User talk:sroc/Archive 4

Your edit to "Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers"

In [this edit] you removed any mention of Universal Time. By making this change you eliminated any recommendation about how to write times in a global manner before 1962, because Coordinated Universal Time did not exist before 1962. Please fix this error so that times on the prime meridian may be expressed for dates before 1962. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit changed the reference from "UTC" to "Universal Time" but left in examples using "UTC" and a suggestion to "just include the UTC offset". These would be either meaningless or confusion to a reader who was not familiar with UTC and UT (and recognised that these are different) since there was no longer any preceding reference to "UTC" in this section. In any case, your edit was bad because UTC is perfectly acceptable (and widely used) for events since that system was introduced.

In addition, as stated in Universal Time, "the expression 'Universal Time' is ambiguous, as there are several versions of it," so it seems a bad idea to recommend this over specific systems that were actually in use at any given point in history. Hence, my next edit added the explanation: "Similarly, the term 'UTC' is not appropriate for dates before this system was adopted in 1961; Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) was used before this since the 1800s." —sroc 💬 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Greenwich Mean Time" is a horrible term because before 1925, the GMT day began at noon, but after 1925, it began at midnight. "Universal Time" is ambiguous in that the various versions might differ from each other by a second or two; this is inconsequential except for articles about astronomy and precision timekeeping. A day is a much more important ambiguity. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, not here. —sroc 💬 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change it, change it, but don't mess it up. —sroc 💬 00:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of countries without armed forces

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of countries without armed forces. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

math signs

Let me suggest we skip the xt and !xt for now since I suspect there will be lots of new and changed examples soon, and that will be easier without all the template clutter. EEng (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• If they're examples, they go in example templates. If the examples change, they can be edited within the example templates. That's how all the other examples are shown. —sroc 💬 05:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep your shirt on, roc-man -- I said "skip the xt and !xt for now", just until the examples are more settled. EEng (talk)

• You may want to tinker in a sandbox and/or use the preview function while you get your adjustments right before making your edits live to save on having to make corrections later. Just a thought. —sroc 💬 05:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Even those of us who preview make mistakes. And where a series of small changes, adding up to radical change overall, is (are?) being made, I think it helps my esteemed fellow editors, such as yourself, to understand "what and why" if they can follow step by step, with edit summaries available. EEng (talk)

• Why did you revert my division of the rows in the maths table? After we've just been through the use of <br> vs {{plainlist}} and separate rows on the units table, why can't you apply the same logic here? I actually find it confusing to read "''x'' − ''y'' −''y''" in one cell of the table because the width of the column is so narrow that it looks like a single string that has wrapped over the line (which is actually what <br> is for) rather than two discrete examples (which is what is intended). Someone without the benefit of the visual display who relies on a screen reader is at an even greater disadvantage. These need to go on separate rows. —sroc 💬 06:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See my edit summary here [1] -- I figured it would be easier for you to re-install your systematic changes (which I couldn't quite understand -- very fatigued) into my version than for me to re-install my changes into yours. I hope you will pardon that liberty. I'll try to use an under-construction template in future. EEng (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've undone your latest edits because the table had something very wrong going on which was blatantly obvious at a glance. I'm tired too, but occupied elsewhere. Please have another go but hit Show preview as many times as you need before going to Save page. —sroc 💬 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Just one thing

Was the edit on my talk page an inadvertent or indirect personal attack? TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a personal attack at all. Do you see it as one? I was genuinely unsure of the reasoning for your reversion and I asked in case there was some guideline I was unaware of. I actually did check a few guidelines trying to find the rationale, to no avail. Only later did I see that the IP had also asked the question while I was writing on your talk page, so I grouped both comments under the same heading. I see that you have since reverted your edit it as it was evidently in error. No harm, no foul. Are we good? —sroc 💬 12:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool mate, misinterpreted that TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I know what "incident" means; it is an ambiguous term which includes mid-air collisions between aircraft. If there's a different, more technical meaning, then it's likely to be lost to many readers. "Missing" is clearer. —sroc 💬 12:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

List order

if PRC slots in under C, should not Hong Kong go under K, immediately before Malaysia? Moriori (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No. PRC is commonly known as "China". HK is not known as "Kong". I did that because it is listed under "C" by default when the page loads. Alternatively, the table needs to be updated to move PRC under "P" in the wikitext so it appears there by default. —sroc 💬 01:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

HK should go under #H. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE

You could always respond here instead of making it bold again and again and again and one more time. — Lfdder (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The word 'country'

Hello Sroc I noted that you have commented on HK's status at the talk page of MH370. Would you be interested to take a look at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems, Talk:List of metro systems and Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world too, as well as the recent edit history of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sroc? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not going to comment on this one. —sroc 💬 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

