User talk:Antandrus

Greetings, welcome to my talk page. Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. If I think it is important to keep a thread together I will respond here; otherwise I may respond on your talk page. Or maybe both. A foolish hobgoblin little minds consistency.

A typical winter day in my home town.
Haec dies quam fecit Dominus. Exultemus et laetemur in ea.

Talk page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Help needed for a student class project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.

So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Chopin Preludes

Hi Antandrus-

I have a really dumb off-the-wall question - I'd be happy to accept a wild guess, but please don't put yourself out trying to research it.

Here at Wikipedia, as well as at IMSLP [1], and in any of the recordings that I have access to, the accent acute é is always missing. But if you come down and look at the sheet music at that IMSLP link, it's always spelled Prélude. Nearly every other occasion where a diacritic is called for, it is conscientiously used, both here and elsewhere. Does this make sense to you? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think it's dumb or off-the-wall. It appears to be inconsistent. The New Grove, for example, consistently uses "Prelude" without the acute, both in the Chopin article and in the works list. They also use Etude without the acute, while our article is under Études (Chopin). Here are the results as a Googlefight: [2]. I'd go without the diacritic for the Preludes, and I know I'm accustomed to seeing them that way, but I'm not certain why. I believe the word in French is correct with and only with the accent (any of my talk page stalkers have better French than me?) Antandrus (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

En francais c'est bien prélude, but in English, it's indeed prelude. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If the title is French, then it is incorrect without the acute accent; if the title is in English, then it is incorrect with the acute accent, unless the word is understood as being imported from French. (This can get tricky, and I don't think we need worry about the presence or absence of the accent in Polish or other languages.) "Etude" is slightly more complicated, because in French sometimes the accents are omitted on capital letters for typographical reasons. This could also affect title pages where the page design uses full caps for titles. I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. In the meantime, it suddenly occurred to me that here "Prelude" is being used as a generic term, and thus rendered in its English equivalent, just as "Valse" (or the German "Walz") is normally translated to "Waltz". I think original languages and diacritics are probably retained when specifically used in a title. Would this make sense? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Somehow answers come to me better when I'm busy doing something else, away from my computer. Here's a counter-example that I had been trying to think of, as a title: Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Etude is indeed trickier, not only because of typography, but I think because of indecision as to whether it's legitimately an English word to be used generically. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Gwen and JK are spot on. They're generic terms, therefore rendered in English. I also think 'etude' is a generic term, and an English word (though of course borrowed from French). Grove has their entry under "Etude" without the diacritic, although the online Merriam-Webster disagrees: they have an initial acute. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant by indecision. M-W hadn't occurred to me. Seeing that, I thought just for fun I'd check a 1933 Shorter OED, but they don't even list the word at all - it goes from Ettle to Etui. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the problem with étude/etude is one of conservative vs progressive philosophy. Just as with many compound terms that progress from hyphenated to solid spelling, the more old-fashioned will regard "étude" as a word still clearly of French origin, like "cuisine" or "savoir faire", while the more avant-garde will insist it is as English as "annoy", "bastard", or "reactionary".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

True. In any case, it seems we have established a general rule, to the effect that a generic title or word accepted as English does not take diacritics, whereas such a word of foreign origin used specifically in a foreign-language title does take its proper diacritics. Would this be a fair assessment? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a "general rule" for behaviour on Antandrus's talk page, or a Wikipedia guideline, sneaked in under the radar? Personally, I am disappointed that this failed to escalate into an all-out brawl over whether Wikipedia represents the dignity of tradition, or the recognition of present-day reality (the familiar Telegraph vs. Guardian positions).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd prefer to assume the former. I'll let you guys fight out the Wikipedia guidelines - I'm a stranger here myself. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well, we could always change venue to one of the combat zones (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style comes to mind; a place where the question of whether or not to space an en-dash can be fought with medieval ferocity). And it has no less than 126 archives! Now there's some exciting reading.

More seriously, I think this is one of those issues that will never be perfectly consistent Wikipedia-wide. For my own part, I try to be consistent within an article, and I'm not even all that good at that. Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of combat zones, Antandrus, I don't recall your jumping into this knock-down-drag-out yet. (Nor any of you here.) Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny that SOED listed Etui but not Etude, in either form. How's this for conservatism? Milkunderwood (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo Latin

Hi,

Let me note first that we are almost neighbors. The few facts concerning yourself are remarkably similar to those of a casual acquaintance whom I have not seen for several years, and whose name escapes me. If you have played bridge at the Santa Barbara Bridge Club, then we are acquainted.

