User talk:Corinne/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 34

Nor vs. or

EEng and Timothyjosephwood I saw the recent edits to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining, and I thought I might be able to help sort this out. I'll copy the paragraph here for ease of reference:

Wikipedia is not about whining. Complaining about editor behavior is appropriate, such as at a relevant noticeboard, when that behavior is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and harms the project. But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy, nor catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's fundamental principles.

The question is whether it should read "or catharsis" or "nor catharsis". Tjw thinks it should be "or", and provided an edit summary saying "Double negative", and EEng thinks it should be "nor". I don't think "double negative" applies, or is the problem, here. The fact that "nor catharsis" is separated by a comma makes "nor" all right, but perhaps stylistically two "nor" phrases in a row is not optimal. It's like saying "not complaint for its own sake, nor [for/as] group therapy, [and] nor [for/as] catharsis", with the "and" left out. Unless there is a particular reason for separating "catharsis" from "group therapy", if you take out the comma after "group therapy", then "or" is perfectly fine. It creates a phrase of two nouns/noun phrases: "nor group therapy or catharsis", with the entire phrase balancing, on the other side of "nor", "not complaint for its own sake". So, unless a major re-arrangement is made to that part of the sentence, you have two choices:

(a) But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy, nor catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's fundamental principles. (Two "nor's", with the phrases separated by a comma; the three negative phrases highlighted in bold.)

(b) But the purpose of complaining is not complaint for its own sake, nor group therapy or catharsis, but to get help in guiding an errant editor into behaving in accord with the project's fundamental principles. (One "nor", no comma after "therapy"; the two negative noun phrases highlighted in bold.)

So, it turns out that you are both right. Both of these are acceptable. Which do you prefer?

On another issue in this sentence, it seems to me that this essay was written to explain when complaining is appropriate and when it is not. I think the beginning of this second sentence is unnecessarily wordy. I think it should read:

• But complaining should not be done for its own sake, nor as group therapy or catharsis,...

I don't think italics are necessary.

Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I... Am honestly at a loss for a way to create a grammar nazi barnstar that wouldn't be offensive to most. You are truly the Gunter d'Alquen of grammar nerds. We are in the presence of greatness. TimothyJosephWood 20:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Timothyjosephwood!  – Corinne (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably overall, neither/nor is starting to slip into an archaic usage. I'd expect a very small percentage of the English speaking world routinely uses it in spoken word. That's probably part of why it's an awkward construction. TimothyJosephWood 20:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No lie, I knew all that (specifically, I considered adjusting TJW's version to nor group therapy or catharsis – removing the comma) but couldn't face the task of explaining. But you're right about Corinne. EEng 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

My name's Tim and I'm helping. TimothyJosephWood 20:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, EEng! Tjw, are you suggesting I'm a grammar addict? You may be right. I agree with Timothyjosephwood about "nor", but I still think it would work here if the sentence is simplified. I'm thinking that since this essay is mainly to discourage unnecessary complaining, more down-to-earth language would be best. I would even remove "for its own sake". What do you think of this wording? –

(i.) But complaining should not be done just for the sake of complaining, nor as a substitute for group therapy or catharsis,... [or]

(ii.) But editors should not complain just for the sake of complaining, nor as a substitute for group therapy or catharsis,...

 – Corinne (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would probably prefer 1, but either is probably an improvement. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't she? WP:BEBOLD, Corinne. EEng 21:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Tjw, I chose the second one to avoid using "complaining" twice. Unfortunately, I think the people who complain just for the sake of complaining don't realize they're doing it, so the advice may not help.  – Corinne (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I thought that essays were written by individual editors and so I hesitated to make any changes to this one, but since you said "Be bold", I went ahead and re-worded the sentence.  – Corinne (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Essays, like everything else, are public property, though one should respect the integrity of the philosophy it espouses -- if you want to present an opposing view, write a counter-essay or maybe add a balancing section to the existing essay. As always, there will be people watching to keep things in check. To a slight extent, an essay in user space e.g. User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment (contrast with Project space e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining) are meant to be a bit more under the thumb of one editor. In the case of "astonishment", that fussbudget Tryptofish objected to the bit about "the gay pancake breakfast" [1][2][3] so in a fit of pique I moved it from Wikipedia: to User:EEng/ . EEng 21:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And the fussbudget thanks you for the mention! I'm happy that the pique was a good fit. As for catharsis, I guess there are always laxatives for those who want them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood I'd like to ask whether you were serious or making fun of me with your first comment, above. I thought it was a compliment, but now I'm not sure. I also don't understand your link to the photo nor the "My name's Tim and I'm helping". I guess I don't catch your type of humor, and I'd like to understand, if you wouldn't mind explaining.  – Corinne (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a compliment. The photo was self deprecating humor. TimothyJosephWood 01:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Tim (can I call you that?). Oh, good. Thanks for explaining. Now I see that "My name's Tim and I'm helping" came right after EEng's comment that mentioned "group therapy and catharsis". I missed the connection before. I still don't understand the photo, though.  – Corinne (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant to ask about that too. EEng 01:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was after he said that he didn't want to have to explain it to me. So it was implying that I am a brute, exemplified by a hockey player (a traditionally brutish sport) with his tongue out (a very unfortunate pose emphasizing the brutishness of the sport). Responding with images that are emblematic of the feeling one wishes to portray are common place on other websites, probably most commonly 4chan. TimothyJosephWood 01:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand: I didn't want to explain it to anybody. I play no favors with my inexplicability. EEng 01:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't catch something. Communicating in writing is not as easy as discussing something in person, is it? But I think things are clearer now. I'm delighted to have you both discussing things here, and Tim, you're certainly not a brute. By the way, I also sometimes respond by posting an image.  – Corinne (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As to the OP, style guides differ on this, and neither style is "wrong", but most of those in which I've read the section on this issue say to use not ... nor, and to not use nor in the absence of a preceding not or neither, though some also permit some other negative in place of not/neither. The not ... or construction generally seems to be considered awkward and even potentially confusing, since it's usually the marker of a change to a different kind of clause, as in "I'm not getting laid off, or at least I don't think I am."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry

EdChem Thought you might be interested in reading this exchange and the linked discussions: User talk:EEng#Incident board trolling.  – Corinne (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2017)

A small pond hockey field Hello, Corinne. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Pond hockey Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Calorie • Maya mythology Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Talk:Commodore_CDTV Comment

Hello, I hope you don't mind but I have taken the liberty of reverting the section began by an IP sock of a banned user, SPI is [here]. Case is closed and will be archived shortly. No offense intended. Cheers!   Aloha27  talk  19:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No,Aloha27, not at all. No offense taken. As you may see from the two sections above this, this editor had a rather unusual approach, and I thought (without taking the time to look at the editor's contributions), giving him/her the benefit of the doubt, that s/he might be a relatively new editor, and I didn't want to be too harsh in my comments, and thought I'd provide some guidance on how to organize and word comments on talk pages. But if the editor shouldn't have been editing at all, I of course understand reverting that whole section. Thanks for letting me know. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Corinne, please don't drink the Cool Aid from this user. I don't know exactly what the problem is, but it looks like he thinks that just because I have a dynamic IP address, which is why it changes a lot, that means I must be sock-puppeting. We're not socks just because our IP addresses change. In case you don't know (you did say that you're not super familiar with the inner workings of computer things), the way a dynamic IP address works is that you have one address for a little while, and then when you're not online, the ISP gives that address to someone else. There may be more than one way this happens, so you never know when it's going to happen or why. But these IP addresses are me; I'm not going around pretending to be other people here. So if you would please give me the benefit of the doubt instead of just buying all that hype, I'd appreciate it. Okay? 75.162.250.231 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for explaining what a dynamic IP address is. I know so little about these kinds of things that I cannot even form an opinion about them. Regarding you, I always try to keep an open mind. But, since I really have very little interest in computers, I will not be participating in the discussions at that article. I'd like to point out that, despite the advice given to you by myself and SMcCandlish, you left two blank lines between my last comment, above, and yours, when you should have left no blank lines, or, at the most, one blank line, and, when you began your comment, you did not indent one space further from the left margin with a colon. I indented one space from the left margin when I began mine, and you should have indented two spaces when you began yours, and this one would have been three.  – Corinne (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no benefit of the doubt to give; the instant one IP address you [I mean 75.162.*; using idiosyncratic talk formatting makes a mess of discussions] are using is blocked, you are subject to a block, and using another one to get around it is block evasion. If you're blocked, and have no talk page of your own, you can go to WP:ANI, indicate understanding of why you were blocked, why what you were blocked for was disruptive, and that you won't continue the same disruptive patterns; then ask the community to rescind the block.

As for what Corinne's pointed out about your talk page formatting, this is a great example of what I mean by "I'm going to do whatever I like, and since you complained about x, I'm definitely going to keep doing that particular x thing, until you give up, so ha ha ha." A.k.a. WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior, a.k.a. WP:Disruptive editing, a.k.a. a WP:Competence is required failure. Until you actually change, I don't think the community will unblock you, which means you'll continue to get your IP addresses blocked, probably with an entire range block soon enough, even if you're not a sockpuppet of a banned user. Your input here is a net negative for productivity, even if you sometimes have a reasonable edit to make or suggest. It's like having a drunk and violent uncle at one's wedding; if he punches one of your guests, you have your brothers throw him out, even though he is family, he did bring a present, and he proposed a nice toast before he had the seventh beer.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article

Hi, Corinne,

I see that you're a fairly recent contributor to the Manual of Style's talk page. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?

Thanks if so, 174.23.157.73 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you have not registered an account, and are only editing from an IP address, I cannot ping you, so I hope you are watching this page for my reply. First, I'd like to ask if there is an on-going discussion regarding MOS:TENSE. If there is, I'd prefer to reply there. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "making sure it's applied". May I ask you to be more specific? Again, if there is an on-going discussion, perhaps you could provide a link, ask your question there, and ping me.  – Corinne (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, Corinne, and thanks for your reply! Yes, I am keeping track of your replies here, regardless of what DHCP says my IP address is for the moment. Okay, no, there's no ongoing discussion about this at the MOS itself. I was just asking you about enforcement in general. Because then if you seemed to agree that enforcing the MOS because there is the MOS, I would believe we could work well together for when there are situations that I'm working on where another editor gives pushback even despite the MOS's laying down of the standard. So how well do you believe that because the MOS has a certain rule, that rule should be enforced in all articles for that language?