I noticed you are manually archiving Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. I've added one parameter that may help kick the auto archive into life and added a hat-notice about the archiving. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: Brilliant, thanks! It was just getting out of control having so many topics on one page and there are so many more each day (already 143 sections in 5 days) and the page was taking a long time to load. I was following a 24-hour window as a guide—which is short but necessary in this case to be effective—and hopefully the 18-hour window you've set will do the trick. Thanks again! —sroc 💬 22:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and see if I can nudge the automatic archive along. For example, the "Mobile Phones" and "Conflicting Citations" sections seem to be over 18 hours old and yet have not been picked up yet by the archive. There have a few complaints about the very short archive interval you have used but I agree that the page would quickly get unmanageable if we left things open for days. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The robot is working now and created Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Archive 3. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Huzzah! —sroc 💬 04:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your restoration of deleted comments on another's talk page

You just now restored comments -- both mine and yours -- that I had deleted from my talk page. Please don't engage in that activity. Some of the thoughts at the essay Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments are IMHO pertinent to your restoration. And frankly, since it followed me indicating that I considered myself as having already replied to you, and you having already prior to that continued prolonging the conversation, I think it best that you not post at the talk page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This relates to this edit.

@Epeefleche: I had another comment to reply to your comment; I am free to do so, but could not simply reply after you had deleted the section, so I felt that the best way to leave my reply within proper context was to restore that section in order to maintain the integrity of the thread. It was in no way a "badge of shame", but rather, continuing an on-going conversation. Thank you for drawing my attention to the essay, of which I was unaware. I apologise if you felt threatened or shamed in some way by my actions, as this was certainly not intention, as should be clear from this explanation.

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which is a guideline rather than merely an essay? The section When to condense pages states: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." Your talk page is over six times that size and has over twenty times as many sections. The guideline also states that it is preferred to archive comments rather than simply delete them as you have chosen to do in this instance. Had you archived the discussion, I might have replied there instead, which would have avoided the need for this altercation.

Your edit summary stated: "You ask me to d material from my page, I do so, and you complain". This fundamentally misunderstands my comment. I asked you archive (not delete) your large talk page (not one small section). Deleting the discussion did not address my concern and only stifled my ability to reply. You do not get to decide that others are not entitled to leave messages on your talk page if they do not reply to your messages within a given (short, unspecified) timeframe.

Your comment "I think it best that you not post at the talk page" (i.e., attempting to stifle my right to communicate with you in a civil manner) could be seen as a threat, contrary to WP:TALKNO. —sroc 💬 08:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mostly, I felt that you were being officious.

You are clearly talented in looking at guidelines and rules.

Yet, after sharing your view, and after I responded, you continued the conversation. At that point, I thought you were tendentious.

I deleted the conversation, because there was no need to discuss it further, and I had indicated I had already responded. You then posted a third time.

And, in addition to posting a third time, despite the fact that you knew I had read what you wrote (just a little bit earlier), you insisted on re-posting on my talkpage the very language of mine, and yours, that I had just deleted.

I find that unfortunate behavior. It is not only at odds with the essay I pointed you to. It also fails to respect me, the other editor.

And I expect you are familiar with the guidelines that indicate that when it comes to my talkpage, I am free to delete material ... and yet despite knowing that, you re-posted it. I find that to be behavior that is not within the spirit of what we hope for from fellow editors at the Project. I also find that behavior disruptive and harassing -- and when editors find the behavior of another editor to be disruptive, it is certainly appropriate for them to ask them to desist in posting (and re-posting) to their talkpage.

As to guidelines, the guideline wp:OWNTALK states: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." Your restoration of the comments I had removed from my own talkpage failed to respect my right here.

Furthermore, the guideline WP:REMOVED states: "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." Yet, despite that, you restored comments I had deleted, had clearly read and was aware of, again failing to respect my right here.

Also, please note that the guideline WP:REMOVED starts with a see also that points to Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments.

Also note that the guideline wp:usertalkpage states: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests". I've asked you not to edit my talkpage. For the above reasons. Please don't take it as a threat but as a request in accord with the guideline, and please don't threaten me in response, but rather follow the guideline.

If I wish to delete comments, please don't restore them. If I wish to exercise a prerogative -- whether it is to delete, or to delete rather than archive, or to delete in my timeframe rather than your suggested timeframe, or to delete starting with the most recent comments rather than the earliest comments -- please don't try to impose on me your preferred approach of deleting in the opposite chronological order. You can have preferences, but don't badger me with them as though your preferences trump my prerogative, when the guidelines afford me a prerogative. This feels highly officious, and an inappropriate tone for editor-to-editor communications, especially when you have been responded to multiple times.