I am not happy with your comment. The article is wrong and the fact that it is wrong is not subject to serious debate. I was annoyed when my original correction to the article was deleted. I originally corrected the article at least a year ago and was surprised and disappointed when I reviewed the article a few days ago and found that the article had not been corrected. Hence the subsequent corrections.

My reply to Caleb somebody or another:

Hi.

Lets begin at the beginning.

First, the DATA article contains repeated assertions that the word data 1) originated in Latin; and 2) is the plural form of the Latin word datum. Both of these claims are false.

Second, correction of factual errors in articles by users is officially encouraged by Wikipedia.

Third, characterization of a specific verifiable rebuttal of a false factual claim in a Wikipedia article as vandalism is plainly and simply insulting. You stand in direct violation of the general guidelines which are supposed to govern conduct in these matters.

I expect your apology and restoration of the deleted rebuttal forthwith.

RWM

Cordially, RWM

Greetings. You are welcome to correct factual errors, but keep in mind that you are editing an encyclopedia article and that is what visitors see. What you posted -- this] was a first-person critique of the article -- in the article itself. This is what talk pages are for. Please proceed to the talk page of the article to make your case. Would you want the thousands of visitors to that article to read your first-person comment and threat "Throughout my lifetime, the English word: data has been a collective noun. Usages such as: "These data are interesting." are at best awkward and ugly ... I can and will continue to edit this article to rebut this particular fatuous claim until I am prevented from doing so." That is what you put in the article; that is what multiple editors reverted; and the reason I blocked you, for one hour, was to get you to stop long enough to read the messages on your talk page. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWB#7

• Hello again, Antandrus~! See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Arun1paladin#Comments by other users, as if the whole SPI case wasn't a big enough mess, a newly registered user came in to defend the sockmaster then started to accuse me of canvassing and points his finger at the edit of another user calling them vandalism. If I might add, this is really making me lose confidence in Wikipedia, big time. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave -- difficult one. My instinct is of course Muppanar is a sock, but I don't know of whom. Apparently someone else was also hesitant to make the call. Wikipedia has always had swarms of enraged gnats around ethnic and nationalist disputes; my advice would be to keep some perspective. Sometimes it's helpful to log out and read a few longish articles on encyclopedic subjects to remind yourself that we're actually pretty good in spite of a few bugs in the woodwork. Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Believe me, I tried... I'm not kidding you, the headache comes and go for the past 36 hours, yet no common sense prevails while nothing's been done. In any case, I think I'll just take a 24 hours break to regain my sanity, and maybe my work will knock me back in the right heading, where a heavy dosage of WP:DGAF is already in existance in my line of work. Best and out, see you in 24 hours! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-abortion"

Hi Antandus, I think it is fine and necessary to add on pro-abortion or pro-choice page that it is also called as "pro-abortion". By atleast this line: It is also called pro-abortion. (or) It is called pro-abortion by the pro-life supporters (or) activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.84.102 (talk • contribs)

Greetings -- if you wanted to do that I'd suggest not putting it in the lede, but elsewhere in the article -- maybe in the "term controversy" section ("The term 'pro-abortion' is sometimes used to describe this position by members of the 'pro-life' movement" -- or something like that). The best way to maintain WP:NPOV on contentious topics like this is to use the terminology the movements themselves use to describe themselves. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

sock of the IP you just blocked

changed the .35 to .54 on the IP and continued the vandalism--Львівське (говорити) 04:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know -- I'll lay down a range block if he keeps up. Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

advice requested

Antandrus, I am coming to you now simply requesting advice, because in my experience you have always responded to queries (which in itself not every editor has done), but more importantly, with considered thoughtfulness. (How's that for buttering you up? :-) - but it's true.)

My question here concerns the existing article Arthur Rubinstein discography, with which I have expressed discontent both there in two separate sections on its talk page, and on my own User:Milkunderwood page. You will find that I and User:THD3, who has been the primary contributor to this article, disagree on its relative merits, but I believe our disagreements have been and remain friendly, and have not devolved to being a dispute - this is not the issue. You might note, in looking at the history of that article, that the format of the existing discographic table had originally been set up by a different editor, who appears to have since abandoned it. [Edit: There's also this brief discussion: User talk:THD3#Arthur Rubinstein discography, again.

Being discontented with that table's layout, I decided to attempt a different format for a Rubinstein discography in my sandbox, where I have now set up only a number of sample entries, followed by an explanation of my rationale for its organization.

