal note, I am concerned that you are getting too wound up on the small stuff, and that you are finding pushback on your edits stressful. First of all: don't panic. If Wikipedia really should make specific changes, that will happen eventually, but there is no rush. Take your time, and put forward your best argument for a change (such as via an RM on talk:ruble) and the community will evaluate this change. But be realistic here. We have used ruble for seventeen years now, since the page was created in 2005. If it has worked for Wikipedia this long, a few weeks or months more won't hurt anyone.
Second: if you do find that through consensus the community has a different opinion to you, it is not a personal attack or a loss to you personally. Take time to read people's opinions and evaluate them as fully as you can. If the many thoughtful, and often well-educated editors here disagree with you, they may just have a point that hasn't occurred to you before.
Third, and more seriously, if you continue to "fight" with others and ignore other people when they suggest you are being too hasty or rash, you will find sanctions imposed on you that impede your ability to edit the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is a big project, and there is bureaucracy for a reason. If you are blocked or limited, you will be in the worst position to make changes, so I suggest a softly-softly-gently approach for most of your more drastic changes. — HTGS ( talk) 23:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate my previous imploration that you cease "your en masse edits which change currency names into esoteric currency notations", as you recently did to the Egyptian pound article. Even if Wikipedia has too much American spelling (not true), you still need to seek consensus before making mass changes like this. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 07:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Egyptian pound shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fun Is Optional ( talk) 02:39, 3 August 2022 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheCurrencyGuy reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: ). Thank you.
Bgsu98 (
talk)
03:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
13:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)TheCurrencyGuy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was trying to engage with a very angry user, but he refused all appeals to mediate in the talk page and simply kept blunt-force reverting
Decline reason:
Both of you were edit warring; both of you are blocked. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
While I know that the Great British Pound page is known as "Pound Sterling" now, the {{ GBP}} is in no way defective as it still presents a correct way of giving that currency in a symbolic change. I know you had had issues with this change before, eg #About your mass changes to currency notations and so you need to stop and get consensus for the change. Note that since it is a template, it is far easier to change the template once to make the change than what you are doing. Masem ( t) 03:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
You have already been informed on the consensus process, warned against POV-pushing and faits accompli, and participated in a number of discussions about the spelling of "ruble"/"rouble" - so can you explain what you are doing here and here? Because, given your vocal dissatisfaction over how these discussions/disputes have concluded, it comes off as a blatant attempt to game the system. — {Canuck lehead} 03:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
All I did was insert an appropriate reference- This is simply not true. In the first diff, you had changed a number of instances of "ruble" ( something you have already been told to seek consensus for) including the infobox heading, bringing them into conflict with the title of the article. In the second diff, you added pipes so that the navbox would present links to articles using your preferred spellings rather than the established titles of those articles. The problem isn't the reference you added; it's that you look like you're trying to find some way to "win" against consensus and - with this reply - now appear to be dishonest about what you're doing. — {Canuck lehead} 03:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Part of "seeking consensus before doing X" is "not doing X if consensus ends up being not to do X." The fact that you tried to get consensus for a change and were rebuffed is not a good reason to do the change anyway -- in fact it's a good reason not to do the change. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
15:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The pound (or livre in French) was introduced in 1919 and was pegged at a value of 20 F.<ref name="latimes">
The pound (or livre in French) was introduced in 1919 and was pegged at a value of 20 Francs.<ref name="latimes">
With regards to your edits on Keroche Breweries: is "KSh 18.5 billion/=" really the standard way of writing (with the "/=" after the English word "billion")? It looks weird to my eye but I am not an expert. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Would you cast your eye over my draft for comment at Template talk:Most traded currencies#"Symbol" column needs two columns?, please? John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you clean up the confusion you have created at Template:List of currency symbols? We have now a link to C$ that point to the Canadian dollar while the template points to a Nicaraguan currency. Can you be more accurate? The Banner talk 09:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, could you look into {{ CHF}} where the link action is reversed (links to the currency page when link=no and doesn't link when link=yes)? (e.g. refer to the infobox in Lindt) Thanks, Ptrnext ( talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of currencies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livre.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm leaving it to you to provide the citations that say that sterling (unqualified) is the currency of the UK, as requested at the talk page (" WP:v"). Right now, the BoE citation which says that the "pound sterling is the currency of the UK" is explicit and unambiguous. It is, as you said, the only place where that statement is made but for it to be wrong there would need to be multiple statements on the BoE site saying the "sterling is the currency of the UK". I haven't found any. As I said a while back, inferences made from examples of usage do not make valid citations. (aka WP:NOR). I'm beginning to wonder if is time to consider Cromwell's advice. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC).