174.23.180.81 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a general guideline, and the section on MOS:TENSE is short and to the point. I haven't seen many problems in Wikipedia articles regarding verb tenses although I occasionally correct a verb tense as I'm copy-editing articles. Most native speakers of English know which tense to use. If you have a specific question regarding tense, or anything to do with grammar, wording, punctuation, etc., I'd be happy to see if I can help.  – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

EEng  – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as I'm asking you for MOS help...

Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?

Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initial abbreviations such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms [even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased]), or just calling them "initialisms" or "initial abbreviations" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?

Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?

And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?

Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?

Thanks for your opinions, and then we'll go from here, 174.23.157.73 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I don't know a whole lot about computers, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask. Second, I might be able to help more if you could provide a link to the article or articles you are working on so I can see the words, phrases, and sentences in context. Also, is there an on-going discussion (or even dispute) about these things? If so, it would be helpful if you could provide links to the discussion or discussions. It sounds like you've given these issues a lot of thought, and I'd like to be able to help if I can. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Corinne, I can understand that not everyone is well-versed in certain subjects. But some of these questions are just to see how you understand and what you agree with about the writing rules generally--for example, regarding not using an inaccurate word to describe something (like not using the word "acronym" to label an abbreviation that is not one), and regarding the benefits of being more specific--not just as far as computers and stereo systems go, but for anything--so that readers have the most clear idea of a given description as possible. Let's get this far and then if I see that we might work well together, I'll give you more detail on the context. Deal?

Thanks, 174.23.180.81 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It almost sounds like you are setting up a test to see if I answer the questions to your satisfaction before you decide we can "work well together". I'm a volunteer, just like all the other editors on Wikipedia. I spend a lot of time copy-editing articles, mostly requests made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I would be happy to answer specific questions about specific articles or editing guidelines, but I really do not want to spend my time answering test, or hypothetical, questions, especially on topics in which I have little interest.  – Corinne (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

EEng  – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I'm sure you mean well, 174, but it sounds like you're trying to assemble a posse of like-minded editors in preparation for a crusade to right some class of stylistic wrongs; you will get precisely nowhere on Wikipedia with that attitude. And while we welcome IP editors as a way to help people get their feet wet, I get uncomfortable with an editor who clearly has experience yet refuses to take on a recognizable identity, which is of great help to other editors – it's confusing and frustrating to deal with a series of voices coming from first one direction then another. If you have a specific issue on a specific article, I'll consider looking at it. EEng 00:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I said pretty much the same thing (I got the same questions at my talk page), though I did try to answer the aspects of the questions that seemed answerable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC) PS: The anon first needs to read MoS if they want to check others' compliance with it (e.g. MOS:DASH, MOS:LQ). Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay, guys. Thanks for your willingness. And thank you specifically, Corinne, for letting us use your talk page for this.

I just figured it would be better to know if I could work with people because I didn't want to start a discussion that would just turn into a fight. And if you have certain beliefs generally (such as that MOS normally applies everywhere, or that non-acronym abbreviations shouldn't be labeled as "acronyms," or that things are better when they're cleared up rather than when left foggy, then it wouldn't matter what context you found them in; I'd have the idea that we'd be on the same page and not get in a fight together. And then we'd go to where the context is, already knowing that there would be peace, and fix the problems peacefully. Ya get what I mean now?

McCandlish, I thought you were nice and reasonable enough not to laugh at someone else's expense (like mine, in this case) in your edit summaries. Will you please not do that?

But all right, from here I'll show you the context. Now, I already did read the MOS, and that's why I know about MOS:TENSE. It's not really stylistc stuff; it's about 1. applying the MOS because it exists, so it doesn't make sense for one editor to think he has more say to kick against it, and 2. applying other improvements for clarification purposes, which this other editor doesn't understand.

With that, I've started our discussion so that we can go back and restore the improvements that were already made to Commodore CDTV that this disruptive editor insists on destroying.

Thanks,

75.162.196.158 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Corinne, I'm not deleting my posting at the talk page. I'm doing everything I can to do the right thing to have a discussion (you know, part of "B/R/D") over there. And I would take your suggestions, but we have a few trolls who keep deleting my efforts on us there. Will you help stop them please?

1. I've read the talk page guidelines before.
2. I left the extra space to try to help prevent separate paragraphs from looking like big, daunting blocks.
3. I didn't give diffs simply because I thought you guys would go look at the history to see the difference between my edits and the troll's (now trolls') reversions.
4. I gave my explanations as succinctly as I could think of to include everything that we need in order to make the points, because I can't see how my points would be made without everything I've explained. And I did say that I'd appreciate hearing from other editors. Of course, because that's why we start a discussion there in the first place, and why I alerted you to the fact that that discussion was there. Right?

