User talk:PhilipTerryGraham

Hello. My name is Philip Terry Graham! I am an avid Wikipedia contributor, with over 19,900 edits, 150 new pages, and 6 years of service to my record. I started out contributing to music-related articles, in which I have the most experience in. Though, since then I've moved on to other subjects, such as astronomy, politics, video games and transport, amongst other things. Morally, I am not an editor who does his best to follow the rules, and can and will break rules in the name of a better Wikipedia. I also help to maintain an easy-to-navigate and easy to read graphic design for all articles. If I see an article that I'm interested in and it's a complete mess, I'm there to fix it! This is my talk page, so if you want to bring up a discussion about my edits, articles I maintain or other things I do on Wikipedia, be sure to click "New Section" at the top of the page and start writing! Discussions will be moved to the archive after three months without reply. Stay bold, people!

(13 August 2017) Comment: 2017 Charlottesville attack

[1] - alright. I'll give you some time. But in general the use of that template can be problematic because some editors use it to try and "protect" their versions of articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Hey there! Thanks for understanding. I guess I should've saw it coming, but usually I never get this many people butting in literally minutes after I start an article, even when a template that specifically says somebody is currently editing is up, so you can probably see what kind of stress I was under. I'm definitely not one of those editors that use it as an edit shield, I simply use it as it was originally intended - a temporary call not to edit the article to avoid edit conflicts, which unfortunately what happened multiple times anyways... :/ – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

(19 August 2017) Comment: 2017 Australian constitutional crisis

Hi there. I added what I hope were constructive edits to that page. (At least, I added references for them?). Anyways - is a previous ruling on 44 (i) noteworthy? Timeoin (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Timeoin (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timeoin: Hey there! If you saw the edit history, you'll see that I merely moved the content of the page from one article to another; I didn't write it. So, if you want to notify a fellow user about the changes you made to the article, be sure to write on the author(s)' talk pages instead, or better yet write on the article's talk page, which I see you have already to ask your latter question. I've replied to that question on the talk page too :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesnt show up on mobile version of Wikipedia. Or im just a newbie :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeoin (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(23 September 2017) Discussion: {{Infobox OS component}}

Hey.

Your contribution history shows that you are currently engaged in edit warring in Messages (software), Clock (software) and Weather (software). Concerning behavior are:

1. You are on the verge of violating WP:3RR (You have reverted three times today, on each article)
2. You have made no attempt to make a collegial comment on the content, despite having consistently complained about the lack of consensus in your edit summaries
3. All your revert actions were blanket reverting (an action that does not exactly say "I care for Wikipedia")
4. You are demonstrating instances of refusal to get the point

Please take your next step very carefully.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I don't understand you and Lisa's insistence that I haven't made an argument. You are well aware that I had made an argument in my opening paragraph for the discussion on the talk page, because you attempted to hide it under a "Sub-optimal communication" collapse box. There was no consensus for the sweeping changes to the iOS app articles, and there should be one before there is such a sweeping change. You can cite WP:LISTEN, but I could say that same for Lisa as well. There needs to be a consensus, not one sole user's idea against a pre-established order of things. Imagine how chaotic Wikipedia if everything was decided like that? I was told early on not do do what Codename Lisa is doing right now, so that is why I've been trying to preserve the status quo before a consensus is reached. There needs to be a mutual agreement between a substantial number of people. Attacking my call for that doesn't help, man. Can't we just agree on that before things get unnecessarily heated between us too? If anything, it's your "next step" that's going to decide whether or not the discussion turns even more sour... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am aware of your half-baked excuse of an argument; the core of it is the famous "other shit exists" fallacy and the rest is the reinstatement of the problem. I tried to stage a fresh start for both of you two to reinstate your arguments free of comments on persons. Codename Lisa re-wrote it, in ample details. You, instead, attacked me, the neutral party. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I suppose you want to continue quarreling instead of getting back on topic? Here, you could've stopped at saying you disagree with me because of WP:OSE. But instead, like Lisa, you drew it out to claim that I attacked you, when really I was defending myself from your attack on my request for a more inclusive discussion, rather than it just being Lisa and I. Of course I'm going to reply and defend myself if you're going to attack me when I made a completely innocuous statement that couldn't possibly, objectively warrant a forceful response. If you want to reply, don't say things like "It does not matter because you don't have an argument so far." when I made my points already. Don't say that I need to "rationally answer" when I already have and you simply disagreed with it. Don't say "no one would comment anything useful" simply because you think my arguments are bad. Can you see what my point is here? Can you see what the problem is now? I can't possibly make it any more clearer than this - stop spitting on me. Just say "I disagree because you're simply using the other stuff exists argument" and be done with it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

