User talk:Alex 21/Archive 39

Doctor Who Series 1

Because the releases are relevant to series 1 they should be included. From an encyclopedic point, they're just as important as the already listed home media — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMT biscuit (talk • contribs)

@DMT biscuit: As I said: Any new info should be added to the correct table at List of Doctor Who home video releases. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

8 out of 10 Cats

Hi Alex 21. I hope that you are well.

Sorry for this weirdness. I just wanted to explain what I meant by my reversion edits. I have been editing here for a while around the same time as when 8 out of 10 Cats began. (2005-2006) At the time, the episodes were recording at least a day before broadcast when Sean Lock was a regular panelist. Only a few episodes were pretaped and broadcast later. I believe that is when that paragraph was put in, during the time that the episodes were taped every week. So, that paragraph fit the pattern. However, over the years with the change in team Captains and networks, the show has changed taping schedules and the format has changed and has become less topical. Unfortunately, the only proof that I can currently see is in the episodes themselves as most likely, the time that paragraph was originally conceived was during the first few years of the programme. (comparing the episodes from the first few series and the ones that are being made now.) When Launchballer said that he didn't think that statement was not true, it made me think that they had never seen the older series from 2005 to maybe 2012. Maybe it's in the wrong place but I just wanted to let you know that the statement was true. Btw, what does "Transclude" mean as you mentioned below in a previous edit? Thanks.160.32.214.75 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Samusek2

Do you have a source for any of that? If there's no source, it cannot be included. Also see WP:TRANSCLUDE. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have found this article. https://www.realitytitbit.com/channel-4/how-does-8-out-of-10-cats-work-where-is-the-quiz-show-filmed-and-is-it-scripted/amp?espv=1 I also found an article from Digital Spy that discusses about one incidence of Cats Taping the day before airing. It was when Carr was being cited for tax evasion. It was talking about the filming the night before and stated that the programme would air that night. Does that help? https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a388987/jimmy-carr-mocked-on-8-out-of-10-cats-over-tax-avoidance-scheme/ 160.32.214.75 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST discussion

Hi, you might be interested in this discussion.--TheVampire (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Victoria (British TV series)

Hello Alex21. I noticed you reverted my edit - as well as those of two other editors in the past - with the statement that if nothing has been announced about the status of the show then it should not be added. I have to disagree with you as it's sometimes better to use as RS that states that renewal or cancellation is uncertain rather than just leave it open. In the case of Titanic II (granted a proposed ship is not a TV show!) this project has been postponed with no construction started and nothing has been announced. However the editorial consensus is use an industry list of ships on order but mention that Titanic II isn't on that list. In the case of Victoria, there are RSs which mention that the show is on hiatus. Town & Country is a respected publication that uses fact checking and editorial oversight. Blue Riband► 04:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not a TV show, so we cannot use it as an example. The consensus of MOS:TV/WP:TV is to only add update information when there is definitive news on either a cancellation or renewal, otherwise it's just us stating the obvious. If you disagree, I recommend that you take it up at WT:TV. Cheers! -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't aware that there was a TV project group as it's not an area that I usually edit. I'll leave the topic alone and let it be handled by those with more expertise in this area. Toodeloo. Blue Riband► 13:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

John Mulaney & the Sack Lunch Bunch cast listing

I don’t know about you, but I think it looks awkward to have the big titling in the middle of the list followed by two of the names and then the rest of the kids off in the next column. Got any suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duroq145 (talk • contribs)

@Duroq145: I've never edited the article before, so I'm not sure why you came to me, but I've adjusted the cast list. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to you as a generally experienced editor who seemed to be someone who would know the right formatting--Duroq145 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey, I just left a comment on Talk:List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes regarding AJD's 3O request. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Amaury

Amaury clearly learned nothing from the ANI report [1]. Baselessly claims that I have a habit of intentionally riling up users, and implying that it's somehow my fault that he made a personal attack. Unfortunately, that by itself is unlikely to be enough to get a different result at ANI. However, it can definitely be something that can be used as supporting evidence if/when he does something worse. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, unfortunate. I want to say that I expected better of him, but I've dealt with him for the past three, four years, so. Definitely save it, though; it will come in useful for his (inevitable) return to ANI. I've also given my !vote to your RFC. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Its good to see someone calling Amaury out on his behaviour. He reverts everything, even the most obvious improvements to 'his' articles , edit wars then games 3RR by summoning IJBall and Geraldo Perez to make the final revert ( two otherwise decent editors). It fossilises some shockingly poor content. He never discusses, though he's very fond of throwing WP:BRD into the edit summary like it's a free pass for his bullshit. Hopefully oneday someone will sort it out. He's a problem.2001:8F8:1F35:CF90:2:4:186F:88EF (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Flash (2014)