If you would care to look at any of these pages, my first and most basic question is whether in your judgment my sandbox attempt is even worth pursuing, given that continuing with it would necessarily involve untold hours of work. If you believe it is not, I can happily abandon it forthwith.

Or you may have other suggestions, such as how my own effort might be improved; or how, if it is continued, it might be integrated with the present table; or perhaps be eventually posted either as a separate table within the existing article, or as its own separate article.

Then several specific issues have been raised, or at least thought of, for instance:

• THD3's concern that my layout, even when sorted, does not easily enough display a "minibox" containing the specific contents of a disc (try a sort on the 4th column yourself);
• his questioning whether a disc physically at hand can sufficiently serve to self-reference itself, as I have suggested, or with a single general reference to three alternative sources (two online plus one book) as I have provided, as opposed to his referencing each disc individually to a single specific source;
• whether in either case an issue of copyright infringement might arise - the John Hunt book referenced in my sandbox is by far the most detailed listing, but I would propose to use it primarily for verification, along with the two online sources;
• and I believe there may be other issues that I'm not immediately thinking of.
• (And incidentally, what is the best format for Rubinstein's name to be used in Wikipedia.)

So if you might care to take the time to investigate any of this, I put myself in your hands. As always, I very much appreciate your efforts. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the formats, I can tell you my personal opinion -- I like it by composer as you have it in your sandbox. Seems if you sort on the last column you essentially get the "minibox" (right?) even though it may be several adjacent cells. I haven't done any table formatting myself, just because I prefer to keep wikimarkup simple, even though I've written some articles where information could have been usefully presented in a table. (I may switch soon; tables are now everywhere, and it seems people find their sortability useful enough to offset the unfriendliness of wikisyntax, especially for newbies.) Regarding the source -- I think having the disc is fine, but there are a lot of policy fundamentalists who will disagree, you know the same people who say you can't look at a map and determine that Albany is north of New York City, that you need to cite a published source that says that. Also I don't see a copyright problem with taking list-type information from a book (I'm not a lawyer, but I think lists of names, dates, places don't qualify). Hope this helps! (I wonder if anyone has tried to write a program to format such a table from a database or spreadsheet?) Antandrus (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of them, actually. The Googledocs to Wiki converter is fairly friendly, but there are others. I've used the HTML to Wiki converter a few times; you have to have very basic HTML for it to work but it works perfectly then. See here for the list with links. Hth! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict, and have lost my initial response, which was to the effect that I very much appreciate your having taken the time to look at these, and to have answered several of my specific questions. I'm still left with my question of whether it's worthwhile pursuing the work in my sandbox, and if so, how the question of two different table formats might be resolved. Obviously there's no point in proceeding unless 1) there's some consensus that's it's worth doing at all, and 2) there's a feasible way to actually post it publicly. Perhaps one or another of your talkpage watchers might also want to chime in on this. I might add that one problem I have with the present article is that although the table is set up as being sortable, there's virtually nothing useful to sort by any column.

KillerChihuahua, thank you also for your suggestion. I know zilch about HTML, but I ought to check out the Googledocs - inputting data into a table is a bear. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, I know those tools have been a lifesaver for me! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My favorite puppy! Greetings! -- Yes, thanks for that -- I didn't know about the converters (just haven't needed such a thing, ... yet anyway). Milkunderwood -- my sense is that your work in your sandbox is worthwhile, but you might want to make sure on the article's talk page before investing a lot of time in it. I thought the format you were working on (the second, larger table) is quite good. You're never going to be able to query and sort on everything, so anyone making such a complex table will have some compromises to make -- but consider how much more useful it is than a big table on paper. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Yes, I've already posted at the article's talkpage. Assuming that I would proceed and invest the time, I don't suppose you might have any thoughts on how it could be posted, either together with THD3's table somehow, or as a separate article? He is very understandably loath to see his own hard work go away. I think this issue needs to be settled first, whether or not mine may be worthwhile continuing. This is actually the biggest hangup for me, because I'm just not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and styles on a question like this. I don't see how the two tables can be incorporated into one, and putting them separately together in a single article would be huge. Or if they were separate articles, how might they be differentiated?

