This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Butwhatdoiknow. |
Hello—I just stumbled into your 2008 essay about transclusion while searching for general documentation of the function. It seems to be abandoned (and, I think no longer relevant), and I suspect most of its traffic comes from it accidentally trapping editors hunting for the same information as I was. I am hoping either to put it up for deletion or to make it a redirect to Help:Transclusion. Would you have any concerns about that?
Best — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 03:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Red link 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.
--
Francis Schonken (
talk) 05:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source What wikipedia is not Rex blah blah blah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun81 ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I've made some edits to User:Butwhatdoiknow/sandbox1. From my chair, I think it's ready to go now. Be aware; we're just under 48 hours from when the current thread is going to be automatically archived. So, if this is going to be posted, it needs to be posted before that 48 hours expires. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
done. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the welcome and guidance. Chemkatz ( talk) 19:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Rewriting long-established Wikipedia guidelines in such a way that changes their meaning without prior discussion rarely meets with support or is a good idea.
(That said, I'm not sure if you realised that you changed the meaning/if it was just careless drafting, but either way.)
As in every other occasion where someone wants to change a guideline and meets with resistance, you need to actually get a consensus to do so. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to say again that I'm sorry I can't help bring that discussion to, er, consensus. For some reason the issue just won't gel in my mind. E Eng 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The 12 Days of Wikipedia
|
Hey! Do you remember this post ( Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132) – I found some new developments in the case (below) and was wondering what action should be taken? It seems the user hasn’t begun to be civil or not disruptive yet. Should the case be renewed here ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), do you think?
Hey all, good morning.
I'm concerned by Sparkle1 ( talk · contribs) and the tone they use in edit summaries. This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and I've stopped myself from making a big thing about it, but I think maybe we've got to a point where a little advice is needed. I'm not an admin so my actions are limited.
At the beginning of the month they had some back and forth on their talk page with very harsh and uncooperative language ("I am completely not interested") here [6].
I would like to ask if I'm right to be concerned by their tone and language, whether I am being too "soft" in being concerned here? They seem to be very constructive editors in some ways but there are moments of conflict and temper that I now think might need guidance in dealing with. Once I've posted this here, I'll put the link on their talk page. doktorb words deeds 06:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132 Scientelensia ( talk) 13:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Presumed consensus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Wikipedia:Presumed consensus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Basically, the state of "no consensus" is no consensus? I guess each mind is its own world. Thinker78 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: I think if the editor wanted to say more, they would have already. The other recommendation in that section about avoiding edit wars is to get more feedback from other editors. Perhaps a post at the policy Village Pump might garner some additional comments. If no one else is interested, as it seems so far, so be it. isaacl ( talk) 03:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 00:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I reinstated my march 16 edit to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I added a comment in the edit summary about why I reinstated the edit. (Overall I think it brings greater consistency to wikipedia's internal pages) Born25121642 ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Butwhatdoiknow,
I appreciate your recent edit to my edit on
Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Alternatives to reverting. When I replaced the (existing) commas with semicolons, I debated whether to just make them separate sentences. Now that I see it in print, I think I prefer them that way as well.
Here's my question to you (from one whose quest for knowledge is never finished!): from your understanding of the rules governing the use of semicolons, was that sentence punctuated correctly with them in there? In other words, was your edit not so much a correction of incorrect mechanics as an improvement to readability/flow?
Again, the punctuation looks good it how it stands now; I'm just asking your opinion as one grammar nerd to another. :)
Hagaland (
talk) 14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Butwhatdoiknow. |
Hello—I just stumbled into your 2008 essay about transclusion while searching for general documentation of the function. It seems to be abandoned (and, I think no longer relevant), and I suspect most of its traffic comes from it accidentally trapping editors hunting for the same information as I was. I am hoping either to put it up for deletion or to make it a redirect to Help:Transclusion. Would you have any concerns about that?
Best — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 03:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Red link 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.
--
Francis Schonken (
talk) 05:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source What wikipedia is not Rex blah blah blah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun81 ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I've made some edits to User:Butwhatdoiknow/sandbox1. From my chair, I think it's ready to go now. Be aware; we're just under 48 hours from when the current thread is going to be automatically archived. So, if this is going to be posted, it needs to be posted before that 48 hours expires. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
done. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the welcome and guidance. Chemkatz ( talk) 19:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Rewriting long-established Wikipedia guidelines in such a way that changes their meaning without prior discussion rarely meets with support or is a good idea.
(That said, I'm not sure if you realised that you changed the meaning/if it was just careless drafting, but either way.)
As in every other occasion where someone wants to change a guideline and meets with resistance, you need to actually get a consensus to do so. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to say again that I'm sorry I can't help bring that discussion to, er, consensus. For some reason the issue just won't gel in my mind. E Eng 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The 12 Days of Wikipedia
|
Hey! Do you remember this post ( Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132) – I found some new developments in the case (below) and was wondering what action should be taken? It seems the user hasn’t begun to be civil or not disruptive yet. Should the case be renewed here ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), do you think?
Hey all, good morning.
I'm concerned by Sparkle1 ( talk · contribs) and the tone they use in edit summaries. This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and I've stopped myself from making a big thing about it, but I think maybe we've got to a point where a little advice is needed. I'm not an admin so my actions are limited.
At the beginning of the month they had some back and forth on their talk page with very harsh and uncooperative language ("I am completely not interested") here [6].
I would like to ask if I'm right to be concerned by their tone and language, whether I am being too "soft" in being concerned here? They seem to be very constructive editors in some ways but there are moments of conflict and temper that I now think might need guidance in dealing with. Once I've posted this here, I'll put the link on their talk page. doktorb words deeds 06:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132 Scientelensia ( talk) 13:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Presumed consensus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Wikipedia:Presumed consensus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Basically, the state of "no consensus" is no consensus? I guess each mind is its own world. Thinker78 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: I think if the editor wanted to say more, they would have already. The other recommendation in that section about avoiding edit wars is to get more feedback from other editors. Perhaps a post at the policy Village Pump might garner some additional comments. If no one else is interested, as it seems so far, so be it. isaacl ( talk) 03:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 00:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I reinstated my march 16 edit to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I added a comment in the edit summary about why I reinstated the edit. (Overall I think it brings greater consistency to wikipedia's internal pages) Born25121642 ( talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Butwhatdoiknow,
I appreciate your recent edit to my edit on
Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Alternatives to reverting. When I replaced the (existing) commas with semicolons, I debated whether to just make them separate sentences. Now that I see it in print, I think I prefer them that way as well.
Here's my question to you (from one whose quest for knowledge is never finished!): from your understanding of the rules governing the use of semicolons, was that sentence punctuated correctly with them in there? In other words, was your edit not so much a correction of incorrect mechanics as an improvement to readability/flow?
Again, the punctuation looks good it how it stands now; I'm just asking your opinion as one grammar nerd to another. :)
Hagaland (
talk) 14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)