User talk:HopsonRoad

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Problem IP editor at Plurality (voting)

I need help with a problem at Plurality (voting). An IP editor keeps placing inchoate text in topics, related to plurality, apparently using several IP addresses. See this edit, in particular, which is similar to a previous one. I don't feel that I can tackle this on my own, so I'm hoping that you can help.

Hello HopsonRoad,

User:BalCoder is vandalizing the Electoral Systems Template again. Sometimes this user edits while logged out in order to avoid getting blocked due to edit-warring. Please help me police this article. I have challenged BalCoder to provide sourced on the talk page, but this user refuses to do so. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:HopsonRoad 20:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. --Cornellier (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted also. From reading the IP's edits, they seem to be particularly unhappy with the fact that elected candidates need not have an absolute majority. I will drop them a warning about NPOV. BTW, changes in IP adress do happen. Unfortunately, it makes it hard to communicate with them. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:HopsonRoad, Happy Squirrel, and Cornellier,

Similar disruptive edits/reversions have been made by User:BalCoder on the Proportional Representation article. These IP edits may be BalCoder's sockpuppets.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

An editor from Great Britain has taken interest in the Senate party affiliation of Bernie Sanders at the Vermont article with this edit that included some abusive language. Fortunately, I was able to encourage him to engage in the topic at Talk:Vermont#Sanders party affiliation. I invited some editors, who have shown past interest in the article, to join in but only one other has checked in and did not point the discussion towards a consensus. I've tried to avoid an edit war, which could easily have been a result with the speed and ferocity of the reverts to my edits that occurred. At this point it's just editor vs. editor. As a resident of Vermont, I feel that I have a better insight on this matter, but the other editor is perhaps a bellwether for whether the topic makes sense to the average reader. Your help in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. User:HopsonRoad 22:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You may want to try WP:3O, a venue for requesting a third opinion in a dispute between two editors. Contacting a relevant WikiProject may also help get more community input. Huon (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello HopsonRoad. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ski wax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraffin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You can read several arguments on my changes where were done, I did not see yours, you want discuss on talk page of Proportional Representation also I welcome you arguments. If not keep your good advice for yourseflf. Regards

Reference errors on 23 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ski wax page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ski wax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: Suggested reading

Hi, New Speech Killer. Welcome. I suggest reading: Wikipedia:Consensus to help you inform others of your concerns about articles and guide them on a path, which achieves consensus. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I will not thank you for you suggestions, as you are the person who undo my changes disregarding my notes/arguments. You never use arguments instead supported you step by Wikipedia JARGON. Consensus is not a good think, the good thinks is objectivity and honesty. I believe you know that the best consensus is between mafia like members. If you have an logical argument or con-arguments give it, explain and support. You do something else like -SUGGESTING- to others an activity/education etc. you do wrong. That is all. I leasing to you arguments! --New Speech Killer (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So what is you understanding of word plurality, and what is your understanding of a word majority. Why you say the name should be used instead the preliminary "Single district member system" or adequate one. You appealed me to discussion. I appealed for you arguments. If you will not discuss I can easily say you do not look for a CONSENSUS. Right?

--New Speech Killer (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for writing, New Speech Killer. The correct place for building consensus on an article is at its Talk page, not on the pages of other editors. So, I recommend that you start that conversation at the pages of interest to you. However, I regret to say that i have a difficult time understanding what you are trying to convey in your writing. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Catamaran

Thank you for the correction! de:Madras-Katamaran this is the one. it is called "Kattamaram" in malayalam (and Tamil as well, I guess) which is a native way of fishing vessel. I can see about the early Tamilnadu usage about these things from the catamaran page as well. Do let me know if this image will add some additional information or do we need a separate page for this one? --Manuspanicker (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link to de:Madras-Katamaran, Manuspanicker. The German article says that the craft is not a catamaran, despite the name, but is a type of Floss, German for "raft". So, the German article is off-base about the picture, too, since a raft consists of multiple floats—usually logs—bound together, as can bee seen at the German article on the topic, de:Floß. The image clearly depicts a dugout canoe. The article describes the derivation of Katamaran as coming from the Tamil word for a craft, consisting of logs bound together. Thanks for the interesting excursion! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

:) The picture is 3 long slightly bent logs bound together to float in sea, which is used for fishing in my native. and it is called "Kattamaram", you can see the ml link there (ml:കട്ടമരം, you may not understand this lang, that's why the de link!). Thanks for the reply. they talk about the same thing. I felt the dug-out is more the kayak type, which is very diff than this. this one is very primitive and the the name is also from the same lines. any way nice to have a conversation! tc. --Manuspanicker (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)