Hi can you explain please why you keep changing ‘gulden’ to ‘florins’ when that’s a. Not what the source says and b. obviously wrong? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austrian schilling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulden.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
As I think we are finally emerging from the briar patch at talk:pound sterling, I won't respond to your question there lest we get bogged down again. (This answer applies to every article on Wikipedia, not just that one.) Examples of use are not valid citations if they require the editor to infer the author's intent. That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or both. They often make good footnotes, though. John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I just don't understand what you are doing here. First I thought you were changing "zloty" to "Polish zloty" (wikilinked and piped as "zloty"), which is unnecessary since the redirect is fine ( WP:NOTBROKEN), but now I see that you changed "Ten [[Polish złoty|złotych]]" to "Ten [[Polish zloty|zloty]]" and then to "Ten zlotys/[[Polish zloty|zlotys]]"--so you changed what was correct and direct into something that's not incorrect but certainly not direct, and why? Just to change "złotych" to "zlotys"? Sorry, but I don't get that, and the fact that you didn't add edit summaries makes it even more difficult to understand. Drmies ( talk) 17:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I have made a request for enhancement at
Template_talk:Infobox_currency#unit= option needed, to request a unit=
option. I think "superunit: pound" looks silly but to omit it entirely is arguably worse. FYI only, watch and wait.
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
09:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
blindlynx
14:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Star
Mississippi
23:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)I've tried very hard to contribute something positive to this site, and now its all crashing and burning around me and I don't know what to do. TheCurrencyGuy ( talk) 01:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
What is your relationship with User:MoonlightHowling666? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
CurrencyGuy, "Oh everything is disruption now" and "It just feels like a witch-hunt"--the more you say shit like that (cause that's what it is), the more you are digging that hole for yourself. If you cannot accept that a. this is a collaborative environment, b. that you have been severely disruptive, and c. that others are having a hard time dealing with you, then a block per WP:NOTHERE is not far off. You need to take Dumuzid's advice and settle down. I don't even want to begin to address all the things you're saying here, because all of is just so indicative of a serious inability to work with other people. I mean, "I tried very hard to bring the site's pages in line with its own style guide", that shows a lack of understanding. We don't have "one" style guide, and it's not set in stone, and if a plurality of editors think that you are wrong, then guess what--you are wrong. And even if you are not wrong, then edit warring and complaining is not the proper way to respond. So please take this advice, even if it's medicine that does not taste good to you. Drmies ( talk) 01:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I have closed the topic ban proposal as successful, and a log of your restrictions has been added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Accordingly, the follow will go into effect immediately:
- TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
... as well as all talk pages concerning currency unless explicitly invited to comment on the subject by editors on a given talk page.-- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
all talk pages concerning currencyis not unambiguous imo. In fact, if I were reading from afar, I would be inclined to say that it does not include a hypothetical “all conversations regarding currency on any talk page”. — HTGS ( talk) 00:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. For clarity, note that
WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES applies to "all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed."
- M.nelson ( talk) 09:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to reach out to say hi. I get that it must be very frustrating to be at odds with other editors, especially when you feel like the facts are on your side. I've been in that position in the past. As a collaborative project, Wikipedia can only work through consensus, which is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow. Despite having differing opinions, the overwhelming majority of editors are acting in good faith and just want the uphold the core policies. If you do return, I'd suggest reading the essay WP:1AM first, it might help things go better when working with others. Cashew.wheel ( talk) 21:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
11:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)@ Tamzin: It looks like this editor is evading his block, for example as an IP restoring his old edits on articles like Belarusian ruble [5] and referring to himself as "TCG" [6] which I think is a dead giveaway. Mellk ( talk) 00:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TCG and their one-account restriction. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
04:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
19:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, TheCurrencyGuy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:£ stg, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Rbl for ruble. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
08:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Soviet Rbl. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
04:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
RfC at Talk:Ruble. Thank you.
