67.14.236.50

Feedback

Hey, I think I disagree pretty strongly with your approach at Talk:Flatpak. Basically you removed sources which had a ton of content about the topic without even attempting to extract any encyclopedic content from them. Why? You can respond there or here, but I opened this as I wanted to have a conversation about the best way to approach Wikipedia and particularly its technical articles.

I also wish you would soften your tone a bit, as I think you're disheartening the well-meaning editor there in a way which doesn't seem gentle - you may not realize it but your tone actually feels harsh to me. It's that type of thing which contributes to the long-term decline of Wikipedia.

As a general rule on "philosophy" of things like reliability and verifiability, I do not believe it is appropriate to handle sourcing the same in all sorts of topics. You may be aware that we have a variety of special rules: for example, there is a General notability guideline which, for people, requires substantial coverage (not passing coverage), but for academics, meeting ANY of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria confers a presumption of notability. And, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is built by a community to inform people - the 5th pillar really is that "Wikipedia has no firm rules". II | (t - c) 06:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@ImperfectlyInformed: Hi, thanks for the feedback! I sincerely appreciate it.

I fear you’re right about my tone. I have a history with this editor, and my patience is just worn thin with his blatant disregard of things like WP:V and WP:BURDEN, insisting against reason that they don’t mean what they say and what everyone else agrees they say. It strikes me as harmful to the encyclopedia, and I have seen no support for his ideas (edit: the beliefs espoused here).

Which sources are you referring to? As far as I’m aware, I didn’t remove any that were relevant to the subject. I may have been mistaken, of course. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: Thanks for taking the feedback so kindly! I'm sorry to be harsh. I think I may have made my thoughts a bit more clear on the page itself? Anyway, I should probably also reach out to Shadim (talk · contribs) to discuss his approach to these policies and make sure he understands them. Maybe we can all three discuss that and come to some agreement so that we can productively work to improve weak areas of open-source software... II | (t - c) 07:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

First-level headings

You posted a question at the help desk about a page with a level 1 heading, but didn't tell us what page it was. Please add which page it refers to. RJFJR (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I see you mean the help page itself. Sorry about that. RJFJR (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@RJFJR: I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Could you give a diff? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You are using an IP address rather than an account so apparently it was someone else who was using the dynamically assigned IP address at the time. Don't worry about it. Sorry about the confusion. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@RJFJR: No, I seem to be the only WP editor to have ever edited from this address. Which edit were you referring to? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It was back from December 16th. diff RJFJR (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, it was the talk page for the help desk not the help desk page itself. Wikipedia talk:Help desk. RJFJR (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I did post to WT:HD. Seems there’s still no response. And the page is still using first-level headings. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

Hi, before I take this matter up on the talk page, could I ask your more general opinion on the Early Life section of that article? We state that She wrote that Barnett had, at the age of 12, developed a novel theory of relativity that was validated by physicist Scott Tremaine, and that it would put him in line for a Nobel Prize,[ref:The Spark] repeating these claims on talk news programs during the promotion of The Spark.[22][23] In Barnett's 2012 TEDxTeen talk, after comparing himself to Albert Einstein, Barnett stated that he had solved a problem and "created an original theory of astrophysics".[13] These claims were not true.

I have found the relevant sentences in The Spark on Page 230. Here is a transcript.

In (an e-mail), (Dr. Tremaine) confirmed that Jake was indeed working on an original theory, and he made it clear that if Jake's theory held, it would put him in line for a Nobel Prize.

One of the most illustrious astrophysicists in the world had not only reviewed my son's theory but had validated it.

Is "validating" a theory effectively implying that "it has held" or can validating simply mean that it exists? Does the claim in the second sentence follow from the first? Evidently it did in the mind of KB, but as far as I can see she offers no further evidence in support of it, and that the proof readers of The Spark may have been culpably negligent. But Tremaine does appear to uphold the existence of this theory, even if it was of no consequence, and this calls into question whether our claim that JB developed original theory is "false" (ugh I hate our use of that F word). Also, KB does not directly write that her son's theory development would put him in line for a Nobel Prize, so I am not sure that we should be accusing her of writing that.

Your thoughts? Viewfinder (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: From my read, she meant that Tremaine confirmed that what Jacob was working on was indeed an original theory. She may have meant that Tremaine thought the theory would likely hold; however, I would be dubious about any claims made by Barnett’s mother. I haven’t seen Tremaine’s email itself, but the mother did say that the theory Barnett had developed was working on “would put him in line for a Nobel Prize.” I would need to see that email before I’d feel comfortable saying the “validation” claim was false, but as far as I know it has not been shown to be true.