I think you are highly skilled, and I laud you for that. But I think you are over-stepping appropriate boundaries.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged the essay that you pointed to and accordingly respected your decision to delete the discussion. I have not added any deleted material to your talk page. Stop labouring the point. Move on. (It is ironic that you then go on to say "don't badger me".)

You seem to think that you have a unilateral right to end any conversation without leaving other parties a right to respond, as is evident from your insistence not to entertain further discussion on the topic and reiterating that you had already responded – twice! Is there a limit on the number of replies one is allowed to make? What is your basis for this? (It is also ironic that you suggest I am hampering "editor-to-editor communications" when this was precisely the reason for the concern I raised about your maintaining an excessively large talk page in the first place.)

My point was that I had a further comment to make in response to your latest comment. It was a new thought, not already expressed in my earlier comments, in direct response to your latest comment, highlighting what I saw as a contradiction. You may disagree, which is fine. You may choose not to reply, which is fine. You may choose to delete the conversation, which is fine. Do not, however, suggest that I am not permitted to communicate with you in a civil way. —sroc 💬 09:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the points you now raise: 1) My point as to the essay was not that it existed. Which I had already made. But that a guideline has a see also pointing to it.

2) My point on your re-posting to my user talkpage when I had deleted the material was that guidelines -- not just the essay -- speak to my right to delete such material. Given that, you should not be forcing it back onto my talkpage, as you did, per the guidelines -- not just the aforementioned essay. I was making the point as to the guidelines for the first time. Yet your response is: "move on?"

3) I have a unilateral right to answer, and when I have already answered to not have to answer again. If you want to keep on saying the same thing again and again -- essentially, that even if I have the right to delete content, or to handle my own page as I do, you suggest that I do one or the other differently even if I am not mandated to handle it differently -- well, I have a right not to be caught in your rehash. If that involves me answering three times -- only to suffer you coming back with the same info again and again and re-posting what I've already read back on my tp, then yes, if I feel harassed I do have the right to suggest you not post on my tp.

Per the guideline, it is probably the right thing for you to be respectful -- not, as you did, respond contentiously.

If you think that our long discourse on the same subject over-and-over again today is a sign that I haven't given your views sufficient consideration, I'm sorry. I think I've given them due consideration, and responded to them, and cited guidelines to support my views. And there you have it.

Is your solution to badger me by going over the same territory again and again? Some of us have longer user talkpages than you would like. Fine. Some long-time editors, such as sysop DGG, have longer user talkpages than I do. We archive and/or delete, and still over the years we may have longer talkpages. We read the suggestions, and understand the extent that matters are mandated and the extent that they are subject to editor prerogative, and given our editing habits and manner of sorting information, we act accordingly.

Finally, your failing to my mind was your failure to distinguish between what is mandated of me and what you would like to mandate of me, your failure to respect that I have considered what you said and your insistence in repeating it or re-posting it even (you knew I had read it so there was need to re-post), and your suggestion above that when I find your behavior to be badgering, harassing, and tendentious, and your re-post to be disrespectful of me and my right to delete material from my talkpage, that I am not allowed to request that you not to post to my talkpage. Obviously, that hasn't stopped us from communicating. But it has relieved my talkpage of further clutter.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point of my last post. You asked me not to re-post the deleted comments on your talk page, I apologised and agreed not to do so again – yet you continue to write further paragraphs demeaning me for my past action. This was why I wrote: "Move on." Whether you see it or not, my last post on your talk page made a further comment that had not been made – it was not simply re-hashing my earlier comments – but if you choose not to heed my suggestion, so be it. There was no need for diatribes. Without prejudice to your right to have the final word, I fear this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye. —sroc 💬 10:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you apologize for re-posting on my talkpage comments I had deleted. I wish you the best. And please take to heart what I said about your skills -- I find them impressive. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

MOSNUM copyediting

As far as I can see in the short time I've had for WP over the past two months, nice work, carefully applied. Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Why, thank you, sir! EEng deserves a share of the credit, too, for his tireless efforts; we keep each other in check. —sroc 💬 08:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For steadfastness in defending and improving the WP:Manual of Style. Especially for your unfailing good humor, clear thinking, patient explications, and ability to propose reasonable alternatives in the face of occasional persistent pig-headedness. Reify-tech (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you, kind soul. I honestly prefer to look at opposition objectively, am trying harder to keep an open mind, and remain open to being proven wrong. My notifications have trended away from "undos" and towards "thanks", so I must be doing something right! Thanks again! —sroc 💬 22:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Tq

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Tq. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha! That's my own RfC and I'm the only one to have commented in over three weeks! Thanks for the invitation, though. —sroc 💬 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Legobot! EEng (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Post-nominals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Post-nominals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)