Actually, if you (or any page-watcher) have suggestions to make on this matter, Talk:Arthur Rubinstein discography#Suggested alternative table layout might be a more logical place to post them. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a naive question, but why not have both tables? Article length doesn't seem to be much of an issue anymore (compared to, say, 2005). You could always do a separate article the other way; at worst, some wiki-pedant would AfD it, and it would be merged back (I'd vote keep). The encyclopedic value of either table is high, and obvious. This is the body of work of one of the most significant performing artists of the 20th century, not a list of ephemera. Easy to justify the extra effort. Just my opinion, but then I'm an awful highbrow.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For helping resolve the conflicts with 190.163.3.204. Thank you and happy editing. pluma Ø 06:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, I've made embarrassing mistakes myself; it happens. In resolving things like this it's important to start with "oops -- sorry -- my bad" before even addressing the other person's abusive language. Often if the order of acknowledgement is right, the problem resolves simply. Imagine a cop making a mistake: thinks he saw a guy committing a crime, grabs him, "stop resisting! let me handcuff you!" and the guy, who has done nothing wrong (but maybe seemed to be doing something wrong, due to misunderstanding, poor visibility, -- whatever), confused, surprised, shouts "WHAT?? what are you doing? who are you? what the hell? get the fuck off me, asshole!" It's a mistake to try to extort an apology from the non-criminal (Qwyrxian, you reading this?) until the cop backs off and says -- "Oh. I'm really sorry. My mistake. Please, let me help you up." Then and only then, a well-adjusted adult takes a deep breath, and says to the cop -- "Thank you. I'm sorry I yelled at you." Falls into place; everyone goes away satisfied. It's human to err, and heaven knows I get mad enough at people around here. Once again, thank you for the vandal patrolling you do; I do it off and on myself, and have twisted my ankles in some deep gopher holes. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Antandrus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

hey

I didn't bother looking to far into your undo revision on the warmblooded wiki, I'm assuming you're also trying to fix it, I'm just going to let it be because I know there is a way to revert all those bad edits at once. Thanks if your helping clean it up. If you aren't doing that, well.. thanks for being funny and stuff, that was pretty funny actually, I was going to encourage the act but cut it out regardless... the chaos seems to be a sort of free e-tron pool... sort of.. anyway peace to you

Greetings -- I reverted back to 22 July because that looked like the last clean version. I didn't miss one, did I? Check warm-blooded as it stands now. Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cotton gin

Thanks for fixing that vandalism on the cotton gin page. It's been getting a lot of vandalism lately - do you think it might be possible to have it semi-protected or something? Thanks, Michaelmas1957 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. It's not a really bad problem, but because you seem to be the only current active editor versus multiple school IPs (this topic being a common school assignment) I think it's reasonable to protect. Let me know if they come back after the protection expires. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Falklands War

Whilst I have no objections to your edit, I really didn't think the previous text was that bad. However, the IP's version changed meanding whilst yours didn't. What exactly was your rationale in editing it, the previous comment included a quote, was that it? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much -- I thought 200's wording was a little clearer. If I borked it feel free to fix it; it makes sense either way, really (maybe I don't see the change in meaning to which you refer).

There's another story here, though, which is much larger. See the barnstar above, and the comment I left beneath it. This particular anon is a good-faith editor, and for the last week or so I've been watching his editing, and his unfortunate collisions with people who revert him, accusing him of vandalism -- look at this, for example -- 190.163.3.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). None of his edits were vandalism, but count the vandalism templates on the talk page! Look at his outrage! Another newly-minted admin steps in, and demands he apologize for his angry outburst, without addressing the cause -- and even blocks him -- two days after his last edit, long after his last bad word -- seriously, what the hell? Out of morbid curiosity I'm watching his subsequent edits to see how many times more he gets reverted for edits that are not vandalism. I'm trying to figure out if there is anything we can actually do, project-wide, to address this issue. Maybe all of us should go undercover as anons from time to time as a reminder of what it is like. Antandrus (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't bork it, as it happens I would have preferred to keep the existing text. But as that was down to personal preference and my familiarity with the original source, well I'm not going to revert on that basis. May I suggest you look again at their edits on Falklands War and read the results - a crucial meaning was changed to infer the Prince was part of the press pack. If I may observe part of the problem is that guy just reverted and people tend to be more suspicious and less forgiving of IP editors who do that; and not all of the edits he made are an improvement. I gave an informative edit summary and his response was less than friendly. Sorry but this is a collaborative project and if he responds as he does, then I have every sympathy with the blocking admin. His attitude is problematic, confrontational and I fear you're encouraging him down the wrong path. See [3] his edit summaries would have me convinced he was a vandal. There is also the other side of the coin, I've seen admins going at an established editor for "biting newbies" when it was an obvious vandal and troll who was eventually indefinitely block within a week. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This particular editor is not always civil; I know that. His contributions from this IP are characteristic. What I'm trying to point out is that he was very specifically wronged, with good-faith edits reverted and tagged as vandalism, and lost his temper. Please look at what happened, in sequence, edit by edit. I believe it is unreasonable to expect the wronged editor to apologize for his outburst without first an acknowledgement that he was wronged. Blocking him after calmer discussion had begun, and blocking an IP that was already inactive for a day and a half, was silly, but it's a mistake I see new admins make. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have PTSD and went through a bad period of mental health in 2009/2010, during which I was bullied mercilessly by a bunch of Spanish nationalist and a British editor till I lost it over the Gibraltar article. I was topic banned for 3 months by arbcom as a result. As regards my edits and arguments, they were 100% correct. I'm still labelled by my topic ban and arbcom still sides with the people who were bullying me and Gibraltar is still an awful article. When another editor took the issue of the bullying over my edits on Gibraltar to WP:AE I got another topic ban.