I don’t suppose we could change the last sentence to read, These claims were probably not true. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would go for "These claims have not been shown to be true." Viewfinder (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"There has been no scholarly review of Barnett's ideas on these subjects." I do not think we can state this as fact. I can't find this claim in our source (Edwards), but even if I am missing something, how can any of us, including Edwards, know how many academics reviewed these ideas? Perhaps Tremaine did carefully review them with other academics, then concluded that they were flawed and decided that publication would not be in Barnett's interest. If so, then the statement from the article that I have reproduced at the start of this paragraph is incorrect. Viewfinder (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: “No scholarly review is known to have been made public, and a published skeptic expressed doubt that any had been performed.”

One of these days, I’m going to go through that article and replace all the absolutist statements based on inference to more accurately reflect what’s actually stated in our sources. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You could not have put that better. Please stay in there! There are several examples of absolutism is the article. It reads like the personal take of an outraged physicist. Also, I think there is over-emphasis on the POV of a single commentator, who appears to be a high school teacher, not a journalist. It is very important that we attribute any accusations of misrepresentation to him. Using an absolutist statement that implies that Mrs. Barnett is a liar is wrong, even if we do use Edwards to reference it. I see no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation by Mrs. Barnett. Viewfinder (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: It reads like the personal take of an outraged physicist. Exactly! It’s just trying so hard to discredit Barnett in every dubiously justifiable way. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the absolutism in the lede, the word "overwhelming" in its last sentence is puffery and should be removed. Viewfinder (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If there are no responses to your simple talk page questions within a reasonable time, you should assume that the issue is no longer contested and edit the article accordingly. If he responds by reverting and tagging a team mate to enforce his version, then the issue should go to the appropriate noticeboard. Viewfinder (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is enough good coverage of Barnett like this to make him BLP notable. All we need to say about the unreliable material about him developing ground breaking theories and Nobel is that it was dismissed by scientific and skeptical inquiry. Further analysis of his pre-teen delusions - which the media did him no favors by promoting - do not belong in his biography, and I have decided to discontinue debating them on the talk page. By the way when I was 12 I too thought I was going to change the world! Viewfinder (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This editor had the right idea. What he left behind was stable for two years. Viewfinder (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Now an editor has written on the talk page that Barnett's notability seems to come solely from shit stories though. Utter nonsense and a case of "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it". There has been plenty of good coverage of him. By the way when the media talked about him developing theory they surely did not mean scientific theory, the articles were written by non-scientists for non-scientists. Therefore the falsehood accusations should not extend to theory development. Viewfinder (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing. The sources for the "false claims" in the lead must be restored. WP:LEAD seems clear enough to me. Our use of the word false in the media coverage section is of less concern because it is more specific. Viewfinder (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: To me, WP:LEADCITE is clear that the need for citations in the lead is governed by local consensus.

… they surely did not mean scientific theory, the articles were written by non-scientists for non-scientists. That could certainly be argued for. It’s also possible that the writers didn’t quite know what a scientific theory was, as distinct from the colloquial sense. I don’t know which was the case. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Batman (1989–1997 film series) RM

Hi, just notifying you of the new RM at Talk:Batman (1989–1997 film series)--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop reverting until you get consensus for your change on the talk page. You'll just be blocked or get the page protected otherwise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robsinden: I’m sure you will have noticed, but I had attempted to use the talk page, while the two other editors had not. In any case, thank you sincerely for your response. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of context: I attempted to remove a former article title as an example from WP:NCF after the article was turned into a redirect. Apparently, former titles are valid examples of current practice. Who knew? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Archived with no response from uninvolved editors. The crux of the “edit warring” claim seemed to be two reverts from a week prior. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Really? Is the same edit war?? Give you a gold star for persistence. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