75.162.222.177 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Observing that you need to be familiar with the rules you want to "enforce" isn't a laugh at your expense, it's a laugh at a situation, and is also some actual advice. Being really cagey about where the discussion is and what its details are until pressured isn't open discussion or alerting people to the discussion, but verges on the opposite. Same goes for fishing for "people you can work with", i.e. WP:TAGTEAM with. The observations at WP:Writing policy is hard mostly also apply to implementing policy; it's the same skillset, which is highly dependent on detailed knowledge of the policies and the contexts to which they're intended to apply. Imposing MoS compliance is largely an activity for very long-term WP:WikiGnomes, not for recent arrivals, because the latter will usually not get it right, or even consistent.

On the side matter: No one wants to see paragraphs double-spaced apart. It's visually annoying, makes a mess of the discussion (later replies look like part of the end of the double-spaced material) and no one else does it. If others aren't doing it here, you shouldn't either. This, too, suggests that you're here to impose your own idiosyncratic style ideas. Re: "it would be better to know if I could work with people" – You have to be able to work with everyone here; this is a collaborative environment, not a deathmatch video game. Heh.

If you're working in an indented reply, you can introduce paragraph breaks, without producing mangled lists in the rendered HTML, by using the HTML paragraph tag inline: :::Blah blah.<p>More here.</p><p>And yet more.</p> If it ends up being long and hard to read in the source, you can use HTML comments to split the inline paragraph markup to separate lines without affecting the :-delimited (<dl><dd>...</dd></dl>) list output, as I've done in the comment I'm writing now, though few people bother with this; it's a "Web coder nerd" thing. Regardless, please remember the closing </p> tag if you use paragraph markup; leaving it off messes up the output of the syntax-highlighting scripts many of us use.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking over this revert, it's clear you do not actually understand MOS:TENSE, and need to stop trying to "enforce" it incorrectly. "The CDTV is essentially a Commodore Amiga 500 ..." belongs in present tense, a statement of the "is-ness" of the device, which still exists in the real world. Material about its development history, e.g., "With the optional keyboard, mouse, and disk drive, it gained the functionality of the Amiga", belong in past tense, because they happened in the past. I also see that a bunch of your IP addresses of the immediately recent past have already been blocked. If you continue on your present trajectory, it's going to result in a range block of 75.162.*, which may affect other people, so please stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to commend all of the MoS editors involved for their extreme patience in dealing with this. The IP address is very lucky for the responses he/she received. I find it admirable that you managed to resist completely laying into the identity-less individual for canvassing for support. What I think:

1. Do not criticise others for their edit summaries when you are leaving vague requests for comment, identical to those we are all seeing appear on the pages of those we are watching.
2. The MoS is a great area with which to involve yourself, and you will become familiar with its sections. It took me ages; I made loads of mistakes. I think I am through that now, and you will be where I am soon.
3. Please—I beg you—create an account, then, leave a message on the talk pages at which you left your messages yesterday, so we know that it is you.
4. People will be very willing to help you, as demonstrated here, but only if you ask about what is right, rather than tell.
5. I completely echo the words of SMcCandlish (above), especially about being able to work with everyone. There will be editors you do not like, but you will get through it, and only deal with them when you must. (Read my talk page ... I am not the most popular amongst certain people, even some at the MoS, but I endeavour to work productively with all, even though our opinions and attitudes are different.) BTW, I hate the syntax highlighter. It messes with my brain. Apologies if my paragraphs involve open tags. I uninstalled the tool months ago.

We all want to see you succeed as an editor, but we will not sympathise with you if you continue to try to form your own little groups. The MoS talk page regulars group is the closest thing you will find to this. We all have different opinions. We fall out from time to time (again, read my talk page), but things continue to happen. The project is a collaborative effort, which anyone may join. We all want it to remain that way. Do not try to change it. If you ever want advice on a specific matter, or general help on being a better editor, go to an individual, ie one editor. Do not try to find out whether they will work well with you. If it is a general MoS matter, the best place is WT:MOS. You will gain far more from going there than irritating editors by making them follow the different elements of your discussion across several talk pages. If you want anything from me, specifically, leave a message on my talk page. If you had an account, we could exchange emails, but that tends to be for more personal issues. I wish you luck for your future on Wikipedia. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 23:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the SPI admins is blocking these IP addresses (at least three so far) as all WP:Sockpuppets of a previously banned user (stylizeD). So, I'm invoking WP:DONTFEED, and have closed the duplicate discussion on my own talk page now that I know what's going on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me fix some misunderstandings and have some other rebuttal, please.

Ahhh, I was gone all day, and... whooo boy, it looks like I have some messes to clean up! It even sounds like some of you want to block me just for doing what I thought you were supposed to do... What the heck?! Okay, the best way for me to do this is just in chronological order of the replies. Right? And some of you suggested that numbering would be useful. Right? Okay, here we go:

1.SMcCandlish:

A. LOL, no. See, according to your new reply, you've misunderstood what I was trying to do based on :TENSE. You thought I was trying to enforce the past tense? Haha, no. I was trying to have done what the MOS says to do, which is what you already did now, and thanks: bring the article into the present tense. How did you misunderstand that? And what's "wrong" with using the word "enforce," when: in the past when I made edits that were against the MOS (unknowingly, of course), editors insisted that the MOS way was the way to do it, and I must not do it another way. Okay then, so why should I not follow their lead by having other editors do the same?