Not·
Really·
Soroka
03:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Template:Pound (currency) was small but not minor. For the long version, see WP:MINOR but briefly it is used for trivial corrections to spelling, grammar or formatting that has no material effect on the 'message' of the article. Changing "not" to "now" is just a one letter change but is certainly not minor.
Please use the edit summary box to let other editors know what you are doing and why. See Help:Edit summary.
No harm done, these mistakes are made by almost all new editors. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Please use the edit summary box to let other editors know what you are doing and why. See
Help:Edit summary.
Again. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
23:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
While I'm here, I notice that you are removing claims that have no supporting citation. Applause.
If you see something that is unsupported but at least looks like it might be true, you can append a {{ citation needed}} (or just {{ cn}}) [remove the tl|, just used to show the syntax without actually invoking it]. Ideally you should revisit the page in say a month to check if it has been reseolved.
But if, as you say, you have made a reasonable search for evidence and found none, go ahead and delete. It is for those who have that page on their watchlist to make good. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
You may notice that I revised the citation you added to Pound Sterling, so best I explain what I have done as I guess you will want to use this a lot. But first and most important, finding citations is the hard bit – anybody can make them look pretty. So if you only have time to a simple citation, then just do that and someone else will polish it.
You wrote:
I changed it to
for these reasons:
&pg=PA838
. It took me years to discover that trick!page-url=
but it does have a chapter-url=
which we can use in this case because it coincides conveniently with the page we want.url-status=live
unless you also give archive-url=
and archive-date=
. Life is too short to go digging in archive.org etc for such things, leave it to an automatic process to provide.access-date=
for web pages and things likely to change. You don't generally need to do so for books (though you may need to provide edition=
Here endeth the lesson! I hope you will find it useful. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, TheCurrencyGuy!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
nearlyevil
665
22:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
|
I suggest that you take heed of OGS's block because your contribution to talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling was perilously close to a similar WP:NPA violation. (It would have been better had you self reverted, but I've done it now.) How did you think that such a fit of pique would advance your argument? On the contrary, it could only result in entrenched positions. Yes, you are correct that fillibuster has no place on Wikipedia and indeed has resulted in editors being referred to WP:ANI and getting blocks and even topic bans for their pains. Persistent production of reliable sources is the best way to achieve consensus. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
{Canuck
lehead}
05:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you're responsible for tbe sockpuppetry or not, thats not why I'm contacting you, I'm contacting you to say if you were to open up an ANI thread about OGP's behaviour, I will support you'd like me to. He's treading extremely thin ice, casting aspersions, literally admitting to hounding, and generally being uncivil. Please reply and ping me if you would like my assistance. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Er, OGP has just been indeff'ed for personal attacks. Happy editing I guess once you're cleared of the SPI I guess haha. A right proper mess... X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
If OGS's behaviour had not been so egregious, you would both have been given a temporary block. I advise that you be a lot more circumspect. Please pay attention to the comments made at talk:Pound sterling and take them into account in your editing. Hoping to slide your POV in by a series of minor edits or changing a pipe to use a redirect article is at best childish and at worst will provoke a counterproductive backlash.