NCF dispute

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ACtually. Despite what the template says, long term edit warring is still edit warring. Please stop and discuss rather than coming back when no one is looking and changing things. Thanks -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I think you may be confusing edit warring (revert, revert, revert) with WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss). If I’m wrong, please point out where I’ve “come back when no one is looking” and reverted changes. Or if you could explain how novel changes (not reversions) to a page would fall under that policy, that would also be helpful. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If I am confused by your edits, I do apologize. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Please do get back to me if I’m in the wrong! To me, it seems like I just have an unpopular viewpoint and Change Is Bad, so just ignore and discredit him and hope he goes away. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that I have erred and I do apologize. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Does this affect your decision to protect WP:NCF? Or was that done for a different reason? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I just responded to a request at WP:RFPP. You can request unprotection there or find instruction for a protected edit request. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It's coming back now. Please do discuss proposed changes on the talk page. Let's see if @Betty Logan: can help us remember/discuss together. Cheers and happy editing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection was requested following a consultation with other Film project members at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Permament semi-protection for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Guidelines should not be altered unless there is a clear consensus for those changes, a principle that 67.14.236.50 has repeatedly flouted, as outlined at the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Y'all can't go on like this. Perhaps some sort of binding dispute resolution? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The upshot of the semi-protection is that the IP cannot edit the guideline page. If the IP feels I have gained an unfair advantage through semi-protection I am happy to submit to an editing "ban" on the page while the semi-protection is in place. That evens the burden of the protection and it promotes the goal that the guideline should only be edited if there is support for any proposed changes. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this needs discussion in a broader venue with greater participation. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I don’t think that’s how editing works. Or at least, that position isn’t supported by any policy page that I’ve seen. WP:WPEDIT does say that changes should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it, which is how most of these edits have gone. And WP:PGCHANGE even says It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance. You can feel however you want about how guidelines should be edited, but your view doesn’t seem to be the consensus view.

@Dlohcierekim: No objections here to that; just let me know when and where. @Betty Logan, I’d appreciate the same from you in the future, for any related discussions such as the one you mentioned. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I have/want no involvement. I see validity to both viewpoints. Perhaps the WP:DRN if that's still active. I'm a 1RR sort of guy and just shrug if someone reverts me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Kiznaiver, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have already been warned several times on the article's talk page against the wholesale deletion of content from the article. —Farix (t | c) 03:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@TheFarix: It was agreed that the character descriptions were too long (so I shortened them, didn’t “blank” them), and you yourself agreed that the episode descriptions were excessive. And then it was restored in full without dealing with any of the acknowledged problems or the other concerns I raised. Can we try to fix the problem rather than threatening blocks? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No, no, just no. The character descriptions are just fine. No one agreed that they should be cut down to one meaningless sentence. And I stated that the episode summaries should be trimmed to below 200 words, not removed completely. You are deliberately twisting everyone else's words around to justify the wholesale removal of content from the article, which is approving disruptive editing. —Farix (t | c) 13:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I’m only removing what I see as disproportionate cruft, like trimming five “meaningless” sentences down to one (not to mention that the “just fine” descriptions all prominently featured those “meaningless sentences”). I’m sorry if we disagree on what constitutes that, but please don’t ascribe intent. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Also, I don't think you can threaten a block in good faith over a content dispute. Or else the same warning would apply to restoring the content. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

Thank you for keeping calm and civil throughout all of this, Unfortunately at times with this place it's 1 step forward 2 steps back however there are means and ways of doing things so your patience and calmness will pay off I promise! :), But yeah I just wanted to say thanks for remaining calm and civil throughout all of this, Have a great new year!, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

My IP

@Nihonjoe: Thanks for adding this header here! Yep, my provider is indeed Hotwire Communications (who apparently have no WP article), and I would be the only one editing from this address; if that changes, I’ll say something about it here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You really should consider just making an account here on Wikipedia. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: And you should consider writing an edit summary when reverting. That’s actually more critical. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Parallelism

Thank you for your edits to "Parallelism (grammar)" a few weeks ago, in particular this one and this one. The article is both clearer and more informative as a result of your changes. However, there appears to be a minor inaccuracy in some wording you introduced to the article here. Below the table comparing parallel and non-parallel sentences you wrote: "The first two nonparallel examples have a mix of gerunds and infinitives." While this is true of the first example ("She likes cooking, jogging, and to read"), it is not true of the second example ("He likes baseball and running"), which mixes a gerund with a regular noun. I've tweaked the wording to remove the inaccuracy, but I'd appreciate it if you'd review my edit to ensure I haven't introduced any inaccuracies of my own. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke: D’oh, you’re right! Thanks for pointing it out, and for fixing it! That paragraph seems a little verbose to me, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with it. I’m not sure what could be done about the wordiness without negatively affecting the clarity, though. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

But now that I look at it again, I’m wondering if the second example should include “baseball and track.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're thinking of "baseball and track" as a parallel version of "baseball and running"? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Right. Or maybe, “playing baseball and running track.” Which is actually a better parallel than what we have there now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The only problem I see with those alternatives is that "running" is a much broader term than "track" or "running track". Because it is possible to run places other than tracks, I'm hesitant to say that either of the alternatives you've provided is a better parallel than what's currently in the article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