B. Thanks for REmaking the edits, so far, and making a new one, that were not only to apply the tense MOS rule, but also to clean up the area regarding non-acronym abbreviations and adding back the specificity of the floppy disk drive. Now there's still one more issue: that of where it says, "stereo-like," which I already brought up. What kind of stereo: a home rack component? A car stereo? A conventional boombox, or a docking station boombox? Or a personal stereo system with headphones? And then "instead of a computer"? What kind of computer? You see why I say we need words like "traditional" or "conventional," and "home," etc.? So what if we were to write something like I had already written (one editor gave me his point that even more specificity would be better), something like, "like a conventional home stereo system component from its (the CDTV's) era, instead of a conventional desktop computer"? (Remember, by "traditonal" or "conventional," I don't just mean from a certain time period; rather, I mean a certain shape. For a long time these were the conventional shapes, but there may have been some unusual shapes even then, so I just want to signal to readers that we're only talking about the usual fare of equipment shape. Can we do that, please?

C. As for adding extra space between paragraphs... wow! Who knew someone could get so upset by such a small thing as a little extra space? And nice job on assuming that the reason I do it is supposedly to "impose" my view on other editors. Look, I don't give a crap how you guys space your paragraphs. Please "excuse me" for doing something that I thought would be helpful! Wow, talk about biting people's heads off! The reason I do--oh, um... I guess I mean "did"--it was because I was writing a lot and I thought breaking things up with a little more space between--Wait, did you not read what I already explained to Corinne? I thought I was helping people's eyes to have a bit of rest between blocks because I know that if I see huge blocks of text I tend to go "TL;DR," and I do my best to explain things shortly but I think people see the big block and go, "Ughhh, oh my gosh, this is overwhelming to read!" But if they see one small block, then a little visual rest, and then another block, I figured that they wouldn't be so overwhelmed. But OMG, wow, if that bothers you so badly, then I'll try to make sure I don't do that! So I never suggested it was some kind of dumb "deathmatch video game," geesh. "Sorry" for trying to help!

D. Okay, I've looked and I can't see a difference: What is the <p></p> pair of tags supposed to do that just a plain carriage return doesn't do?

75.162.250.231 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A. No, you were changing the tense to present in more places, where it should not have changed. There are only two sentences under dispute where your present-tense change was correct. The HTML comment I inserted into the lead explain the difference.

B. It's already been pointed out to you that you do not need to thank people for doing edits that are correct. I did not do it as a favor to you, but because it was what the article should actually have in it. I only did it at all, given the level of disputation, because something good, however minor, should come out of the disruptive dispute you generated by editwarring there. If you're getting the idea that WP editors are touchy, and sometimes will react negatively to correct or at least reasonable changes with suspicion or disagreeableness simply because of the attitude or perceived attitude of the person introducing them, this perception is often correct. This is true of virtually all human endeavors, because we have the stress and territoriality instincts of our early hominid forbears. The more you engage in chest-beating, the more it inspires the other apes to fling poop and scream or throw sticks at you. This is a good lesson for all multi-human interactions, pretty much.

C. No one is "upset" about spacing; don't engage in psychological projection. A lot of people are, rightly, upset that you keep changing the actual content (spellings, grammar, etc.) of their posts. They're also irritated that you keep doing idiosyncratic, unhelpful things, like your paragraphs with two blank lines, after people tell you why this is not desired here. This "I'm going to do whatever I like, and since you complained about x I'm definitely going to keep doing that particular x thing, until you give up, so ha ha ha" attitude (which is what everyone's perceiving whether you think you're radiating it intentionally or not) is offputting and disruptive. Even if you do eventually stop doing things people keep asking you to not do, a bunch of "I want to do it my way because ..." excuse-making and still-proposing-my-way stuff isn't useful. I think you're mistaking neutral constructive criticism for dislike or antagonism, and reacting so defensively and stubbornly that it's inevitably turning into dislike and antagonism. This is what's known as a self-fulfilling prophecy and a vicious cycle. Generating a cloud of this around yourself about every little thing is, definitely, a WP:COMPETENCE problem. It makes you essentially impossible for others to work with unless you somehow strongly moderate this habit. Go write a novel or something? This site and you are not a good match and not likely to become one.