BTW, when I wrote that redirect targets are in bold, that only applies to genuine, widely used, alternative names and not for spelling errors or constructed alternatives like shilling sterling. John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TCG’s faits accomplis. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
IBAN request. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I've just created Sterling crisis as a disambiguation article (it was previously a rather useless redirect to Currency crisis). At present, there are no specific articles for 1931, 1947 or 1967 so I have pointed readers at (rather thin) material in other articles. Maybe you might like to try your hand at creating a new article? If so, I advise that you start with just one, because it will have to go through the approval process which is rather exacting (standards are higher now than they once were). If so, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Help:Your first article. Have fun! John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI, when you change a section title, especially one like "quid (slang)", it is considered good practice to create an WP:ANCHOR with the old name. Fortunately you don't have to learn the complex coding because we have templates for that. Just append {{subst:anchor|quid (slang)}} (as the case may be) to the new section title (without the nowiki tags, of course). Regrettably, not a lot of people bother. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC) More info at {{ anchor}}. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:Currencies of Asia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"SlushFlame"? I think you better cool off. GoodDay ( talk) 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Under other circumstances, it might be cute, but given the nature of the thread you started,
this term of reference to SnowFire drifts well in the realm of ad hominem attacks. —
C.Fred (
talk)
22:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and recognize that you're upset by the way things have gone, and I appreciate and understand that. That said, the interactions you have dealt with have been pretty standard for Wikipedia. Here's a sincere wish for all the best, editing or otherwise, and I hope your day only gets better. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 22:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
18:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
1. ANI should be the last stop 2. Taking a break when another editor annoys you is encouraged 3. En-Wiki is over twenty years old, no matter how right you might be or how strong your position is, you can not change it in 20 days. Example: Lower-casing "President of the United States" irks me to no end , but I've accepted begrudgingly the community believes that the lower-case makes sense 4. Content creation, rather than stylistic changes will go further in advancing your position 5. WP:RFC is the process to get formal outside opinions on content. Third opinion and dispute resolution are also less formal options. 6. WP:TEA and WP:HD exist to get general opinions 7. Don't take this place too seriously. Slywriter ( talk) 22:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Take a deep breath. If you don't know what do and you're stressed, as some of your recent replies suggest, I'm sure in a few hours you might have a better mindset. Honestly at this point the discussion had nowhere else to go, so you really had nothing to worry about. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Although your efforts to standardise the intros to British currency articles are generally positive, it is a bad idea to express things in terms of a "shilling sterling" which, as John Maynard Friedman points out above, "is not seen in the wild." I'm also very dubious about penny sterling, although there is an article, google turns up little and it is an AfD or requested merge may be in order. It is (in my view) better simply to refer to shillings and pence. Also, I'm somewhat dubious that a threepenny bit, shall we say, should be referred to as a "unit" of currency. Wehwalt ( talk) 11:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I have already advised you that your editing is crossing the boundary into WP:disruption. You have done a lot to improve Wikipedia but if you continue this obsessive WP:POV-pushing of sterling, it is only a matter of time before you get a topic ban on all currency and numismatics articles. Please cease and desist. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are technically correct but nonetheless the construction has become very rare because disambiguation is very rarely needed and to use when no ambiguity arises it is at best pedantic etc. In the Scottish court judgement you cited elsewhere, 'sterling' is postpended to the amount in pounds and pence to make it unambiguously clear that the amount is not in Pound Scots, even though this case is being decided under Scottish law. Just as in articles about weights, we would just write "a gallon of water weighs ten pounds". Not "ten pounds avoirdupois" unless we were making an in joke at a goldsmiths' convention. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
And a rental agreement here. [3]Once you have decided where you want your appeal to be heard you should send that court the completed appeal form N161 and the court fee of £140 (sterling), a postal order or cheque should be made payable to ‘HM Courts and Tribunals Service’
TheCurrencyGuy ( talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Rent: £14,384.24 (Fourteen thousand, three hundred and eighty four pounds and twenty four pence sterling)
Are you actually trying to get blocked or topic-banned? Why do you keep pushing the same two POVs (sterling and the nn/- notation) when you are clearly in a minority of one? You are a constructive editor who has done a lot to improve Wikipedia but your editing has become obsessive and wp:disruptive. Please stop wasting your talents like this.
This is a formal warning that applies to all your changes to British coinage articles:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi TheCurrencyGuy, I have reverted your page move of Kopek to Kopeck. The main reason this was a bad move is that you copied and pasted page content from one page to another. While intuitively this might seem like a reasonable idea, it doesn’t work for Wikipedia because we need to move the whole article and its page history and talk page with it. These need to stay together, because even though anyone can edit Wikipedia, we need to keep the history of exactly who made each edit.
