User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2015/November

Please stop...

Your edits are disruptive. Your unilateral moving of the Grand Master page is not only incorrectly capitalized, but really was not appropriate. If you are going to continue to do what you want without discussing it with other editors, you are going to have a problem. I've had to request a technical move because of your actions, and this sort of thing needs to stop. MSJapan (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please specify which edit you're referring to? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You moved an article without discussion. That's just wrong. Wikipedia has guidelines about acceptable conduct which you obviously have not read. Further disruptive edits on your part will be treated as vandalism. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And this where you redirected "frat" (a common abbreviation for fraternity) to a dab page for "Brother". We do not redirect to dab pages, and the move was wrong yet again. You really need to seriously stop editing and find a mentor. MSJapan (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of disagreement: in Wikipedia we often do have redirects going to disambiguation pages. It often makes sense. For example, the disambiguation page at title Odd Fellows Hall has redirects from Independent Order of Odd Fellows Building, Independent Order of Odd Fellows Hall, Odd Fellows' Hall, IOOF Hall, Odd Fellow's Hall, Oddfellow's Hall, I.O.O.F. Building, I.O.O.F. Hall, and Oddfellows' Hall, because an editor might link to one of them or a reader might type any one of those. --doncram 00:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You also redirected "Frater" to "Brother" (where the word doesn't occur), you made a cut and paste move (contrary to GPL licensing) on IOOF Hall to make a redirect out of that page, redirected "fraternites and sororities" to simply "fraternity" (which it isn't), and redirected "fraternal order" to "fraternity" (which it isn't). I really don't want to have to comb through all your edits, but if I have to, I will. You are repointing pages inappropriately as well as editing contrary to Wikipedia policy. MSJapan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of agreement: Yes, cut-and-paste moves are bad, they lose the proper record of past editors' contributions. If you're tempted to do a cut-and-paste move, usually you should open a wp:RM instead. At the conclusion of the RM discussion, an administrator can implement the decision using tools that you don't have. --doncram 00:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you take one or arguably two observations into account of implying a fellow Wikipedian is a vandal. Appearently, though, your opinion isn't the only one regarding Grand Master (Masonic), as the edit I proposed had other support. Nontheless, no big deal and you may have it your way - without I calling you a vandal for it. As for the IOOF Hall there was a regular merge, so not sure what you're talking about. Regarding frat, I guess it could possible stem from your personal experience of what "frat" usually refers to may be. However, for "frater", it is a common word for "brother", from latin if you didn't know that. Again, no big deal. Thanks for your feedback. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for all your positive edits, by the way, we're making a better Wikipedia together! Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be clear, you are currently a disruptive editor, not a vandal. We assume that this is down to inexperience, and we want to help you. If you nonetheless continue to make disruptive edits to Wikipedia, then they will be treated as vandalism. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

To Fiddlersmouth, you have said that twice now, that you intend to treat good faith edits by Chicbyaccident as vandalism when you know it is not vandalism. That is wronger than anything you are trying to fix. It sends a bad message. It suggests that treating others with disrespect and engaging in threats and battleground type mentality, is the way to work here. Think about what you are writing here, please. --doncram 09:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: Thanks! Yes, there's a "headup" on the move, and so of course it should be broken down into consensus. Although, I'll leave that to you for the time being. I know you're not supposed to do "copy and paste", but not really sure when I have qualified for unintentionally doing that. If so, it was not my intention nor then nor afterwards to do that, to make that thing clear. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

welcome and about disambiguation

Hi Chicbyaccident, I'm glad you're contributing. I'm not an expert on navigational templates, but I like the new navigational Template:Odd Fellowship that you created and added to a number of Odd Fellows related pages.

About page moves, I don't agree with everything others have said in discussions above, but if there's likely to be any difference of opinion, it's best to use the wp:RM requested move service. That is a well-run, efficient process that brings in "outside" experts as well as any editors who are already watchlisting a given page, and comes to a good consensus decision after a one week open discussion. It seems you've rankled some others with moves that you've made without discussion, so I think it would be best for you to use the wp:RM service 100% of the time, for a while. I expect you would learn from the requested move discussions in a constructive way, without causing negative contention.

By the way I disagree with your move of Odd Fellows Lodge disambiguation page to Odd Fellows lodge. The disambiguation page was meant to cover places that specifically have the proper name Odd Fellows Lodge; it is not meant to be a general discussion of what a lodge is. A disambiguation page is not allowed to have much information at all, only what is needed for a reader to find their way to an article they are searching for. A disambiguation page is not allowed to include sources or footnotes, and it is not allowed to be the target of incoming links. With few exceptions, there should be no links to a disambiguation page because there's nothing there for readers, they are not articles. For similar reasons, there should not be mainspace categories on disambiguation pages, because that would encourage readers browsing in the categories to arrive at the page and be disappointed. (This is covered probably at wp:Disambiguation.)