True, very true. But another example along those lines, maybe, to differentiate it from the verb/gerund example. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that might be helpful. No good examples are popping into my head at the moment, but feel free to add one to the article if you come up with a good example. Thanks once again for your edits. While the article still has some things that could be improved (in particular, I think it would be nice to scrounge up some sources and expand the sentence on parallelism improving readability/making sentences easier to process into its own section), it is looking a lot better now than it was a few weeks ago. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing posts

Something you still don't seem to get, as demonstrated by this edit regards editing posts. You claimed here that you were quoting from the closer's talk page but then added text that was never in the text that you quoted. That is simply unnaceptable. Never do that. If you want to comment on something that someone has said, you do as AlexTheWhovian said and make a new comment. WP:TALKNO is quite clear on this when it says to be "precise in quoting others". Adding your own text to the quote is not being precise, it's misrepresenting what was said. TALKNO goes on to say "Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures", which is also relevant. Even editing your own posts is generally to be avoided, as explained in WP:REDACT. After you have opened a discussion such as an RfC, requested move, or deletion discussion, once there are any replies you should not change the nomination at all, with the exception of closing it. As explained by WP:REDACT, "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." WP:REDACT does say that you may change your comments but this should not be done to the nomination text, regardless of how minor you think it is. Everyone visiting an RM, RfC or deletion discussion should see the same nomination otherwise the process becomes corrupted. Any changes you make to your other posts should be obvious. If the changes are significant, then sometimes it is best to completely retract the post and start a new one altogether if somebody has replied. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I did not “add” anything to his post; I made editorial insertions (indicated by square brackets, as per most style guides) to fill in some missing context, which sometimes happens when using quotes. If you believe my editorial comments somehow changed or misrepresented what he said, or especially if they misrepresented the actual events described, please identify such. Otherwise, kindly stop ignoring stylistic cues. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. You just don't get it. Regardless of what you think, your "editorial insertions" are considered to be editing what was said. On talk pages, the square brackets do not signify insertions on Wikipedia. As you are well aware, insertions are shown by underlining the inserted text. Nobody reading the text is going to know that "You started another RM earlier [to an entirely different dab], after it garnered substantial" contains some of Ammarpad's text and some of yours. You said you were Ammarpad's talk page, so that is all the guide that someone has. it appears to the reader that "[to an entirely different dab]" was something written by Ammarpad, not you. It's really very simple, do not modify comments made by other editors without first asking the other editor and, when you do, make it very clear that you have modified the text so that anyone who later visits the page can easily differentiate between what you wrote, and what the other editor wrote. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The underlining of <ins> would indicate an addition to his comment. Square brackets indicate an editorial comment. I don’t know why you don’t understand this, but I trust Wikipedia editors at large to be competent enough to recognize what square brackets signify within a quote, and to compare to the source if in doubt. But to assuage your fears, I’ll add an explanatory note. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply underlining text doesn't indicate who made the change and it is important to know that fact. That's one of the reasons we don't edit posts made by others. Here's an example. Above you wrote "The underlining of <ins> would indicate an addition to his comment." If someone were to change that to "The underlining of <ins> would indicate an addition to his comment but I agree that I am completely wrong" and you didn't notice, who is to know that you didn't write it without looking at the edit history? Because it's not immediately obvious we simply don't edit (or insert stuff into) posts made by others.

Square brackets indicate an editorial comment. They do not on Wikipedia talk pages. Per WP:REDACT, which you appear not to have read, "Any inserted text should marked with <u>...</u> or <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted." It's really that simple. Rememeber, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style and that is what we follow. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, so it was an objection to adding it this long after the initial post. I gotcha. I’ll address that now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what it was. Don't edit content on talkpages that was authored by another editor. This includes content that you have copied from somewhere else. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:REDACT, which you appear not to have read… Actually, I had to point out and explain that markup, as well as the extra timestamp the guideline goes on to recommend, in that very RM: [1]. Still don’t know why it didn’t seem to be visible to you. Weird custom CSS, maybe? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you did not have to explain the markup. The markup is clear. What you completely missed is that once people have voted in an RM you don't change the nomination at all. If you want to add to the RM, you make a separate note so that it is clear to people who vote after that, and for the nominator, that you have added extra information. You don't chjange the original text. You're still not getting this. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective, I didn’t change the original text of my move request; using <ins>/<del> (particularly with a new extra timestamp) preserves the original text quite clearly. Is there a guideline that recommends against applying WP:REDACT in certain scenarios? Or is it more a matter of personal preference? I haven’t seen anything at WP:RM.

