I believe that [[User:Shreder 9100]] also vandalised [[Adobe Systems]] in March 2011. [[User:Biscuittin|Biscuittin]] ([[User talk:Biscuittin|talk]]) 16:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that [[User:Shreder 9100]] also vandalised [[Adobe Systems]] in March 2011. [[User:Biscuittin|Biscuittin]] ([[User talk:Biscuittin|talk]]) 16:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
:You're right. I blocked them from a week; I was reluctant to block indef at this stage as it seems they have made a couple of good-faith additions. Any thoughts? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
:You're right. I blocked them from a week; I was reluctant to block indef at this stage as it seems they have made a couple of good-faith additions. Any thoughts? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
== [[French people]] ==
Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think?
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
Hi John. I've added a bit of additional background on the reasons I believe the page move is justified. Would a direct message from the article's subject also have any effect on your opinion? I could have him contact you. Barring that, I could suggest he do an OTRS, but I'd prefer to get consensus on the talk page instead. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I'd be honoured to hear direct from him as I am a great fan, but no, it wouldn't really affect my opinion on how this article should be named. --John (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User conduct should be discussed at User talk:Gimmetoo or an enforcement forum; MoS implications at WT:MOSNUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1] The date format prior to this edit appears fine with regard to MOSNUM. What are you doing? [2] Likewise, it usually makes more sense to change one or a few dates in a different format to match the clear majority, per WP:DATERET, rather than change every other. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, we do not support the use of YYYY-MM-DD dates in articles, which the first edit corrected. When correcting this, I generally change reference access dates to one of the human-readable formats in the intersts of consistency. This is not prohibited anywhere and I think it looks better. On the second edit, if you look at the guide you refer to you will see that it is trumped by WP:STRONGNAT. I hope that helps you to understand these edits. So, my turn to ask a question; why did you revert these edits? The revert tool is only supposed to be used to remove vandalism or edits that degrade article quality in the same way as vandalism. As well as the formatting changes (which I accept you did not understand) you removed copyedits I had made. This places your edits dangerously close to being seen as vandalism, unless you clicked the wrong button or reverted without fully reading what you were reverting. In either case, please be more careful in the future, and feel free to undo those two edits. --John (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, please show me where in the Combs article there were yyyy-mm-dd dates in the prose, rather than the reference section? I do not see any. yyyy-mm-dd dates are not prohibited in the references section, and in that article, as far as I can tell, every access date was in yyyy-mm-dd format. Your statement "I think it looks better" is precisely the problem here; you are making arbitrary style changes in violation of WP:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR. On your other claim, STRONGNAT is about mdy and dmy in the article body; yyyy-mm-dd formats are explicitly allowed in the references. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you did not adequately examine the edits you reverted, that you used the revert button inappropriately, that you do not fully understand the manual of style, and that you lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong. If you ever feel like answering the question I asked you (I'll repeat it in bold below to help you), I'll continue this conversation with you. Until then, here is the question again and cheerio. Why did you revert these edits? The revert tool is only supposed to be used to remove vandalism or edits that degrade article quality in the same way as vandalism. As well as the formatting changes (which I accept you did not understand) you removed copyedits I had made. --John (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated repeatedly, I DID answer your question. See the edits you have repeatedly removed: I undid your edit because it included a large number of apparently guideline-violating changes, changes which you have not yet justified. [3] Your repeatedly removing this without discussion is disruptive. If you wish to continue actual discussion, please start by showing where undo is "only supposed to be used to remove vandalism..." I don't see that in WP:UNDO. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very important to you to be right here. I think your behaviour was disgraceful. I believe your interpretation of the guideline is wrong and certainly removing good faith edits along with edits which you believe contravene a stylistic guideline is stupid. Think for a moment of our users, who are unlikely to care as deeply as you seem to about a minor formatting issue, but will, if editors behave as you have done, care about the degradation in quality you seem to accept as collateral damage in winning your ridiculous format war. It isn't rocket science. If I see you again reverting or undoing edits in a way which degrades the quality of articles, I predict you will be unhappy with the consequences. Never do it again. This conversation is now over, at least as far as you and I are concerned. --John (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not over, John. Make no mistake - this is an issue of your editing, which appears to be in violation of guideline, and disruptive. I initiated discussion by inquiring and asking you for explanation. You could have discussed your edits in an objective manner in regard to guideline and policy, but you chose a different route. You did not appropriately engage discussion; indeed, you actively disrupted the discussion here by repeatedly removing my responses. You also threatened me in retaliation. That is extremely serious. As a matter of record, then, you have received ample warning to avoid what appears to be disruptive editing and administrative abuse. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is making the date format consistent throughout the entire article "disruptive", a word that seems to get bandied around here very lightly? One might reasonably argue on the contrary that what's disruptive is your jumping up and down complaining about having a consistent date format. MalleusFatuorum13:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:John changed one consistent date style to a different date style (and did not do so consistently, by the way). Arbitrarily changing styles is against guideline, and User:John's repeatedly removing my comments here did disrupt discussion. Why are you getting involved here? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think you're making a mountain out a mole hill, just as you did with repeatedly removing the history of a GA review you didn't like, which resulted in you being blocked. MalleusFatuorum14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:John made the mountain here. The guideline says don't change arbitrary styles. It's not complicated. Rather than User:John explaining himself and replying to further queries, he chose to avoid discussion and threaten the user who had questioned his edits. I realize you're not really being serious here, but your silence on User:John's conduct is noteworthy. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to believe that I'm not being serious, or that I see anything wrong with John's done? And I note your own silence on the far more important copyright violation. I recall you threatening me when you removed my edits in the case I referred to above that got you blocked, so don't come that garbage with me. MalleusFatuorum15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What silence? I fixed it. I didn't see John fixing it, and he edited that section. I didn't see you fixing it, and you not only edited the article but brought it up, so you evidently saw it. You bringing up that issue looks like distraction. Do you fully support User:John avoiding discussion and hreatening a user who questioned his apparent guideline-violating edits? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did fix it, but my removal of the offending material after I posted the required notice on the article's talk page apparently edit conflicted with yours. And I find your line of questioning a bit rich coming from someone who threatened to have me banned from GA reviewing. Have you checked the rest of the article for similar copyright violations, or is the date format the only thing that matters to you? MalleusFatuorum17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion concerns an edit by User:John that changed date formats. Your other comments are distractions. Indeed, you posted here at 14:42 about an alleged copyright issue without either posting on the talk page of the article, or changing the article text. I changed the text of the article at 14:57. You posted on the talk page only at 15:09. I can't imagine why you would have tried to edit the article after that- the text was gone by then. So for at least 27 minutes you left in the article text what you believed to be a copyright violation, and instead posted here about it. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Malleus Fatuorum, you have been blocked repeatedly for disruptive editing, personal attacks, harassment and incivility. Given that lengthy block record, why you would post here rather than just fix what you thought was an "important copyright violation". Why would you chose to edit-war to install templated text about copyright violation on the article's talk page? Do you put that text on every article that's ever had an alleged copyright violation? Have you put that templated text on any other article? Any article you have edited extensively? Is it your position that policy requires that tesxt on the talk page of every article that has ever had an alleged copyright violation anywhere? If so, please justify and support that position. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is logically inconsistent to the point of incoherency. I was simply following the instructions at WP:COPYVIO, which you appear to be completely unfamiliar with. MalleusFatuorum19:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. Guys? Can we have a bit less testosterone and a bit more being willing to see what the other side is saying? Right now I'm not seeing a whole lot of listening to what the other is saying happening... and nothing is really getting accomplished. If you can't agree on something, usually the best solution is to walk away and agree to disagree... not try to "prove" you're right. While being "right" is often satisfying, if you have to go to these lengths to do it, is it really worth it? Ealdgyth - Talk18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one foaming at the mouth because I don't like a perfectly acceptable date format. I'm the one who spotted a far more serious problem with the article that Gimmetoo should have spotted. MalleusFatuorum18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, MF. You found an issue with the article that was unrelated to this discussion and which I fixed immediately. Why are you still harping on it? I didn't ask you to get involved here, and given your history (and lengthy block log for harassment and disruptive editing), why did you chose to get involved here? Maybe listen to Ealdgyth a bit. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus and Ealdgyth, thanks for chiming in. Here is where Gimmetoo restored a copyvio, some overlinking and an anachronism, in the interests of restoring his favoured style of date formatting. He also apparently can't conjugate the verb "to choose". I shall follow his future career here with interest. Don't tell me this editor is involved in the GA process? Anyway, it's probably time to move on. --John (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User: John, thanks for finally responding and engaging discussion. Now, why did you change a consistent date format on the article in apparent violation of guideline? Further, your claim here that I "restored a copyvio" is an extremely serious accusation. Please demonstrate that immediately, along with adequate evidence that you identified the alleged copyvio yourself and removed it yourself. A small "copyedit" on one part of the alleged copyrighted text is insufficient. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmetoo, are you still here? I told you a while ago we were finished. You made a fool of yourself restoring bad edits in the name of some weird date preference. As Malleus pointed out, the material you restored included a copyvio which thanks to his diligence has now been removed from the article. You really should try to learn from this. I really am through with this conversation now. Why not go off and try improving an article? It's a lot more fun and a lot more helpful to this project than the nonsense you've now been pulled up for by multiple editors. --John (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are three editors I like fighting over something that MOS warriors love to be decisive about and will be happy to glob on to so they can turn this into another date-delinking obsessive debacle. OK, I'm not even going to look at the edits, because you all know your stuff. I'll tell you what was the conclusion when we had this conversation once at FAC talk: article text needs to use internally consistent date formats, citations need to use consistent formatting, but the date formatting in the citations does not need to be the same as the date format in the article text. That is, whether the article uses Month Day, Year or Day Month Year, that should be consistent in the text. If the article uses either of those, or yyyy-mm-dd in the citations, that should be consistent in the citations. We don't ask that the date format in citations be the same as in the text wrt yyyy-mm-dd. If I recall correctly (and I may not), in that same discussion editors gave a technical reason for preferring yyyy-mm-dd in citations, and it's quite likely that Gimmetrow is aware of the technical reason for preserving yyyy-mm-dd in citations. All of you are good editors and know your stuff, so stop fighting with each other, and start talking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one technical argument in favour of the yyyy-mm-dd format and it's to do with sorting in tables, nothing at all to do with citations. MalleusFatuorum21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a look and I see no overt personal attacks but some heated conversation on a delicate subject in which editors pointed out that you have previously declared having a point of view on the subject. The best I can do is keep an eye on things going forward, though I reserve the right to have a quiet word with one of the other participants in the discussion. I think you are taking the right line, by concentrating on the quality of sources and debating the subject rather than the editors. Sorry I couldn't be more help on this occasion. --John (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I left Dlv999 a polite message. Unfortunately to some extent by editing in these difficult areas one runs the risk of passions becoming heightened. It's all the more important to behave scrupulously and we can all have lapses. I think you are doing great there. I will continue to think about it. Thanks for contacting me. --John (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If I may make an observation, "templating" Gimmetoo was not an optimal approach to raising your concern with him. It seems apparent that you tend to rub one another up the wrong way enough without resorting to such an approach. Perhaps taking some time away from Liam Hemsworth and other interactions with Gimmetoo would make subsequent discussion between you less painful to watch. Yours, AGK[•]23:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. The problem is, this user seems to be making edits which only change date formats to his preferred style, which I believe is contrary to policy, as well as edit-warring with me on my own talk, and the harmful reverts of my copyedits which started this whole matter off. I see you have engaged with him and I am happy to step back and let