It’s also a little troubling that you moved the page while discussion is technically still open at Talk:Ruble#Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck). I don’t think this is too big a deal, because that discussion wasn’t going anywhere, but usually we avoid making moves like this while discussion is still open (you can imagine the chaos if we let people move pages while their names were still under discussion). At this point, because I don’t think the case for Kopeck over Kopek is clear cut, I recommend starting a move request (see WP:RM for details). If you wanted to pursue a move at Ruble (to Rouble), that would be the most appropriate approach there too. — HTGS ( talk) 00:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I implore you to immediately cease your en masse edits which change currency names into esoteric currency notations, as you have done in here. As I contended when I still went by NotReallySoroka on-wiki, such acts are faits accomplis done without the requisite community consensus. I would also contend that outsiders to the numismatic or economic world would not understand what "Rbl." is, while they could infer what the Soviet ruble is, and as we orient ourselves to readers first and foremost ( Wikipedia:Readers first) we should go with using currency names. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 16:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
TCG, please let me remind you of something I wrote earlier:
“ | TCG, the world is imperfect and you will drive yourself insane if you continue to try to straighten it out. Every page has compromises: you only see the ones that you care about but other editors see you breaking previously negotiated compromises. You really need to take that WP:wikibreak or at the very least stay away from these hot-button topics. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) | ” |
There is no field of human existence where the rules are perfectly clear, unambiguous and unarguable (unless you get into religious fundamentalist belief and even that has disputes about what is truly canonical and what is not.) Try to remember the aphorism "the perfect is the enemy of the good" because perfection does not exist and searching for it is a fruitless endeavour and a waste of time. What you see as cynicism and dismissiveness at the Village Pump is actually that virtually everybody else sees this as a closed and firmly locked topic. You are not the first to have raised this (mainly by Americans!), and the policy is set down in MOS:RETAIN. Even then, war occasionally breaks out over WP:TIES.
Your proposal has a less than zero prospect of being taken seriously, let alone succeeding, but you might find Conservapedia instructive. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please dedicate your talents to productive use and take yourself out of this ever-decreasing circle before you do some serious damage to your wellbeing. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@
TheCurrencyGuy Can you give examples of these “random flips”? I can’t think of a time I’ve seen it in at least the last five years, but I’m also worried that your proposals here would only serve to cause more random flips. In fact, your move to convert ruble to rouble was the closest I’ve seen. Excuse me, I misinterpreted the meaning of “flip”.
And while we’re at it, I haven’t seen any examples of “American English vocabulary and grammar that may not be widely understood” (paraphrased). I would like to see examples if you have them. And—I say this hoping you’ll tread lightly—but if you do see American terminology that does not readily make sense to a global reader, you should be changing it to a more widely—and mutually—understood wording. That is the entire point of MOS:COMMONALITY. (Hopefully it goes without saying that ruble is intelligible enough to the commonwealth reader.) Basically, I see a lot of commenters here responding to the merits of your claims, without consideration for the facts. — HTGS ( talk) 20:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Can I use a techalt?. Thank you.
NotReallyMoniak (
talk)
14:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have closed your RfC at Talk:Ruble. I just want to note to you personally that this is primarily for bureaucratic reasons, and we can still discuss moving the page, but to do that you should open a move request.
On an even more personal note, I am concerned that you are getting too wound up on the small stuff, and that you are finding pushback on your edits stressful. First of all: don't panic. If Wikipedia really should make specific changes, that will happen eventually, but there is no rush. Take your time, and put forward your best argument for a change (such as via an RM on talk:ruble) and the community will evaluate this change. But be realistic here. We have used ruble for seventeen years now, since the page was created in 2005. If it has worked for Wikipedia this long, a few weeks or months more won't hurt anyone.