As for that example of editing a user’s comment in place… yeah, that’s absolutely unacceptable vandalism. And not what happened. If you quoted me elsewhere and added that line like that, you’d still be in the wrong, but that wouldn’t give me (let alone a third party) license to go editing your comment just because it had some of my words in it. I’d leave a comment calling attention to it and strenuously asking you to self-revert. And I would also be confused as to what it was supposed to make people think: that I supposedly added the phrase sometime before you copied it? That I came along sometime later and added it to your comment? That you belatedly filled in the rest? The markup just doesn’t make sense there.

But none of this is germane, because what I did wasn’t misrepresentation. I simply included some missing context to ensure the quote was precise, pointing out what he was somewhat vaguely referring to in spots, like “exception to the consensus” (what consensus? The one about genres). If you disagree that “documentary” is an entirely different dab from either “2012 TV series” or “2012 TV series”, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. If you think pointing out what he was referring to somehow alters the meaning, I’d have to ask if you weren’t sure you hadn’t originally been misreading it; if someone came along and replaced any word “you” in this comment with “AussieLegend”, nothing whatsoever would change unless the reader somehow thought I was talking to someone else, in which case that kind of clarification is absolutely needed. Or did you think the addition implies that he was aware of the fact when that’s not necessarily the case?

But I guess it’s really just down to my use of square brackets, isn’t it? Did you think they seemed like they could have been part of his own comment? Even where I used them in the first two paragraphs of the quote? Neither you nor Alex touched those, so what was different about them? Oh wow, I really did much that one up. Just saw his comment on the review and realized there was a preexisting bracketed phrase.

Hoping to work out all our disagreements here, and I’m sorry for getting bent out of shape over the reversions. I’m asking all this because I’m sure these problems will recur if we don’t nail them down. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) edit 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

• If you persist in making edits like this, we're going to end up at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Please start following the MoS and guidance you've been given. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure the MOS has no bearing on talk pages. Please stop edit warring over my own post. If you feel it improper, find another way to handle it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines most certainly applies on talk pages. The content that you've added to the move review may have been posted by you there but the content is originally from another editor's talk page and is therefore his post. You are just quoting what he said and you've acknowledged that by saying I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page. As I've already pointed out above, WP:TALKNO says to be "precise in quoting others". Inserting your own text, for whatever reason, is not being precise. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

    We were talking about the MOS, not TPG. Inserting my own text in order to clarify the quoted text, while making it very clear that I am inserting my own text, is quite precise. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: What exactly is disruptive about editing my own discussion comment for clarity? Or do you refer to something else? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd advise you to listen to what other editors are saying to you. A reader unfamiliar with the situation would have no idea you had changed what was originally written. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I asked before I saw your comment, so sorry about that. But was this the case even after I added an explanation? I didn’t modify the quote aside from that, and only did so to make up for the lack of context. If someone had questioned my judgment and left the reverting up to me, I’d have been much more open to it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The clear way to do this is to split the quote and intersperse your comments on different lines, delimiting the quote using quote marks or color. If you are willing to do this, I'll unblock you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, yes, that’s a much better idea! Color is always a good differentiator; that’s why I like {{tq}}. Hm… how about inserting **comments ~~~~ in the quotation rather than [comments]? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Should note I’m not averse to breaking up the {{talkquote}}. Just wondering if timestamped newlines would be clear enough without doing that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've lifted your block. You should work out the formatting here, just to be safe. The text needs to be clear as to who is saying what without relying on the reader to pick up on subsequent notes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Actually, I’m not at all clear on whether my other insertions (which have remained untouched) are considered improper: not arbitrary sole "exception to the consensus [against disambiguating by genre]" … If this [referring to (TV series) disambiguator] does not resolve …. Thoughts? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"I’m taking the liberty of quoting Ammarpad’s closing rationale from his talk page. Note I'm inserting my commentary in square brackets with red text suffixed by -67:" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You know, it’s obvious now that you mention it… I’ll just do exactly that. Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Have a great rest of your holiday season! If you do not, then you should know that I have acquired a very particular set of skills on my time on Wikipedia. Skills that make me a nightmare for people who do not enjoy themselves. If you do not have a great time this year, I will find you... And I will block you.

But seriously, happy holidays. DarkKnight2149 22:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

---