Just saw your comment regarding my edit. I was trying to revert the article back to before the new characters for season seven were added, but I can't seem to get it to work. Eightsixofakina (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Eightsixofakina, just edit the article and use hidden comments. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The Timeless Children

Please see my discussion window on the talk page for “The Timeless Children”. Panda815 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Dracula (upcoming TV miniseries)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dracula (upcoming TV miniseries). Since you had some involvement with the Dracula (upcoming TV miniseries) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The End of Time vs. "The End of Time"

Forgive me if I'm misreading the edit histories, but it looks like you changed a lot of infoboxes at least to put The End of Time in quotation marks. My understanding is that as the name for a story that covers multiple parts, it would fit the criteria for italics—in which it was unique until Spyfall. My main question for you is just regarding the link to a talk page you left in the edit history, as the page it leads to didn't answer the question for me, and I'm curious if there was a discussion about these titles. Could you let me know? Thanks! Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrei Iosifovich, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 32#"The End of Time" -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 7)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 7) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 7)

The article Doctor Who (series 7) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Doctor Who (series 7) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, thanks Adam! I've already gotten a start on your points. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Alex Parrish

Hey Alex! Did you finish the show? Can you add the season 3 arc of the character in its article? I'm thinking for its FA nomination but I have not seen the show after season 1. So I don't know the arc. Would you help? I would appreciate your gesture.Krish | Talk To Me 15:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Krish!, I have seen it, yes, but that was over a year ago; the season itself was about two years ago. I can't remember what happened. If you're wanting to nominate it to FA, then you need to know as much about the article's content as possible - best to start watching! -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 7)

The article Doctor Who (series 7) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 7) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Small error with Television season ratings template

Hey Alex, Would you mind having a look at the error being produced at American Horror Story#Ratings when {{N/A}} is entered in the Viewership rank, Avg. viewers, 18–49 rank, and Avg. 18–49 rating columns of the Television season ratings template. There's no error when it is used in any of the other columns. - Brojam (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Brojam, I've taken a look at it, and unfortunately, there's no way to use {{N/A}} in those final four columns, solely because of the way that the rows have to be coded for rowspans. I've fixed the issue with a different template, though. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Alex 21! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Crown (season 4)

Hello, Alex 21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Crown".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I remember it

You've done an edit or two on the topic of TV. If you have an opinion on this discussion, please share: Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements The article in general could use more eyes too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Haunting of Hill House

Hey, I see the issue that you are having at this article and don't want to step into anything or get involved in other people's business, but if there is an appropriate place for me to add my voice to the discussion then I would express support for your version of the article, which seems like the obvious place to take the pages to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Adam, thanks for the support. If the other editor decides to discuss civilly, or it's taken to a wider venue, I'll be sure to let you know. I tried to explain that my split was because it makes no sense to have a parent article then a second season article, but to no avail. Hopefully we can get this all figured out, given the article's messy restored state while the split articles exist. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, hey again. The discussion has moved to a move civil manner, without the drama, after the inclusion of another editor, if you wanted to drop by. Thanks again. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Image renaming

Hello, I apologize for singling you out, but you are the first user on the list of File Movers with recent contributions (the rest last edited months or even years ago).

May I draw your attention to the page Wikipedia files requiring renaming?

I am aware that the oldest listed file on the page is barely two weeks old. This is not to seek an immediate response, but an attempt notify an editor with File Mover rights. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seloloving, I'd be glad to help! I'll take a look over the category and see what I can do. Thanks! -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seloloving, all files cleared! I might take a look at emptying CAT:SHADOW, as well, when I've got an hour or so free. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it immensely. Seloloving (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Cartoons

Hi, I hope it's ok to post this here, but this user, Evelynkwapong539 has been really rude in their tone to people adjusting their edits on pages related to Looney Tunes Cartoons. I just want them to realize that other users just want to help, but keeps edit-warring with people without listening. I just wanted to get this out here, Thanks. (Noelephant (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Haunting of Hill House (season 1).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Haunting of Hill House (season 1).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Changes to the Adventure Time: Distant Lands table

