User talk:Maxeto0910/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

United Kingdom

Regarding this. Or perhaps understanding what you are doing better rather than just gnoming without thought. There was ONE instance of non-British style and you converted the whole article to that rather than checking what it should be. That's just creating pointless extra work to correct your error. DeCausa (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no Wikipedia guideline that explicitly prescribes the use of "US" rather than "U.S." in articles which use British English spelling.

Just because "US" might be more common in British English doesn't mean it's used exclusively or even prescribed to use it. In general and in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, regardless of British or American spelling, it's written as "U.S." (except perhaps in some short descriptions and edit summaries to save space). Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated in MOS:US: For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it." I don't know how the MOS could be any clearer. In ignorance of that you illogically changed the three instances of US to match the one instance of U.S. So ignorance of the MoS and illogical editing is one thing but what gets my goat is you reverted me with the snarky and uncalled for then be consistent with the writing style instead of just restoring the inconsistent version. If you are going to be snarky you'd better make sure you are right. You weren't. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me of ignoring the guidelines makes absolutely no sense at all, because I literally corrected the spelling according to the guidelines to be consistent. Also, I didn't revert your edit there. I simply used one consistent spelling of "US" within the article, after you was the user who wrongly reverted my edit and restored the version which was inconsistent, though your reference to the guideline itself was correct. If you had just referred to the guideline on the talk page of the article or used a consistent writing style instead of restoring the inconsistent version, I wouldn't have been able to criticize anything. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop gaslighting. The guideline says to use US not U.S. Read it. And you did revert me - I linked to your revert of me in my first post in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not true. The edit of me which you linked wasn't a revert, but a correction in which I used a consistent writing style of "US" instead of "U.S.", based on your mention of the guideline, because you simply reverted my edit to the inconsistent previous version instead of just using a consistent writing style throughout the article. Show me the alleged edit where I supposedly reverted you. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong - maybe you really do have a WP:CIR issue. I'll spell it out for you. This is your edit in breach of MOS:US, then this is where I reverted you, then your next edit is this. In that last edit you undid my revert of you. You may not be aware, but that is called a "revert" in Wikipedia. That's because you reverted my edit. So we use the word "revert" to describe it. It might help you to read Wikipedia:Reverting which explains further what a revert is. On the other hand it may not as everything in this thread indicates your comprehension of written English is a problem. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Still wrong. I have not restored a previous version of the article at all. It was a completely new, unprecedented edit in which I enforced a consistent writing style. Not a revert at all, since I have NOT reverted your edit. I have used one consistent writing style, and that also included changing the inconsistent instances of the previous version which you restored. It was at most a partial revert by coincidence. It's also funny to accuse me of gaslighting (without any explanation at all) when you accuse me of simply being incompetent and not understanding English well enough. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

And I see you've been making the same mistake in other articles as

And I see you've been making the same mistake in other articles as here. That was an American English article but you changed 8 instances of US to match the 2 of U.S. Are you going to correct your error in those articles? DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not going to change the spelling of the article (when you write articles in plural, then give at least 2 examples) because there is no error. As you already figured out, the article uses American English, where it's commonly written as "U.S.". And since the article already used instances of "U.S." before my edit, I just made it consistent. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The MOS says to use US whether the article is in British or American English. U.S. wasn't established - you changed 8 instances of US to match 2 instances of U.S. If you are incapable of reading the MoS you shouldn't be gnoming and I'll need to go to ANI to have your WP:CIR issue examined. However, I assume all that's happening here is an ego that can't coped with being called out. (There may be other examples of your breach of MOS but China jumped out at me because it's on my watchlist and you've just done a bunch of edits on it. I'm not gong to trawl through your contributions to see check your failure to understand the MOS - I've seen enough to know that is the case. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"The MOS says to use US whether the article is in British or American English."

Except it doesn't in all cases: "[...] retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established [...]"

"U.S. wasn't established"

The article already used "U.S." before I did any edit related to the writing style of it, so there really wasn't any spelling style that prevailed until then.

"[...] you changed 8 instances of US to match 2 instances of U.S."

Yes, and I fail to see why that should be a problem. Show me the part of the guideline which claims that whether a writing style can be considered "established" or not depends on the number of times used. I'd argue that when the article uses two different writing forms over a long period of time, it hasn't developed an "established" writing form at all.

Apart from that: I've simply made the spelling consistent, which, viewed in isolation, is an objective improvement over the inconsistent writing style it used to be, regardless of which writing style one prefers.

Since you are apparently the only one here who is bothered by the use of "U.S." instead of "US", you are welcome to change it accordingly. No one will hinder you, especially not me, because I couldn't care less about whether it's "U.S." or "US". All I care about is that it's consistent. However, your irrational complains about the fact that I simply made the spelling of the article consistent does not result in anything useful for Wikipedia at all. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop your gaslighting. I'm going to cut this short. If this is just your ego stopping you admitting you got this wrong...then fine (sort of). However, if you genuinely think what you di waa right and I see you doing it. agin I'm going to go to ANI to get you TBAN'd from MOS editing. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Apple reinvents the phone." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Apple reinvents the phone. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Apple reinvents the phone. until a consensus is reached. Mia Mahey (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Canada

I have no recollection of that edit, I must have misclicked completely and not noticed. Sorry about that. Canterbury Tail talk 02:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Consistency vs. work

Since I don't want to clog the edit summaries:

1. Of course, it's better to totally fix something that got broken rather than simply revert it to a partially unbroken version. You're presently making the article consistent, and the article takes 20 seconds to load on my computer. These are minor reasons one may choose to revert+inform instead. I would assume it's possible that net editor work is ultimately lower.
2. On the other hand, I don't think it makes sense to worry about your edits that only consist of errors being reverted. Something being consistently incorrect style-wise is almost always clearly worse than it being inconsistently correct.

Cheers! Remsense诉 03:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

After having read your linked guideline, I actually now think there was absolutely nothing wrong with my edits at all. I quote: "Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word [...]"

All instances of a hyphen use used whole words. When I wrote my dummy edit, I only read the first bullet point of the guideline and thought that the reason why you reverted my edits was that there was a special symbol for suspended hyphens which I hadn't used. Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

when two compound modifiers are separated (two- and three-digit number) seems pretty plain to me. Remsense诉 03:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. When two compound modifiers are separated, we should use suspended hyphens, which I did. Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, goodness gracious. This is what I get for glancing at diffs. Feel free to put me in the WP:STOCKS for this one. I was reading it the wrong way around—the strikethrough interfered with visibility of the hyphens. No excuse for that, sorry! Remsense诉 03:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)