(7 October 2017) Discussion: File:Screenshot of iTunes.png

Hi there! Thanks for updating the iTunes screenshot - I ended up restoring the older version because the file you uploaded had a whitespace border around it. Feel free to re-upload the new version without the border. Thanks! Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: Heyo! I'm assuming you didn't understand my reasoning for the new version of the iTunes screenshot, which is okay, because I didn't realise until now that I had not left a proper explaination on any related edit histories and such. If you haven't noticed, the screenshot emulates the software's appearance in various current operating systems, such as Windows 10 and macOS High Sierra, where the window is accompanied with a drop shadow. This effect is emulated in the new screenshot, where a drop shadow on top of a transparent layer, underneath the window itself has been implemented. I thought to make one for the screenshot used in the iTunes article, because it visually informs the reader of what kind of context the screenshot has within its native operating system, and also simply because it looks cool! I took the idea from articles such as Calendar (Apple) and Photo Booth. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, that's reasonable. Feel free to restore! Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: Thanks for understanding! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 19:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Terry
First and foremost: When you upload a screenshot, you must update the source information too. I really doubt you have taken it from a iTune 12.5.1 on Windows 10.
Second, include the shadow is a violation of WP:NFCC. The portion without the shadow would suffice. Hence the shadow must NOT be included. To quote directly: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice."
Please study our WP:NFCC; it is about the only stringent policy in Wikipedia.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Hey there again. If you checked the edit history of the image page, you'd find I did update the information, it's just that it got reverted and I hadn't noticed. Please double-check these things; you shouldn't go pointing blame first before verifying what the facts are. Also, please prove to me that you aren't once again specifically targeting my contributions and my contributions only – I'd like you to do something about articles like Safari (web browser) too, if you genuinely believe drop shadows to be a violation of WP:NFCC, and aren't just going for my contributions exclusively to teach me some lesson or something like that. You did the same thing to me during our feud over {{Infobox OS component}}, where you went after articles I had contributed to, and not others that had {{Infobox software}}, which you stated you were against. You made two contributions to File:Safari 9.0.2 on OS X El Capitan.png, and you made no complaints about the use of drop shadows in that screenshot. So, what is it? Is it a violation of NFCC or not? It's completely unfair to call my contribution a violation, when you're completely okay with other editors doing the exact same thing. Go for all violations, not just my edits, please, if you're genuinely not just out to get me and me alone. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 08:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. How easy it is to extract one case of inaction out of one's record and accuse him of indifference.

And yet, you must have seen me doing this, in addition to everything else I have done: My action on Mac OS X Messages screenshot.png Or did you? I often wonder whether you actually look at images before setting their size to 250px, whether their native resolution is smaller or larger. But life is shorter to waste it caring about such things.

In addition, the burden of the source is with the person who adds or restores something.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: As of me writing this, you have yet to do something about the screenshots on Safari (web browser), Calendar (Apple), or Photo Booth, which are three examples I’ve explicitly cited in my replies above. My original point was that you’re not applying the same rules to everyone else that you are to me, and that’s simply unfair under any circumstances and context. I point the way to other violations, and you sit there saying you’ve already done one, the Messages screenshot, and that somehow excuses you from fixing anybody else’s screenshot other than mine? Can’t you see you’re kinda proving my point here, that you’d rather sit here on this talk page and argue, rather than actually take action and deal with other violations of WP:NFCC? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tch, tch! Why is it that everytime someone tries to reason with you, you abandon all policy and guidelines, and instead resort to personal attacks?

I might or might not do anything about Safari (web browser), Calendar (Apple), or Photo Booth articles because in the event of personal attack or unpleasantness, I might to try defuse the situation or at least prevent it from getting escalated, by staying out of the dispute area. And I wouldn't have touched those articles until this discussion reaches a natural end. Finally, I am not an employee here and since I don't get paid, I might be less inclined to do things, especially if it goes unappreciated, or worse, met with accusations.

Understand this: Wikipedia does not want editor! Wikipedia wants team workers.

Since you clearly have abandoned discussing the subject matter, I'll take my leave and won't come back to this thread.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I made no personal attacks in this trail of discussion, simple as that. I made a simple request to treat me the same as every other editor and you said no and cited a possible "personal attack or unpleasantness". You aren't being bold, you're simply being unfair to me. It's either all of it's a violation of WP:NFCC, or none of it is. You can't charge one person of an alleged crime and dismiss others for doing the exact same thing. I can't make it any clearer than that, man. If you still don't get that, then I don't know what else to say. I'm not taking responsibility for articles such as Safari (web browser), Calendar (Apple), and Photo Booth, because they're not my screenshots, so if you make your own fixes to those screenshots and others, or at the very least try to discuss the screenshots with their respective uploaders and convince them to drop the drop shadow, I'll remove the drop shadow from mine. Otherwise, there's no consensus here, as far as I'm concerned. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(9 October 2017) Filemover granted

Hello PhilipTerryGraham. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(9 October 2017) Autopatrolled granted

Hi PhilipTerryGraham, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 22:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

move page vs renamed page

It looks that in discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_New_York_City_attack&offset=&limit=500&action=history

you speak of move page rather than rename page.

If the page is renamed, to be consistent, it should be say the page is renamed.

I assume the article did not move and is still on the same directory, on the same disk, on the same server.

Actually, the article only move when it is downloaded/uploaded...

regards