Thanks for changing it back. I honestly only made those changes because I couldn't get the old code to work. I may beef up those descriptions though.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Historyday01, no worries! Go for it. I only reverted back to the last stable version because the changes were messing with the transclusion at List of Adventure Time episodes. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Whenever the eps actually drop, I may end up adding a little more. Its an exciting time to be an Adventure Time fan!--Historyday01 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding changes to Big Finish List pages

Hi Alex, you left a message on my talk page saying that the edits I made to the Big Finish List pages were not constructive and were therefore reverted. I don't deny that I may have done something wrong, as I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I want to establish that the intention of my edits was in good faith. I also hoped you could clarify the specifics of why my edits weren't considered constructive and what I can do in the future to ensure that any edits I make are made with the approval of the community. Belegityt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Glad to help.

The reason I reverted your edits was because of the introduction/moving of separate spinoffs series into the specials table. We don't necessarily have to categorize each series under what Big Finish categorize's them. For example, we don't have a "Fifth Doctor Collection" section, or similar, but as for the "The Worlds of Doctor Who - Special Releases" section, they may be special releases as far as who is involved or the character's, or that they were a single-season release, but that's it. They are still separate spinoff series, hence their listing as separate series, and the edit also removed them from the article titled "List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish". An edit like this separates those releases that are multi-season; for example, The Churchill Years's two seasons are no longer grouped together.

The specials that do reside in the table are singular releases outside of the regular schedule, typically to mark some special event; The Light at the End for the 50th anniversary, The Eighth of March for that specific date, Time Lord Victorious is a special event across multiple media, etc. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I think we may have to agree to disagree on that front. I still think that the way I did it was more accurate and looked nicer, and that categorizing releases not necessarily the exact same way, but similarly to Big Finish is important and should be considered "better", but I accept that you're the authority on it. Just a few more small questions: what distinguishes "bonus releases" from "specials"? It seems like an unnecessary distinction, as a lot of the "bonus releases" don't share much in common. Also, why are the "bonus releases" numbered with roman numerals, except for The Maltese Penguin? I haven't seen any other source that distinguishes them this way and it seems rather convoluted and nonsensical. Also, is there a better place to discuss this than your talk page? Like I previously said, I'm very new to Wikipedia contribution and don't exactly know the best way to do these things. Thanks for your help! Belegityt (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the authority on it at all, but this is the way that the articles have been since their creation and there's never been an issue with it, especially with the grouping together of each series.

Bonus Releases were were stories created for and released (initially) solely to subscribers, very much like the release of the Subscriber Short Trips range. The Roman numerals are included because that's how they were initially numbered upon release, and "The Maltese Penguin" is numbered 33+1⁄2 because it was released between #33 and #34 in the 2002 main range, and, again, that's how the story was initially numbered upon release.

I'm happy to discuss this here now that it's been started here, but you're also welcome to discuss it on the talk pages on either of the Big Finish audio plays articles; you'll see the "Talk" tab on the upper left of the article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Alex! I'll keep the discussion going on the articles' talk pages. Belegityt (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Series overview and HTML code

Hey Alex. Is there a way to adjust the coding one has to do at Adventure into Fear (planned franchise) or the other MCU series article with {{Series overview}} to avoid needing </table> at the end? A user tagged the AiF article with a clean up HTML notice, and the only way to do that (and the other articles) would be changes to the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it with a bit of a rough edit, but hope that helps getting the HTML out of the article. It still needs the separate tag, as <section> tags don't work inside templates (i.e. the {{Series overview}} template), so having a template should be better than having a HTML tag. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Per Category:Articles with HTML markup, I think the section tag is okay. It was just the table, which you fixed with the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning of a post to an administrator's noticeboard regarding your actions