others help to moderate his behaviour for the next while. Templates are designed for policy violations but I accept this was not the most politic method of taking the matter forwards. --John (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And of course I am familiar with WP:DTTR, but the essay has a counterpart, WP:TR which also carries some weight with me. There's an argument that if you don't like receiving warning templates, you should avoid contravening policy. The existence of that warning template should constitute strong evidence that the behaviour is considered by the community to be undesirable. --John (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, Gimmetrow knows his stuff. I've responded above, but in my experience, talking with Gimmetrow, according him the respect his knowledge of Wikipedia warrants, is the best way forward. It's sad to see folks getting their backs up over the kind of stuff that led to Wikipedia's lamest arbcase (date delinking); templating Gimme, considering his experience, is insulting :) :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect Sandy, I think you ought to look at the actual edits before commenting. The issue is not about date formatting, it's about whether it is ok to restore errors (including a copyvio) in the name of reverting one's preferred style of date formatting. I say no, Gimmetoo says yes. If you say Gimmetoo knows their stuff I will take your word for it, but this wasn't evident in their recent clueless unhelpful edits, nor in their borderline-obsessive reverts on my user talk page. I would be grateful if you would look in detail at the edits and consider reaching out to this editor with a view to avoiding the serious consequences which will no doubt follow if they continue like that. Sincere best wishes, --John (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously in my opinion, what is lame is to use pointy arguments and wiki-lawyering to insist that a format of "2012-05-04" is used, when we could write English and assist our readers by using a format of "4 May 2012". Seems obvious, doesn't it (when you take a backward-step and have an objective think about it)? GFHandel♬20:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure. It isn't worth edit-warring over, as Gimmetoo has done, and it certainly isn't worth degrading article quality for, as they have also done. I am not sure where this bee got into Gimmetoo's bonnet, but there are various guidelines and policies being flouted here, not to mention common sense. --John (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I tend to agree with your edit summary; Gimmetoo's real crime here was to blanket revert many changes simply because he didn't like some of them. Nevertheless, I don't wish to discuss the matter further here. --John (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beatsie Boy
That Beatsie Boy fellow is dead, and it's been confirmed by multiple reliable sources. He cannot be listed as a current member of the group any longer. Keith Moon is not a current member of The Who. Brian Jones is no longer a current member of The Stones. 24.112.139.6 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short version here and now gone. There has been hounding from a group of editors with whom Alarbus was friends. Personally I'd like to see the issue dropped because it's time to move on. People have lost a lot of skin over this. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. But I do understand Sandy's concern in regards to some of the people who have been posting to that talk page and their relationship to Jack Merridew. It's a very long story and not one I want to dredge up. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well, I think the MoS question should be clarified before we get any more nonsense like this, lest we have the date delinking Arbcom all over again. --John (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. The issue is that there have been serious problems with hounding and when 2 or 3 editors who are Merridew supporters suddenly show up on a page tended by an editor who has previously been hounded by Merridew, the waters get muddied, unfortunately. That's what's happening. See this for example. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, and it's even more of a shame when good editors like me and Malleus get dragged in as collateral damage. Usually the only times people talk about a cabal here they are joking; it's weird to see someone I usually respect throw the term around so loosely. --John (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Ceoil, who has taken more than his fair share of shit because of Merridew and it's a situation that destroyed our working relationship and friendship. That's exactly the problem with hounding and how things like this become amplified and the underlying issues become secondary. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually met RexxS, one of those being accused of being a member of this cabal, and I found him to be perfectly reasonable and good company. The only thing we disagreed slightly about was Rlevse, and I really can't sign up to the idea that he's been harassing anyone. But what I can say categorically is that the Merridew business is absolutely nothing to do with me; I barely even know what it's about, and it's certainly not a factor in my opposition to Gimmetoo's date formatting preferences. MalleusFatuorum22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Och. There was no way I could have known any of this backstory when aligning date formats while copyediting then seeing my changes reverted. Maybe SG needs to AGF a bit here? --John (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Sandy has accused either you or me of doing anything underhand has she? I'm trying to remember how I came across this date formatting issue (maybe a posting on here?), but it sure as Hell wasn't because I'd been recruited by any cabal. MalleusFatuorum22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think she has, and also called me an "abusive admin". I haven't heard that one for a while. In other news, I was delighted to see Hibs not getting relegated earlier this evening, so it isn't all bad. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I was pleased to see that Wigan managed to avoid relegation from the Premier League this evening. Why on Earth can't they play as well at the start of the season as they do at the end? MalleusFatuorum22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues: the date issue and the issue of the hounding. From what I've read at that page RexxS has good reasons to comment, but also RexxS was very clear that I needed to put a leash on Ceoil and RexxS was extremely hard on me re Merridew. Because Gimmetoo also has history with Merridew, the two have become mixed up. I don't think either of you are part of a cabal - you're reacting to the date issue and as John said couldn't have known the rest. And as I've said, I'd prefer to let it be. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)r[reply]
An editor reverted one of your changes
Regarding this edit:[5], You might be interested to know that this subject is currently under discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Your input would be welcome as we build a consensus, with the possible outcome of resolving this edit war. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you posted here is the exact equivalent, in Wikipedia terms, of the one-drop rule. I believe using ethnic and religious categories to label people who do not label themselves to be the moral equivalent of the yellow badge. I stand by what I said and will not redact it. I have only just noticed that you attempted to remove my post. Please, never ever do that. Take a good look at your own behaviour before you try to lecture others. --John (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being Jewish is nothing to be ashamed of, John. Now, you're free to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but here on Wikipedia we follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please try to remember that, and for heaven's sake, don't blame the messenger. You may have the last word; I'm removing your talkpage from my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No more than being black or being gay; none of these are things to be ashamed of either, but we only apply them to living or recently dead people with the greatest of circumspection out of respect for those people's rights. I am intimately familiar with the three policies you link to in your message; is there a specific aspect of one of them that you think pertains to the disagreement we have had? I assure you that I do not blame you for being wrong on this, and I would far rather we were able to reach a working compromise than think I had scared you away with the force of my argument. I remain convinced that I am right on this matter, but I also remain open to future conversations with you about it. --John (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
since I sent you an email .. I thought perhaps it was only right to say what I think on-wiki. I applaud your work ,, and I think you do well at speaking the truth. I admire your efforts, and I'll be proud to support you. — Ched : ? 03:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit:[7], I would like to explain that this is not promotion. Behind this correction there is a legal problem. Harmonic Drive is a registered brand mark in Europe as well as in the US-market and not allowed to use it as a generic term (see also the german side of wikipedia/Harmonic Drive. The only reason I added the information that there is a company called Harmonic Drive LLC is that there have to be a connection to the key word "harmonic drive" and the explanation why sometimes it's called a harmonic drive gear. Sorry if this is not the correct way to contact you but I'm not familiar in doing this on wikipedia--HDSC (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2012 (CET)
Thanks John. --HDSC (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2012 (CET)
Hi John, I hope I did it correct now. I will wait for comments. Thanks again. --HDSC (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (CET)
Ping
John, I'm going to be traveling soon and want to archive my talk. I haven't heard back from you after things became heated. From reviewing your talk, I saw you weren't aware of everything involved, and I hope you now understand the backstory, and we can move on. Or hopefully, move back to the good relationship we enjoyed in the last few years. Let me know please if you want to continue discussing, as I'd like to archive. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow any subsequent discussion at your talk page as I already knew the backstory via another editor who explained it to me here. I am perfectly happy for you to archive and move on. Good travels. --John (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I blocked them from a week; I was reluctant to block indef at this stage as it seems they have made a couple of good-faith additions. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think?
Top811 (talk)