Second: if you do find that through consensus the community has a different opinion to you, it is not a personal attack or a loss to you personally. Take time to read people's opinions and evaluate them as fully as you can. If the many thoughtful, and often well-educated editors here disagree with you, they may just have a point that hasn't occurred to you before.
Third, and more seriously, if you continue to "fight" with others and ignore other people when they suggest you are being too hasty or rash, you will find sanctions imposed on you that impede your ability to edit the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is a big project, and there is bureaucracy for a reason. If you are blocked or limited, you will be in the worst position to make changes, so I suggest a softly-softly-gently approach for most of your more drastic changes. — HTGS ( talk) 23:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate my previous imploration that you cease "your en masse edits which change currency names into esoteric currency notations", as you recently did to the Egyptian pound article. Even if Wikipedia has too much American spelling (not true), you still need to seek consensus before making mass changes like this. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak ( talk) 07:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Egyptian pound shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fun Is Optional ( talk) 02:39, 3 August 2022 (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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheCurrencyGuy reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: ). Thank you.
Bgsu98 (
talk)
03:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
13:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)TheCurrencyGuy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was trying to engage with a very angry user, but he refused all appeals to mediate in the talk page and simply kept blunt-force reverting
Decline reason:
Both of you were edit warring; both of you are blocked. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
While I know that the Great British Pound page is known as "Pound Sterling" now, the {{ GBP}} is in no way defective as it still presents a correct way of giving that currency in a symbolic change. I know you had had issues with this change before, eg #About your mass changes to currency notations and so you need to stop and get consensus for the change. Note that since it is a template, it is far easier to change the template once to make the change than what you are doing. Masem ( t) 03:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
You have already been informed on the consensus process, warned against POV-pushing and faits accompli, and participated in a number of discussions about the spelling of "ruble"/"rouble" - so can you explain what you are doing here and here? Because, given your vocal dissatisfaction over how these discussions/disputes have concluded, it comes off as a blatant attempt to game the system. — {Canuck lehead} 03:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
All I did was insert an appropriate reference- This is simply not true. In the first diff, you had changed a number of instances of "ruble" ( something you have already been told to seek consensus for) including the infobox heading, bringing them into conflict with the title of the article. In the second diff, you added pipes so that the navbox would present links to articles using your preferred spellings rather than the established titles of those articles. The problem isn't the reference you added; it's that you look like you're trying to find some way to "win" against consensus and - with this reply - now appear to be dishonest about what you're doing. — {Canuck lehead} 03:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Part of "seeking consensus before doing X" is "not doing X if consensus ends up being not to do X." The fact that you tried to get consensus for a change and were rebuffed is not a good reason to do the change anyway -- in fact it's a good reason not to do the change. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
15:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The pound (or livre in French) was introduced in 1919 and was pegged at a value of 20 F.<ref name="latimes">
The pound (or livre in French) was introduced in 1919 and was pegged at a value of 20 Francs.<ref name="latimes">
With regards to your edits on Keroche Breweries: is "KSh 18.5 billion/=" really the standard way of writing (with the "/=" after the English word "billion")? It looks weird to my eye but I am not an expert. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Would you cast your eye over my draft for comment at Template talk:Most traded currencies#"Symbol" column needs two columns?, please? John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you clean up the confusion you have created at Template:List of currency symbols? We have now a link to C$ that point to the Canadian dollar while the template points to a Nicaraguan currency. Can you be more accurate? The Banner talk 09:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, could you look into {{ CHF}} where the link action is reversed (links to the currency page when link=no and doesn't link when link=yes)? (e.g. refer to the infobox in Lindt) Thanks, Ptrnext ( talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of currencies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livre.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm leaving it to you to provide the citations that say that sterling (unqualified) is the currency of the UK, as requested at the talk page (" WP:v"). Right now, the BoE citation which says that the "pound sterling is the currency of the UK" is explicit and unambiguous. It is, as you said, the only place where that statement is made but for it to be wrong there would need to be multiple statements on the BoE site saying the "sterling is the currency of the UK". I haven't found any. As I said a while back, inferences made from examples of usage do not make valid citations. (aka WP:NOR). I'm beginning to wonder if is time to consider Cromwell's advice. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC).