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template_editor_privilege_abuse. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) When are you going to be reverting yourself on the aesthetic edits that you should not have made before reaching consensus? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you for posting here. No, I will not be reverting my edits. The AN report against my edits and revert was closed, with no requirement for me to revert my own revert and thus restore the previous version. My initial edits were made over three weeks ago to the opposition of only one editor, and since being restored five days later, no further opposition has been made evident, even with a discussion being present where any editor could participate and voice any disagreement. Reverting edits that have been live and accepted for the past three weeks would, in fact, be more disruptive to the project than keeping them, as constant reverts without a paramount reason can be detrimental. -- /Alex/21 00:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Alex 21, As you know, based on Wikipedia:Template Editor, you were to seek consensus before that edit and as you know from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive323#Template_editor_privilege_abuse "Alex was in the wrong for making a significantly noticeable visual change to a template to begin with." So will you revert yourself now as you know that it was an inappropriate edit to make in the first place? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC) @Swarm and Mdaniels5757: see above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Constantly repeating yourself will not change my response. As stated, there's no requirement for me to revert it (that's after the template talk discussion, the dispute proposal, and the administration close), and doing so would be more detrimental to the project than keeping it. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 09:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Alex 21, I disagree. Since you should not have made it in the first place (do you agree that is true?), in a spirit of collegiality, you should revert yourself. Otherwise, you are breaking policy and getting away with it because it's been several days. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC) I am now aware that the edit should not have been made in the first place. However, I am under no requirement to restore the previous version. Besides, a clear consensus is forming on how to update the parameter, and I may be only days aware from implementing this new version. Reverting edits that have been live and accepted for the past three weeks would be more disruptive to the project than keeping them, as constant reverts without a paramount reason can be detrimental, especially when I would be restoring the edit in possibly less than a day. -- /Alex/21 12:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Alex 21, What would be less disruptive is not breaking policies in the first place and restoring edits that had been perfectly fine for several moths. Which policies do you think you are allowed to break, Alex? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC) TPECON is a guide, not a policy. Regardless, you're just repeating yourself now, and to no avail. Three discussions/proposals closed without any requirement for me to revert. I have explained my position; if you disagree, that's on you. If you're going to post here again, it will be with something you haven't said before, else it will be instantly reverted as soon as I'm next online. Else, I'll see you on the flip side after I make the agreed updates. -- /Alex/21 11:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Alex, first of all, in my assessment it's inappropriate to selectively delete a portion of a discussion pursuant to WP:TPNO, as it misrepresents the exchange that took place. You can remove or archive a discussion in its entirety, but deleting individual comments simply because you feel an editor is repeating themselves and you don't like that is not permitted under WP:TPO. Secondly, you're right, there was no requirement for you to self-revert, self-reversion is a gesture of good faith and it probably would have been appropriate here. Alex's steadfast refusal to self-revert and seek a consensus before pushing their edit forward is disappointing, though as a technicality he was not required to do so. Self-reversion is sometimes mandated in lieu of a block but it was not in this case. The closest concept we have to this is WP:STABLE. A disputed change can be procedurally reverted in conjunction with page protection, and this can be implemented by request. Neither a stable version or a page protection was requested and it was presumed to be unnecessary. Anyway, this is all trivial. As to the heart of the matter, you both appeared to agree to start a new discussion from scratch. It looks like such a discussion was held and there was no objection to the proposed change, aside from the procedural complaint that Alex should self-revert. So, I'm not sure where we're supposed to go from here. @Koavf: I appreciate your frustration but you're not even currently objecting to the content in the current discussion. Do you plan on doing so? If yes, you should start by forgetting about your procedural objections and entering the new discussion from a content dispute perspective. Lastly, you both need to understand that you can call TPECON whatever you want, it's the community-mandated usage requirements for the most restrictive user right on this project, and we will enforce them. We're not a bureaucracy and they can be ignored based on common sense and rational justification. That does not mean they can be ignored for any reason. They 100% will be enforced if they are violated without an exceedingly clear and obvious justification. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, I already stated my objection to how I think the template/module should work and that I think that "it's unstable to revert it after a couple of weeks" is a weak, bad faith argument after the template/module worked a different way for months. I don't have much to add to the substance of that discussion. I do have strong feelings on Alex's behavior, lack of collegiality, and the fact that he seems to have gotten away with breaking a policy because he got away with it. I don't see a lot of value in discussing that because he either learned his lesson and therefore won't do it again (not my assessment) or this is just one of those times when someone gets away with doing the wrong thing repeatedly and he may learn the lesson that this is acceptable behavior (my fear). By drawing out the discussion interminably, he's just made it an exhausting chore that I think everyone wants to be over, myself included. At the very least, he explicitly acknowledged that he shouldn't have made the initial edit or revert but still seems to think that a policy regarding advanced user rights is a guideline and that either policies or guidelines are okay to break because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf: I get it, but a third template editor was attempting to mediate the dispute and was basically suggesting that we start the discussion over with a clean slate and you both appeared to be open to that. Perhaps the lack of a general reversion to the pre-dispute version was a grave oversight. However here we are, all this time later, and nothing has changed from the very beginning of the dispute. If you wish to continue disputing the change, it probably needs to be an RfC. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, Which is appreciated. I would figure that a discussion on how to proceed would best start with how it was before the policy-breaking edit abusing advanced user rights. I'm also genuinely shocked that someone can harass another editor on WP:AN and everyone seems to think that deserves purely a verbal warning. But thanks for chiming in and the suggestion for an RfC: I won't pursue that because, again, it's turned into a tempest in a teapot. Again, nice of you to try to take an objective view and I appreciate your time. I'm thoroughly disappointed by someone getting away with repeated abuse of an advanced user right and repeated harassment but I'm not personally upset at you or Mdaniels. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Koavf, I collapsed the discussion here because I am tired of your repeated claims and continues lies of harassment and uncollaborativeness. You are done posting on my talk page per TPO effective immediately; Swarm, however, is more than welcome to respond to me here, as I will respond to them. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, thanks for the response. It may be inappropriate, but I warned the editor that if they repeated themselves to no avail, I would revert them. They continued to do so anyways. It's my talk page and not an official conduct discussion, so I will revert them if I feel the need to.

