Jump to content

User talk:Scolaire: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎S/MIME 3O: Add a reply: Contradiction
→‎S/MIME 3O: delete thread – I don't need this kind of aggravation
Line 39: Line 39:


:Ah! Yes, [[User:Derek R Bullamore|Derek]], I had forgotten we had both edited Skid Row back in September. When I said "not for the first time", I was referring to [[User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 20#Your script-assisted edits|this conversation]] from three years ago. Using reFill to add proper cite templates to basic refs is laudable; stripping the text from a ref to leave a bare url, before tagging it as a dead url, is disruptive. Two of us explained that to you in a civil manner back then, and you responded by telling us what an experienced editor you were and that we had better things to be doing than bothering you in your important work. Three years later, you have not modified your behaviour and you're still creating messes on multiple articles. If you find a dead link, you can (a) check it at the Wayback Machine and see if an archived version exists, or (b) tag it and leave it as it is. Stripping off the text that might help editors to find a working url, or at least indicate what was at that url, is, as I say, disruptive. It creates a mess, and I will not apologise for saying so. It was only on one citation that you did that in your most recent edits to Skid Row, but in your September edits it was more than one. In what you called my "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skid_Row_(Irish_band)&diff=918275300&oldid=918218783 first edit]", I was primarily concerned with removing content added by a prolific vandal, but I was not in a mood to fix the mess you made with your edits, so I rolled back to the last stable version, undoing the good as well as the bad. When you learn to use the script in a way that improves an article without simultaneously harming it, I will stop reverting you and I will stop criticising you. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire#top|talk]]) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
:Ah! Yes, [[User:Derek R Bullamore|Derek]], I had forgotten we had both edited Skid Row back in September. When I said "not for the first time", I was referring to [[User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 20#Your script-assisted edits|this conversation]] from three years ago. Using reFill to add proper cite templates to basic refs is laudable; stripping the text from a ref to leave a bare url, before tagging it as a dead url, is disruptive. Two of us explained that to you in a civil manner back then, and you responded by telling us what an experienced editor you were and that we had better things to be doing than bothering you in your important work. Three years later, you have not modified your behaviour and you're still creating messes on multiple articles. If you find a dead link, you can (a) check it at the Wayback Machine and see if an archived version exists, or (b) tag it and leave it as it is. Stripping off the text that might help editors to find a working url, or at least indicate what was at that url, is, as I say, disruptive. It creates a mess, and I will not apologise for saying so. It was only on one citation that you did that in your most recent edits to Skid Row, but in your September edits it was more than one. In what you called my "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skid_Row_(Irish_band)&diff=918275300&oldid=918218783 first edit]", I was primarily concerned with removing content added by a prolific vandal, but I was not in a mood to fix the mess you made with your edits, so I rolled back to the last stable version, undoing the good as well as the bad. When you learn to use the script in a way that improves an article without simultaneously harming it, I will stop reverting you and I will stop criticising you. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire#top|talk]]) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

== S/MIME 3O ==

The 3O request was initiated because there was no response for a week, though I made an attempt for talkback. It's at a standstill. There's not much else I could go to but [[WP:3O]], where I initiated the request. [[Special:Contributions/84.250.17.211|84.250.17.211]] ([[User talk:84.250.17.211|talk]]) 11:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
: You may also find the rest of discussion between the two editors in the page revision history's summaries. [[Special:Contributions/84.250.17.211|84.250.17.211]] ([[User talk:84.250.17.211|talk]]) 11:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
::I only said how 3O works. If one person makes one post, and another doesn't respond, then the issue has not been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page, so it's not suitable for 3O. Edit summaries don't count. Too bad, but there's nothing we can do. You could maybe try posting at [[WT:COMP]], and it might get the attention of somebody who's interested. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire#top|talk]]) 12:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
::: Ack, thanks for the pointer. PS: [[MOS:LISTGAP]]. [[Special:Contributions/84.250.17.211|84.250.17.211]] ([[User talk:84.250.17.211|talk]]) 14:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
::::Duly noted and fixed (see [[WP:THREAD]] – I choose colons on my talk page). [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire#top|talk]]) 14:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::Rude, because I also started the thread with unordered lists in <cite>[[Special:Permalink/945828044]]</cite>. You've contradicted yourself. [[Special:Contributions/84.250.17.211|84.250.17.211]] ([[User talk:84.250.17.211|talk]]) 05:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:42, 18 March 2020

Opinion

Someone just came through an article I created which I happened to be looking at. They changed a birth place from Ireland to United Kingdom and Ireland. While this is entirely correct since the birth was in 1918 it was the birth of a nationalist in a nationalist household. It started me wondering what exactly the rules for calling the country at the various times in its existence actually are... I know we will likely never get everyone to agree on nationality names... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Antiqueight. The rule regarding place of birth is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Biographical articles. For people born before 1922, "Ireland" should be used, regardless of the background or political beliefs of the subject. Per WP:OVERLINK, it should not be pipelinked. Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - thanks, fast reply. In that case the editor has been overlinking and I shall go and undo several I have noticed. I was checking up since I was somewhat unexpectedly away longer than I'd ever intended and the poor watchlist was just full. So I was doing a quick survey of older articles to check nothing weird had slipped in. I can count on the community to look after everything but it is nice to check in. I hope I'm basically back for the rest of the year and shall be creating again. Thank for your input and the links which I will read now - I figured it was in MoS but failed to find it myself... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 21:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take great exception to you describing my edits as 'a mess'. In both instances they were intended to improve the referencing - which they did. It is interesting to note that the only real improvement you made to the latter of my two edits was in respect of one reference (out of 11 in total). Your first edit largely reverted to a version that had mainly incomplete references. An apology would not go amiss. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes, Derek, I had forgotten we had both edited Skid Row back in September. When I said "not for the first time", I was referring to this conversation from three years ago. Using reFill to add proper cite templates to basic refs is laudable; stripping the text from a ref to leave a bare url, before tagging it as a dead url, is disruptive. Two of us explained that to you in a civil manner back then, and you responded by telling us what an experienced editor you were and that we had better things to be doing than bothering you in your important work. Three years later, you have not modified your behaviour and you're still creating messes on multiple articles. If you find a dead link, you can (a) check it at the Wayback Machine and see if an archived version exists, or (b) tag it and leave it as it is. Stripping off the text that might help editors to find a working url, or at least indicate what was at that url, is, as I say, disruptive. It creates a mess, and I will not apologise for saying so. It was only on one citation that you did that in your most recent edits to Skid Row, but in your September edits it was more than one. In what you called my "first edit", I was primarily concerned with removing content added by a prolific vandal, but I was not in a mood to fix the mess you made with your edits, so I rolled back to the last stable version, undoing the good as well as the bad. When you learn to use the script in a way that improves an article without simultaneously harming it, I will stop reverting you and I will stop criticising you. Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]