User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2008/Dec

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Colonies Chris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a large scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits are in accordance with the Manual of Style - and I do participate in the discussions. I will disregard this weaselly and bullying attempt to make me comply with your agenda. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris, this is a cut-and-paste message that did the rounds last week under the hand of Cole, just before he was blocked. That attempt met with similar responses by victims! Tony (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Cole, he seems to be trying to take things into his own hands now: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to join Tennis Expert in asking that you stop these types of disputed/disruptive edits (example: [1]). Whether or not TE has an "agenda" is irrelevant if you are ignoring the consensus building process going on at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. It is difficult to reach consensus on an issue if you have editors unilaterally deciding their way is best and implementing those changes despite an ongoing discussion (again, see the ArbCom decision and the quotes provided above for the rationale). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits are in line with the MoS, as you well know. I will continue converting articles I edit to bring them into line with the MoS. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read nothing of the above? Whether or not your edits are covered by the MoS is irrelevant. There is an ongoing dispute over the current MoS and performing these edits is disruptive (again, please read the quoted ArbCom decision above). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Your edits have been reported here. Tennis expert (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrator note As a notice, any further reverts regarding date-delinking and linking will result in a block. This is an issue that, although it has its own guideline and it is within lines to edit per the current MOS, the date-delinking/linking process is still disputed, and the edit warring from all parties has gone on long enough. AN, ANI, EW/3RR, you name it, it's been there. This applies to all parties and not just you, for reference. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have queried the legitimacy of this threat, Chris—at Lightmouse's page, where it appears to have been first pasted in, and at the apparently "Retired" Seicer's page. All very odd. At particular issue are the admin policies on Communication and Conflict of interest. The first, at least, appears to have been breached here, and whether this is part of a coordinated attack concerning the date and linking issues needs to be sorted out. Tony (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but I'm tired of all parties (and that includes both sides) bickering about a guideline as it is currently written. There is a RFC draft coming up; I suggest that you involve yourself with it. seicer | talk | contribs 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your "tired of" something is not part of the Admin Policy, or any other guidelines, since I last looked. I'm tired of some things on WP too but it doesn't give me the right to post threatening messages, and it gives you even less right to use the threat of using your admin tools to support an intimidatory message. I'm sorry to speak plainly, but I believe that you should withdraw the threat; to start with, it's vague—how far back in an article history does one have to look to ensure that making an article compliant with the MoS is not going to be considered a "reversion"? Can you give us an idea, or we'll be frightened to make any edits at all. This appears to be a use of arbitrary power. Do you have a personal involvement in the date/linking debate? Tony (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, prior to blocking Tennis Expert for revert warring over a dozen articles hundreds of times, I've not been involved -- and only for revert warring. In fact, I blocked Tennis Expert who had been date-linking, not date-delinking, so I'm not really for sure where your commentary is drawing from. seicer | talk | contribs 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this came off as being entirely off from what I was wanting to state, so I apologize. I was intending that the whole date-linking/delinking bit has become too heated, after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive493#Locke Cole, WP:AN#Special:Contributions/Tennis expert and four reported cases at WP:AN3 that deal with the same matter. I wish for those involved to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#RfC: Three proposals for change to MOSNUM. Thanks :) seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary changes

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I'm curious how do you work out the arbitrary changes you made to this page with this edit . For example why remove the link from "Switzerland" but not the "English Channel"? Now that we no longer have automatic date changes why remove "the" from in front of a date instead if you do not like "the 22 March 1816;" why not change it to "the 22nd of March" why change it to "~~the~~ 22 March"? --PBS (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also why did you change Blucher to Blücher in both the "Treaty of Paris" and in this edit [2] to "Hundred days" as Blucher is spelt Blucher, Bluecher and Blücher in reliable sources? --PBS (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what the Wikipedia page uses, what matters is what the reliable sources for the particular article uses. Do you know what the sources are using for those two articles? I suggest that if you wish to dates on an article which you have little familiarity then unless you are willing to take time to read the article and the sources used to create the article that you do not arbitrarily change the spelling of words. For example would you change every (Lech) "Walesa" to "Wałęsa" just because the Wikipedia page is spelt that way even though the majority of English language sources spell his name "Walesa"? --PBS (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"The implication of what you're saying is that articles should use different variants of a person's name, even within the same article, if the original sources for different parts of the article differ in their spelling. It makes sense to standardise on the spelling which other editors have agreed upon." No I am not saying any such thing, clearly words should be spelt the same way within the body of an article , (unless they are in quotes) but the spelling in that article should follow the spelling used by verifiable sources cited in that article --unless as will happen occasionally, some other spelling something is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole (because the reliable sources use archaic spellings or whatever). I do not see how, when you are doing many changes to many articles, you can have spent the time it takes to decide in each article how a word is spelt in the context of that article and its sources.--PBS (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article Battle of Waterloo you changed Hugh Halkett's to Hugh Halkett's do you really think that the "'s" s easier to read in black when the rest of the word (Halkett) is in blue? --PBS (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you do not change one style to another when using AWB. --PBS (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AWBs are exactly what WP needs to ensure that styles are article-consistent and compliant with the manuals of style. I find this volley of complaints by Shearer to require justification on these grounds. Tony (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)