D. A carriage return turns off the :-delimited indent. That is, the parser treats "line which starts with : and ends with a CR/LF" as the indented "thing", technically a <dd>...</dd> list entry if you do "View source" on the resultant page that's sent to your browser. It ignores HTML paragraph markup. Ergo, you can insert an HTML paragraph, or other block element, such as a <blockquote>...</blockquote>, as long as there is no linebreak, no matter how long the line gets (line meaning "that which is between one CR/LF and another" not "text I see shown to me visually on one line before it soft-wraps at whatever my present window width calls for"). An exception is that a linebreak inside a <!-- ... --> HTML comment will be ignored by the parser. I takes experimentation to figure out MediaWiki's goofy, buggy, and very limited list syntax. For example, your attempts to use # list markup here did not work, because the #-delimited numbered list entries are not contiguous, and thus both items ended up number "1."; I've fixed that with manual numbering for you. I also fixed (with single blank lines) your broken manually-formatted "A., B., C. ..." lists; the parser treats non-list text all as one big paragraph when there's not a blank line (not just a CR/LF) between the blocks. For a list to display as a list, it has to use actual list markup, and the list element cannot have blank lines between them (other than by using the HTML-comment trick).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: See also Fit in or fuck off. While that's hardly an official policy at WP, it's how things work in effect, as they do in any other working environment (whether people want to admit it or not).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

2.  Sb2001:

A. Why do you feel like the other editors would've somehow been "justified" (in quotes because that's only your idea) for laying into me for asking more than one editor what they believe about certain ideas, without necessarily having a specific article in view at the time? Why should such discussion be forbidden here? There are editors who say that when we have a dispute in the editing process, we must seek consensus. Indeed, that's part of the Wikipedia rules to avoid edit-warring. Okay, so what, then, is so "wrong," as you would say, with calling editors to the discussion? What I see here is a contradiction of instructions: On one hand, you guys say we should seek consensus. But on the other, then you slap my hands for it! How's a guy supposed to get anything done if he's supposedly not allowed to alert a few editors that the discussion is out there to be had? And then what's so "wrong" with asking a few of them questions to see which ones are most willing to work with me? What do you do you just randomly pick one guy and he says something like "Nahh, man, I don't know about that subject; I'm sorry. Good luck!"? You're just SOL, dead in your tracks, simply because you picked the wrong guy and you're "not allowed" to try anyone else because somehow that's just "wrong"? Well, if it's not wrong to move on to someone else who is more likely to be of help in discussing the issues, then why should it be so "wrong" to bring attention to a handful of them at once in the name of not having to wait until one says he's not really good for that discussion?

B. What's so "wrong" with criticizing others' edit summaries for what seemed to be a bit of incivility (and my bad if it was not), if other editors have criticized mine for the same kind of reason and they don't get suggested not to do it? Why should it be any different for me?

C. I wasn't just trying to involve myself in the MOS. It just happens to be the reference I used to remind the first troll that he was wrong to keep reverting against it. And why should I do anything different from what other editors have said to me in the past when they told me stuff like, "No, you can't edit that way; the MOS says to do it this way"? And why is it that when I apply the MOS rules here, it fails, but then when SMcC does it, it sticks?

D. What's so "wrong," according to you, with just editing as an IP editor, if Wikipedia makes it available to us? Geesh, ya'd think that if they didn't want to allow someone to do something, they'd prevent it. Right? So why should you breath down my neck to make an account, like I'm somehow "in the wrong" for not doing it, if editing without one is already allowed?

E. Wait, ask? Did you not actually read the message I sent a few editors? Was it not full of questions about how they believed things should be in given cases? Not only that, but it's funny that you're telling me to ask someone how to apply the MOS to an article. Why should I ask if it's "okay" to apply the MOS if I already know it is? Why should I ask someone something like, "Hey, if the MOS tells us to use present tense, should we go ahead and apply present tense to the article, or should we feel constrained to ignore the MOS? Why should I ask someone what the definition of a word (such as "acronym" is) instead of just telling them, when I already know what the word means, and am just imparting the truth to them, because I've already seen that asking them for that brings up the wrong answer? Geeze, why are so many Wikipedia editors so opposed to consistency?

F. Again with that "forming your own little groups" thing. Since when was I doing that just by asking people how they believed? And even if someone does that, so what? Again, just read what I already asked about that in A. here, and tell me how you're supposed to find editors to seek consensus from if you supposedly can't even talk to them about what they understand (as I explained with my case in point that one editor felt he wasn't really cut out for the discussion)?