I wonder if you are feeling that there ought to be an article discussing what Odd Fellows lodges/chapters/groups are like. I probably would agree with you. But the existing disambiguation pages are not that. You could create a new article on the topic of Odd Fellows lodges and/or halls or other topics whose titles are currently used by disambiguation pages at imperfect names like Odd Fellows Hall (group), and if it is a valid article with sources and so on, meeting Wikipedia standards for notability, that would be great. Then and only then, there could be a multiple-pages wp:RM covering the need for existing disambiguation pages to be moved out of the way, so that the new article could be moved to reside at Odd Fellows Hall, or whatever, with the disambiguation page moved to Odd Fellows Hall (disambiguation).

And perhaps there should be a list of individual local lodges (which is about the groups, the organizations, and is different than the list of buildings that currently or formerly were Odd Fellows-related). You could possibly be the one to create that other article. Because making the distinctions would be a bit complicated, it would probably be best to use the wp:AFC "Articles For Creation" service, so you'd start the article in draftspace not mainspace (i.e. at Draft:Odd Fellows lodges or whatever, then when it is ready you put a {{submit}} tag on it to request that experienced others review it and give comments or approve it moving to mainspace. I would be happy to help some, if you start a draft and want me to look at it then let me know.

Maybe you dislike the tabular format of the current List of Odd Fellows buildings. You might want for there to be a list-article formatted more like the disambiguation page Odd Fellows Hall, to replace the tabular formatting of the current List of Odd Fellows buildings. Anything is up for discussion; you could raise that at the Talk page.

You could even want for there to be a more drastic or more extensive reorganization of Odd Fellows information. Note for notable churches in Wikipedia, articles are usually about the combination of the organization/people and of the corresponding building(s), and we have list-articles of those churches notable for either aspect. Perhaps that is how Odd Fellows lodge coverage should be handled, avoiding the artificial separation of buildings vs. their corresponding groups. To get consensus for a big reorganization, it would be best to develop a proposal and run a proper wp:RFC Request For Comments. I for one would be happy to help you run an RFC or to get any change you want to make, considered in the proper way. I may agree or disagree with your idea for change, but I would be happy to help it be discussed properly in a way that achieves a good enough consensus.

It takes a while to learn the complications of disambiguation pages and lots more about the etiquette here. You can learn some of it by reading the policies and guidelines, but practices are not all written down and some you just learn by experience. In some areas your contributions may simply be absorbed with no issues, but sometimes it will turn out that you're out of step. One thing others may have implied above is that you should never have made any page moves; I would disagree with that and say instead that now that others have objected and you see that there can be disagreements in this area, you shouldn't make page moves in this area unilaterally. But your original boldness was good. Often it will turn out that being bold gets things done with no issues.

You're doing fine, I am glad you are here, again I like the template you created. I will remove it from the disambiguation pages, however, and I will remove links to disambiguation pages from the template. Please feel free to discuss here or at the Talk pages. I will watchlist here, but please invite me by a ping or by a note at my Talk page if I am not responding fairly promptly.

cheers, --doncram 23:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: Thanks for the feedback! Those specific details that you're mentioneing above, although I'm inclined to agree with your proposed development, I would prefer to delegate that to others. I lack too much information in the area, I suppose, and my intentions wasn't to go deeper in the contributions to the subject anyway. Again, thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I wanted to communicate that you could have legitimate complaints about how things are arranged now. Your edits that others are complaining about can be understood as good-faith efforts to move things along in any of these legitimate directions. --doncram 09:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Because you are not making Wikipedia better by editing against policy. I can't be any clearer than that, and if you don't want to follow policy, don't edit. The edit you made is not allowed, and if there's collateral damage, so be it. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Since none has answered there, should I be replying here? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chicbyaccident. To Chicbyaccident, no, you do not need to reply here. The ANI discussion is to take place there not here. The way ANI works, in my opinion: if you say anything useful here, it will be ignored; if you say anything here that can be used against you it generally will be used against you there.