Hi can you explain please why you keep changing ‘gulden’ to ‘florins’ when that’s a. Not what the source says and b. obviously wrong? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austrian schilling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulden.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
As I think we are finally emerging from the briar patch at talk:pound sterling, I won't respond to your question there lest we get bogged down again. (This answer applies to every article on Wikipedia, not just that one.) Examples of use are not valid citations if they require the editor to infer the author's intent. That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or both. They often make good footnotes, though. John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I just don't understand what you are doing here. First I thought you were changing "zloty" to "Polish zloty" (wikilinked and piped as "zloty"), which is unnecessary since the redirect is fine ( WP:NOTBROKEN), but now I see that you changed "Ten [[Polish złoty|złotych]]" to "Ten [[Polish zloty|zloty]]" and then to "Ten zlotys/[[Polish zloty|zlotys]]"--so you changed what was correct and direct into something that's not incorrect but certainly not direct, and why? Just to change "złotych" to "zlotys"? Sorry, but I don't get that, and the fact that you didn't add edit summaries makes it even more difficult to understand. Drmies ( talk) 17:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I have made a request for enhancement at
Template_talk:Infobox_currency#unit= option needed, to request a unit=
option. I think "superunit: pound" looks silly but to omit it entirely is arguably worse. FYI only, watch and wait.
John Maynard Friedman (
talk)
09:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —
blindlynx
14:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Star
Mississippi
23:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)I've tried very hard to contribute something positive to this site, and now its all crashing and burning around me and I don't know what to do. TheCurrencyGuy ( talk) 01:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
What is your relationship with User:MoonlightHowling666? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
CurrencyGuy, "Oh everything is disruption now" and "It just feels like a witch-hunt"--the more you say shit like that (cause that's what it is), the more you are digging that hole for yourself. If you cannot accept that a. this is a collaborative environment, b. that you have been severely disruptive, and c. that others are having a hard time dealing with you, then a block per WP:NOTHERE is not far off. You need to take Dumuzid's advice and settle down. I don't even want to begin to address all the things you're saying here, because all of is just so indicative of a serious inability to work with other people. I mean, "I tried very hard to bring the site's pages in line with its own style guide", that shows a lack of understanding. We don't have "one" style guide, and it's not set in stone, and if a plurality of editors think that you are wrong, then guess what--you are wrong. And even if you are not wrong, then edit warring and complaining is not the proper way to respond. So please take this advice, even if it's medicine that does not taste good to you. Drmies ( talk) 01:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I have closed the topic ban proposal as successful, and a log of your restrictions has been added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Accordingly, the follow will go into effect immediately:
- TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
... as well as all talk pages concerning currency unless explicitly invited to comment on the subject by editors on a given talk page.-- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
all talk pages concerning currencyis not unambiguous imo. In fact, if I were reading from afar, I would be inclined to say that it does not include a hypothetical “all conversations regarding currency on any talk page”. — HTGS ( talk) 00:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. For clarity, note that
WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES applies to "all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed."
- M.nelson ( talk) 09:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to reach out to say hi. I get that it must be very frustrating to be at odds with other editors, especially when you feel like the facts are on your side. I've been in that position in the past. As a collaborative project, Wikipedia can only work through consensus, which is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow. Despite having differing opinions, the overwhelming majority of editors are acting in good faith and just want the uphold the core policies. If you do return, I'd suggest reading the essay WP:1AM first, it might help things go better when working with others. Cashew.wheel ( talk) 21:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
11:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)@ Tamzin: It looks like this editor is evading his block, for example as an IP restoring his old edits on articles like Belarusian ruble [5] and referring to himself as "TCG" [6] which I think is a dead giveaway. Mellk ( talk) 00:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
TCG and their one-account restriction. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
04:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
19:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, TheCurrencyGuy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:£ stg, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Rbl for ruble. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
08:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Soviet Rbl. Thank you.
NotReallySoroka (
talk)
04:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
RfC at Talk:Ruble. Thank you.
Not·
Really·
Soroka
03:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)