75.162.250.231 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

1. You are being incredibly aggressive. You are lucky that I am bothering to answer you after this. I will point out that we are all trying to help you. Every one of us has offered you advice on how to improve, and you have spat in our faces. I do not know how much experience you have on Wikipedia, because you do not have a registered account. If you did, I would be able to see everything you have done. We have all made thousands of edits, large numbers of which to bring articles into MoS compliance. We have learnt how things are done; for me, the hard way. Again, read my talk page. We are not criticising you for asking for a range of opinions, rather for seeing if others will 'work well' with you. I have explained before: Wikipedia is not about splitting off into groups of people who agree. SMcCandlish and I have loads of different stylistic preferences. There are elements of the MoS he does not like, but he deals with it. I go about tackling my irritants in a different way, ie I ask for detailed explanations, and sometimes for change. You are welcome to do this. Engage us in meaningful discussion at the MoS talk page. Do not split your discussions across loads of individuals' spaces. You are already onto a loser, in the sense that we have to follow—actively—a long, complex chain of 'Will we work well together?' and 'Jump to my defence here so I can enforce things which I like … but I won't tell you where "here" is.' You can tell from the tense language we have been using that we are losing patience, and a lot of that is to do with the fact that we cannot keep track of the stuff you are saying. Those conducting the SPI will have to spend hours tracking down all of your comments. You will already have annoyed them, so have a lot of work to do to change your fortunes.
2. You are asking for those editors' help. You do not have the right to criticise them for trying to help you, and being a little confused about the context of the request. You should have come along, and made it explicitly clear what you were doing which resulted in the dilemma. If you had an account, we could have checked, bu looking at your contribution history. You do not. Therefore, you need to say what the problem is.
3. (C) is irrelevant. You are asking about the MoS. I do not care whether you are wishing to become a regular. As far as I can see it, you are partaking in an MoS-based exchange, so it should be taking place at the MoS talk page. If it is covered by the MoS, quote it in the edit summary, eg [[MOS:DATE]]. You have only mentioned SMcCandlish to have a go at him. I shall not engage in that sort of slaying of other editors.
4. I have explained why account creation is a good idea, as has SMcCandlish. Not only does it provide us with more information about you, but it means that we are certain that you are not a sock. I am a strong advocate for compulsory account creation, for a number of reasons. I will always advice IP addresses to create an account. It is not specific to you.
5. (E) shows that you have not taken any notice of what I have said. I am not telling you to ask whether to apply the MoS. That is simply an excuse for you to criticise me. The last sentence—in particular—is inappropriate for this sort of discussion. We are all involved with the MoS; we are all very much in favour of consistency. That is why the MoS exists. As you know.
6. I am not having a go at you for trying to find consensus. I am not happy about the way you are going about it. As I keep saying, you should have gone to the MoS talk page. You will receive more opinions there, and you would not have been met with hostility, as you have this way.

• I am always happy to help you. I may have slightly more patience than some of the others, in that I will not close a discussion (unless you are really getting to me), and I will try to view what you are doing with good intentions for a lot longer, but I have a breaking point. If you want any advice, leave me a message. Do not come to my talk page to have a go at me, or any other editors. I will not blank you, as I believe that every comment deserves a response, even if we are not strictly supposed to reply to demands/threats/aggression/etc. But I will say everything very clearly, so there is no chance that you will misinterpret it ... Once again, I urge you to create an account, for the reasons various editors have given. Let us know that it is you, and we will be welcoming.

–Sb2001 ^{talk page} 22:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think between SMcCandlish's and Sb2001's detailed comments, perhaps you, IP 75 162, will learn something about editing on Wikipedia. If there is still something you don't understand, I urge you to take advantage of Sb2001's offer and pose your questions to him/her on his/her talk page. If you have a specific question, concern, or suggestion regarding the MoS, leave your comment on the MoS talk page. I think a good part of what has happened occurred because you misunderstood how to work toward consensus. It seems you thought you needed to go out and look for editors who you thought would support your point of view, and bring them to the talk page of the article after you learned that they would be likely to support your point of view. When several editors objected to that, you became frustrated. (It should have become clear to you that you were taking the wrong approach when none of the editors would answer your general, hypothetical questions.) The way you gain consensus is to make a statement about what you think needs to be changed, added, removed, etc., in an article, providing diffs, your rationale, and appropriate sources and guidelines (with links to them), and then just wait to hear from other editors who may be watching the article or may just stumble across the article and the discussion on the talk page. If you make such a statement, and wait a few weeks and still don't hear from anyone, you might alert some editors to the thread you started but without asking them what they think or trying to persuade them of anything, but I'm not sure if that would be considered WP:CANVASSING. Perhaps one of the other editors could advise regarding that. Finally, what seems logical or clear to you may not sound logical or be clear to others, and it does you no favors to express exasperation with them. You need to calm down, re-read guidelines, read some talk page discussions and see how other editors express themselves, and take a fresh approach. If you are calm, patient, respectful, clear, and concise, and show you can learn from constructive criticism, you will do fine on Wikipedia.  – Corinne (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone stop wasting your time

Nuff said. EEng 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've decided it's not a time waste (yet). if it works, then great. If it doesn't, it's all evidence that multiple editors have bent over backward, and that the IP refuses to get it and is WP:NOTHERE, which is grounds for a range block at WP:ANI, if the already open WP:SPI isn't acted upon. I'm not sure why it hasn't been yet, but I just got reminded today that ANI is happy to contemplate range blocks in cases like this, without any need to show that someone's a sock of a previously banned user. Just being an IP-hopping "net negative" is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis

Chris troutman Hello, Chris – Do you feel like placing some kind of warning on this editor's talk page? See this edit and the one before the bot edit at Homo floresiensis.  – Corinne (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Formosa Air Battle GOCE Response

Corinne,

Thanks so much for taking the time to peer review the article! Here are some replies to issues you raised on my Talk page:

1) A few times, I changed a number such as "10" to the word for the number, "ten". I usually do that for numbers of one or two digits (except in a science or math article). However, I stopped changing the number to the word about half-way through the article, particularly for number of enemy planes shot down. I thought I'd ask you first what you thought.

I'd say definitely keep numbers referring to planes shot down in the numeral rather than typing them out long form. My tendency is in line with yours, which is to write alphanumerically for smaller numbers, but I tend to switch over to numerals once I hit double digits.