I'll comment further, while I suggest you do not explicitly discuss these comments further here or there:

• IMO editor MSJapan is seriously in error by raising an issue there, at all, as there is simply no cause for editors to be concerned about your editing. You replied once and another editor has now commented explaining that pretty well; I will comment there too.
• In general, in my experience, the ANI forum is a horrible, fundamentally invalid and unfair place, and once you have been criticized there usually the less you say there the better. Among its poor practices are that there will often be "drive-by" editors ignorant about a given dispute who express inaccurate judgments on a snap basis (which I have not seen yet after the initial post in this case, however). Another hurtful practice is a positive delight among editors there in imposing unfair "wp:boomerang" "justice" against persons raising an issue there, either an original complaint or a complaint raised in defense (which has not happened yet in this case). It is a seriously dangerous and damaging process that is run there, which you do need to take very seriously. I speak from experience, having been dragged there and damaged by editors including Masonic-focused editors who have been operating in Wikipedia since at least 2006 (I will post about that, there). If you see obviously inaccurate and damaging statements about yourself it is probably good to respond briefly with supporting diffs. But if there is not active discussion and it seems a discussion may die out, it is usually best not to fan the flames by providing anything that random others might seize upon. It is not worth correcting small inaccuracies that don't matter greatly. Anything you say can and will be used against you in ANI proceedings. What is best is to see others speak up for you (as another editor has done and I will do), and then you should usually let what they say stand even if they do not state your case perfectly; it generally looks far better for others to speak up for you than for you to say the exact same things. If you must respond there, be brief, polite, calm as you have been so far, and do not show any distress, anger, or any other emotion even if it is well-justified. Try not to appear to be criticizing anyone else, focus on actions not editors even if other editors do seem to be acting in bad faith. Don't expect justice, don't expect any satisfactory resolution. Be happy if the discussion gets archived from inactivity after 1 or 2 days of no responses in the discussion.
• I hate this about Wikipedia, that the current practices drag new editors to unfair forums like ANI and often destroy newer editors' goodwill and energy. It is like there is a collective insanity on the part of many decent people to allow that forum to continue to operate as it too often does. Often editors who are dragged there or otherwise find their way to the drama there, see the hazing that goes on there as valid, and continue it.
• Your experience may vary; i hope that it does. sincerely, --doncram 11:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. I think I get the picture. Thanks for making the effort of informing about this. Hope Wikipedia will keep on getting better and better! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Glitch

Apologies are really in order. While you have been harangued from all sides for some of your edits, it seems nobody has explained to you how Wikipedia works. Please take the time to read at least some of the material in the following section. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. No apologies needed. I don't pretend to know everything here, so thanks for correcting me if I'm wrong. However, the disputed edits seem rather to be an exchange of opinions, both arguing from the established rules. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome...

Hello, Chicbyaccident, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Some pages you might like to check out are:

• Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia – main welcome page.
• Wikipedia:Introduction – Wikipedia introduction page.
• Wikipedia:Tutorial – Wikipedia editing tutorial.
• Wikipedia:Questions – the "where to ask questions" directory.
• Wikipedia:FAQ – quick answers to the most common questions.
• Wikipedia:New contributors' help page – a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page.
• Wikipedia:Help desk – where volunteers answer questions on how to use Wikipedia. Many new users go there for help too.
• Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User – where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be his/her mentor.
• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual – Thorough and intuitive guide to Wikipedia.

Category:Members of the International Order of Twelve Knights and Daughters of Tabor

Category:Members of the International Order of Twelve Knights and Daughters of Tabor, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard about Catholic Church template

A dispute resolution has been started at WP:DRN#Talk:Catholic Church#Org_Template_.28infobox.29. Sundayclose (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Chicbyaccident, just wanted to ask if you are going to join the above DRN case? The case is currently waiting for a moderator to take on the case for discussion between parties, so now is kind of the best time to become part of the discussion. Please add a summary of the content dispute in the same style as those currently at DRN and add yourself to the list of involved editors near the top of the discussion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I prefer not to participate at this moment if I don't have to. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, DRN is voluntary participation from involved editors. If you do decide to join in at a later time, just follow the above or state that you are involved and dive straight into discussion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grand Lodge of Europe

The article Grand Lodge of Europe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Grand Lodge of Europe

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Grand Lodge of Europe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

University of Paris

Hi Chicbyaccident,

I was curious why you removed the University of Sorbonne alumni category and added University of Paris for Aram Karamanoukian? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Because that's the correct categorisation for alumni who attended the University of Paris. Earlier, there were two categories for the same designation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

But the sources explicitly say he graduated from Sorbonne. Is it possible that he graduated the College of Sorbonne? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Yes, that could be the case. Either way, it belonged to the University of Paris, and there i still no specific category for alumni from that particular college. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you :) Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Hope that made sense to you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bug you again. But then why would we have the University of Sorbonne alumni category at all then? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Grand Lodge of Europe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grand Lodge of Europe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Europe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Guards

Hello. Could you please restore those category headings relating to the French Swiss Guards (Guard Regiments of France, Swiss Mercenaries). A substantial part of the article is devoted to the French regiment, which has no direct connection with the modern Pontifical unit. Thank you. Buistr (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The category remains at Category:Pontifical Swiss Guard. Hope this provides a suitable answer. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)