Talk:Javain Brown

Lots of discussion in edit summaries

Not so much on the talk page which I have chosen NOT to protect. Bad editors. Bad. Will wisdom and broader consensus help us here? I hope so. Happy to unprotect on request. I was afraid of seeing all of civil society break down over this and thought it was my turn to take the hurt. BusterD (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Odd because one of the editors involved is an admin and has access when I would not.

The discussion has been taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS:DATETOPRES in infoboxes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your assumption that I would abuse my tools to edit the page when you cannot is WP:ABF.

This article has always used open-ended dates - you and you alone are trying to change it from that long-established and WP:STABLE version.

Oh and @BusterD: my attempt at discussion with the other editor was rejected. GiantSnowman 20:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry GiantSnowman. I was not assuming bad faith, simply pointing out that BuserD did not check the credentials of both editors. I have edited with you long enough to know that you would not step over that line even when in a dispute.

When a manual of style is brought to my attention, I apply it correctly to all articles I work on.

Your so-called attempt at discussion is clearly a warning that I was edit warring. I however erred. The advice there is not to post a generic edit warring template, which you clearly did not do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hard to respond with all this kind attention. Thanks for engaging. I was trying to get the attention of two editors I admire both acting IMHO in less than a productive manner. I'm also not concerned about an admin I admire using their tools while involved. I trust both of you. When THAT discussion is concluded, then make the agreed changes. Until then, let's not, okay? BusterD (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

My position has been clear and consistent and Walter is aware of it - there is a MOS, which states that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and the topic area this article is a part of does not use the MOS in question, and has never done as far as I can remember (and I have been editing for over 16 years). It is that simple. GiantSnowman 08:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

My position has been clear and consistent and GiantSnowmanis aware of it: there is no valid reason for the football project to not use the MoS in question. The two provided reasons at the project have been that it is too wide, and too many articles would need to change to adopt this. Neither is valid and I have explained this to the project and at the MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Because we never have done so and it is not needed. GiantSnowman 17:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Half of that statement is true, but I will not argue that here and at the MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe we have all found some small agreement. If this is a MOS issue, this should be discussed and concluded there, unless local consensus overrules MOS in an individual case. I suggest we hold fire here for now. BusterD (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There is long-standing local consensus that the use of -pres. is not needed or warranted for association football articles. That is why none of them have it, except the ones that Walter has decided to edit and not yet been reverted on. I note that no other editors seem as 'dedicated' to enforcing the MOS as him... GiantSnowman 10:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, an incomplete statement. I was alerted to the project's wilful noncompliance of the MoS at another football article on my watchlist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You make it sound like we are engaged in civil disobedience! GiantSnowman 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Disobedience at the very least. Since Wikipedia is not a legal system, civil disobedience may be a stretch. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)