4) In the first paragraph in Formosa Air Battle#Background you introduce the Sho plan. In the third paragraph of that section you discuss Sho 1 and Sho 2. The first mentions of those are un-hyphenated, and I added a no-break space between Sho and the number so it wouldn't break between them at the end of a line (the number will stay with the word). Then, at the end of that paragraph, you have "Sho-2", with a hyphen between Sho and "2". I left it as it was, but I have to ask you which you prefer: hyphenated or un-hyphenated. These should be consistent.

I prefer hyphenation. I think I just started slipping at some point.

5) I paused at the phrase "such overwhelming enemy air power". All I could see in the preceding sentences that could remotely be seen as "overwhelming air power" was "Surprise U.S. carrier strikes against the Ryukyu Islands". I don't see any indication that anything was overwhelming. I think you either need to provide details as to how the U.S. air power was overwhelming or change "the response to such overwhelming enemy air power" to "the response to these attacks (or strikes)".

I need to add context here to better explain what happened. According to Wilmott, 10 October 1944 represented the first time that the US carrier task force was concentrated enough to embark more than 1,000 aircraft. That same day 1,396 sorties (individual flights of planes) were flown, leading to significant damage done to aircraft on the ground and shipping in the waters off of the Ryukyus. I'll plug that in so the "overwhelming" bit is clearly intelligible.

7) I found most of the article quite well written and clear (and I know little about either World War II or air battles). In the third paragraph of the Formosa Air Battle#Aftermath, however, you lost me. I had to read it several times to figure out what this was about. I think it might help to add the adjective "Japanese" before "634th Naval Air Group" so the reader knows which side this is about. Those familiar with the names of battle groups and units will probably know that this was a Japanese air group, but the average Wikipedia reader might not. It might help, also, to give an indication of when the events in the second and third paragraphs happened. I know the third paragraph contains the phrase, "By January 1945", but the second and third paragraphs seem kind of lost in space and time when compared with all the other paragraphs. Adding to that impression are two phrases that mystify me: "Freshly constituted carrier units" and "land-based air power". For the non-expert, these don't mean much. (When I read "freshly constituted", I think of orange juice reconstituted from a frozen state, and I wonder how air power can be land-based.) Well, that's all.

I'll do likewise here in adding context. Essentially, Japan had been reestablishing reserves of pilots for a "decisive battle" since grievous losses suffered at the Battle of the Philippine Sea in the Marianas. Freshly constituted groups were those newly formed. Japan had just put them together for what they perceived as the most important battle of the war, holding them until they could be used to maximum advantage. Instead, the triggering of the Sho plans caused them to be sent out to fight, and they were wiped out before any kind of decisive surface battle between naval fleets could materialize. It's pretty uniformly seen as a waste by modern scholars. On the other hand, reconstituted air groups in many cases exemplified battle-hardened veterans who had experience launching from carriers and land bases. These groups were committed to a response during the Formosa Air Battle as well and many of them lost a substantial portion both of available aircraft and experienced aviators. The ultimate result of all of this, as I mention towards the end of the section, is that the IJN was utterly deprived of air cover for the core naval part of the Sho plan, exposing their remaining surface forces to unhindered attack from US air power.

I'll work the context into the article over the next couple days before I push this into GA Review. Thanks again for all of your help here. Best Regards, Finktron (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Finktron Thank you for your comments and explanations. You write so well that you hardly needed to ask for a copy-edit (though you're always welcome to); if you ever have time on your hands, you might even consider participating at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests as a copy-editor! By the way, normally editors respond to my comments following a copy-edit right below my comments. That way, I and any interested editors can refer to my original comments. I do appreciate your copying the comment you intend to reply to; that was helpful; but you wouldn't have to copy my comments if they were just above yours. Regarding those two phrases, I kind of knew what they meant. It was late, and I was tired, and they seemed a little vague, or specialized, and my comparison to orange juice was an attempt at humor; hope you saw it that way, and feel free to remove the video image file of the different types of orange juice. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Corinne Well thank you! I have reworked parts of the article based on your earlier critiques. Hopefully readability and context are improved in the Background and Aftermath sections now. I've just entered the article for GAN so we'll see where it goes from here. Thanks again for the hard work you put in on this article, as well as generally on Wikipedia. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Hi Corinne, you kindly performed a GOCE cleanup at Balfour Declaration a few months ago. I just wanted to let you know that the article is now at WP:FAC in case you would like to comment further. Best regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, thank you for all your help on this. I can hardly believe it was only yesterday that I posted the above on your talk page. It feels like I have been on a roller-coaster since then, with some great comments from you and Wehwalt, followed by a big surprise with the archiving, and today trying to pick up the pieces. I'm sure it was the right decision, but I don't really understand the process so it was a surprise. Anyway, as you said in your post earlier on my talk page, the break might turn out to be a good thing. I had been so driven by the idea of reaching TFA on the centennial date, but I might have to let that dream fade.

Separately, many thanks for your further comments. I have taken the liberty of moving them to the new peer review page I opened so that other reviewers can see them. I will respond there.

Very best regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)