User talk:Hoggardhigh

Hoggardhigh, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Hoggardhigh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serial comma

Please read WP:SERIAL and WP:BRD. I can see no ambiguity that requires to be resolved by a serial comma here. That you prefer the usage the comma is not sufficient reason to change an existing, acceptable style of punctuation. If you have an argument for the necessity for the comma, per BRD please discuss it here rather than just reverting. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing this and engage at talk if you feel you have a point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop doing this, particularly as you now appear to be trying to conceal this superfluous style change in an edit to introduce an active grammatical error (unless the grammar is correct but your factual understanding of the subject wrong). Your new wording incorrectly states that wound strings are put on after having removed the lighter ones, although I assume you think it means the opposite. You can either say that we "replace the heavy strings with the light ones" or "substitute the light strings for the heavy" but "substitute the heavy for the light" means the opposite. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Ebyabe. An edit that you recently made to Cinemark Theatres seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 01:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Jensen Ackles. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 01:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you still aren't using edit summaries. It really does help other editors when you do. - Bri (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alex Chilton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sherbert (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) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Hoggardhigh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ride Like the Wind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial commas

Please read MOS:SERIAL immediately. If you insist on adding the so-called Oxford comma indiscriminately, you may be blocked from editing—especially given your previous warnings for this activity. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Ike Altgens. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:EW immediately. "Because I like it" is insufficient reason to violate policy. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hoggardhigh. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond there or you'll probably wind up blocked from editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so ignoring the concerns of other editors and continuing on as if they don't exist is not an option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hoggardhigh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to make useful contributions.

Decline reason:

We will not unblock until it is clear that you understand why you were blocked, and after that follows some more stuff. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"I want to make useful contributions" is appreciated, but unconvincing. Being useful involves an understanding of policy; an understanding of the rules of engagement; an understanding that collaboration means editors improve themselves—and, most vitally, the encyclopedia—by learning from each other. Being useful does not involve imposing your definition of "useful" to the exclusion of all others. —ATS 🖖 talk 06:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Hoggardhigh.

Your unblock request request is the first time we've heard you you speak. OK, so now we know you can. As a general rule, every single time someone writes something on your talk page, you should usually respond.

OK, I understand where you are coming from with the commas. I agree with you, actually. However, the rule about stuff like this here is "leave it alone". The comma thing is covered at WP:SERIAL. (Similarly, if you find the (English spelling) "colour" in an article, don't change it to the (American spelling) "color", and so forth, as a general rule (this is covered at WP:ENGVAR); and so forth). In fact, as a general rule, consider not making any changes that are just grammar or punctuation or minor wording changes. (If there is an actual error, such that everyone would agree that it is an error rather than a matter of preference, that's different.)

Otherwise, we would have people putting stuff back and forth to the way they personally like it. Do you see how that would not be productive?

Second, if you do make an edit, and someone reverts it, stop. Do not just put your edit back. We can't have people editing like this; it is called "edit warring" and is bad (see WP:EW for details). Instead, you should probably just let it go and move on to something else. Or, if you don't want to let it go, go to the talk page and write something like "I made such-and-such edit, and another editor reverted it, but I think it's a good edit, and here's why: __________________________. And I invite the other editor to discuss this and let's see if we can decide what's best" or whatever. See WP:BRD for details on this.

OK, you want to make useful contributions. So let's see... I'm a little rusty on this myself. Why not go over to the Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask around about what needs doing? They're nice people. Now, for practice, you could you please respond to this message in some manner. Herostratus (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial comma

How is use of the serial comma on Wikipedia considered vandalism or disruptive editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoggardhigh (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, it's not. But when you keep on doing it when people raise objections and don't acknowledge these concerns then it becomes #4 in this list: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoggardhigh. Some people like to use the serial comma, and some don't. It's a matter of personal taste. OK, now suppose we have an article that uses the serial comma. And an editor goes "well, I don't like it" and changes it. And then another editor goes "but I do like it" and changes it back. And then the first editor changes it again. And so forth, forever and ever, constantly, across all our articles.

Do you think that would be a good way to run a project like this? Can you think of some ways how that might not be the best way to run a project like this?

Thank you for using your talk page. By the way, you can sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your repeated additions of a serial comma to the Nashville tuning (high strung) article on principle because it is a pointless style change, not because I deprecate, or advocate, its use. I would have reverted the action had the sentence originally included a serial comma and you had removed it. Changes to perfectly valid spellings or punctuation for no other reason than personal preference are not helpful and likely to cause warring, wasting the time of editors which could be better applied addressing matters of substance. Three times I tried to engage with you to explain a valid reason for your edit but you did not respond and simply repeated the edit, latterly trying to hide it alongside largely superfluous edits at other parts of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same behavior?

Hoggardhigh, would you be kind enough to explain to me, NeilN, Herostratus and Mutt Lunker why your edits today to He'll Have to Go, I Just Called to Say I Love You, Honey Don't, Tex Ritter and Henry Thomas somehow differ from your recent history of making mostly minor edits in order to replace—again—the serial comma? —ATS 🖖 talk 03:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Why are you just ignoring everyone who is reaching out to you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:NOTHERE. Damned lucky it's not an indef, I think. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make your unblock appeal here, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False death reports

Is falsely reporting someone's death on Wikipedia considered disruptive editing, vandalism, or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoggardhigh (talk • contribs) 21:31, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Yes. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 05:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it considered, vandalism or disruptive editing?--Hoggardhigh (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If deliberately false, it's vandalism. If careless and tenuous, it's disruptive. If it's just a one-time mistake, it's just a mistake. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What is this in reference to, specifically? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]