  The self-revert may have been appropriate. However, I believe it not to be; I would have had to re-revert the revert to make the updates, which have already been made. Continuously reverting would be an extremely disruptive move. As stated: Reverting edits that have been live and accepted for the past three weeks would, in fact, be more disruptive to the project than keeping them, as constant reverts without a paramount reason can be detrimental.

  I appreciate your frustration but you're not even currently objecting to the content in the current discussion. I'd go so far as to say that they refused to then continue in the discussion, only making one comment in regards to the content and not responding any further. It becomes evidently clear, then, they have no solid issue with the content.

  not my assessment Eh. I already said I was aware of my mistake, directly to them, but they refuse to acknowledge that. They don't want to be collaborative? Don't post on my talkpage. By drawing out the discussion interminably Is that not what the editor themselves is doing here, after I collapsed this discussion? Pot, kettle, black.

  someone can harass another editor on WP:AN Lies. Nothing more. Nothing to backup these egregious lies. What you experienced was WP:BOOMERANG - your behaviour was noted by your own report. Get used to it. someone getting away with repeated abuse of an advanced user right and repeated harassment Repeats. Lies. I can hear it echoing. We're done here, the entire situation, dispute and discussions are over. This is just drawing it out unnecessarily. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging and harassment

Hi, just to clarify the situation with pinging, it's generally well accepted that continually pinging someone when they've asked you not to qualifies as harassment. This makes sense, since pinging is a personal thing intended to notify an editor. It serves no direct purpose to the community, other than which arises from ensuring editors are aware and able to participate in discussions. If you want to make sure who you are referring to is understood, you can simply refer to them by name without wikilinking it. In rare circumstances, wikilinking someone's name so people can more easily check their contributions (or whatever) and so it gets a little complicated (you could use the noping template or just leave it be). But such circumstances do not arise when the editor is already an active participant people can easily check just follow a link from their signature.

While editors have the ability to disable pings from certain editors and they may have their uses e.g. if an editor is frustrated with another but feels it's partly their fault so don't want to bring it up. But in general just like with similar tools with email and phone contact for example, it should not be necessary to use these tools. If editors respect each other, they should have the courtesy of not doing something they've been asked not to do when it mostly affects the editor it's directed at and is benefiting no one.

By the same token, it's generally accepted that editors can ask another editor to stay away from their talk page and this should be respected. Failure to abide by such a request, except for essential notifications would generally be considered harassment. However editors cannot escape scrutiny of their actions by forbidding someone from talking about them. So in the absence of interaction bans, an editor can talk about another editor's conduct in a suitable place, probably one of the ANs. Of course, if an editor keeps raising an editor's conduct and the community finds no major fault with said conduct, that is likely to be seen as disruptive and harassment and would generally lead to sanctions of some kind.

Discussion on generic (article, template etc) talk pages should focus on content the page is for. They aren't generally a place to discuss editor conduct. However some limited discussion may occur, especially when trying to understand the content issue or what the dispute is about. Excessive discussion of editor conduct is normally a problem, but whether the editor it concerns has asked for it to stop doesn't really matter much for that. But because it's complicated, it's a lot less of a clear red line than simple things like continuing to ping or posting on an editor's talk page when asked not to.

Also because two wrongs don't make a right, no matter what an editor has done wrong, there is no justification for harassing them e.g. by continuing to ping or post on their talk page when asked to stop. Even if the other editor is doing the exact same thing, the solution would be to bring it up at an appropriate noticeboard rather than to harass the editor in return to try and convince them to stop.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)