The civility policy sucks and its too often used as an excuse to avoid looking into problematic editors. However, the guy here is losing his temper for very little provocation, you have to ask is he cut out for editing in a collaborative environment? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As it happens I went back and looked at my watchlist for today. Of the articles on my watchlist several have IP edits. Other than this IP I've only warned one other for blatant plagiarism. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that about Gibraltar; these are the stressful things about Wikipedia. Glad you toughed it out, for a lot of good editors just pick up and leave. We're hemorrhaging experienced and clueful editors and it's a huge problem.

I'm actually one of the defenders of the civility policy, although I do it less and less publicly, not wanting to be pilloried on ANI or elsewhere, getting into it with one of the habitual abusers and their gang of enablers. Perhaps I'm trying to make a more subtle point and not stating it clearly. It's about dispute resolution and the order things have to happen. Even if the editor has a nasty side, he was wronged first, and both sides can come away from the dispute resolution satisfied if the person who falsely accused him of vandalism first says "I'm sorry", and then once that is cleared up, we can talk to him about civility. If the cop pushes an innocent guy to the pavement, and the guy yells at him, it's unreasonable to expect the yelling victim to apologize first. Anyway, maybe I didn't state it clearly.

I've been doing vandal patrol for the last couple weeks -- first time I've done this much in maybe three or four years. I'm observing interesting differences with the way it was when I used to do it more; one is that I think people are less careful about reverting good-faith edits than they used to be. (I don't have data to back this up, only a feeling, based on watching recent changes every day for the last couple weeks.) Not sure what, if anything, to do about it, or if anyone is paying attention. Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@Antandrus: The IP-switching editor from Chile wasn't polite at all. Wikipedia is collective editing, but unfortunately hiding behind IP addresses sometimes get out the worst in people :-( The "encyclopaedic way" isn't necessarily "telegraphic style". BTW what was exactly the point "(200. has a point)"; your rewriting is more or less the same, besides the exclusion of HMS Invincible. And why do you call Wee Curry Monster's revert [4] "tagged as vandalism", he did explain what was wrong. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't -- I'm talking about another editor two nights ago, when the anon was 190.163.3.204. Wee Curry Monster's edits were faultless as far as I'm concerned. My '200' point was about the phrase "right stuff" but honestly that's minor -- you can change it back if you want. Antandrus (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well this is disappointing. Granted, two nights ago he was falsely accused of vandalism by another editor, and improperly blocked -- and I will speak up if I see that -- but I'm not going to waste my time helping someone who sees nothing wrong with being casually abusive. (Yes, I see the irony in accusing someone else of not having a clue on "how the place works". The encyclopedia could never have been built, if we had had, all along, the civility-free standards of discourse found on forums, message boards, and Usenet.) Antandrus (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, you stuck your neck out for him, sorry but when someone is gratuitously offensive then they are a problem. I know its disappointing when you reach out to help someone and they respond like that. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that you're disappointed, Antandrus. I'm disappointed that my edits are again being reverted for no good reason. When I've spent time and consideration on them, and someone simply reverts without any thought at all, claiming that I changed the meaning but not bothering to explain how, reverting to a version that contains awful writing, and then starts stalking my edits to other articles and reverting all of those without even bothering to think of a reason, I am very disappointed. Are you disappointed to see edits like these reverts to Ian Gow :[5], [6], and this to Pseudorandom number generator: [7]? Are you troubled by the edit summary "rv IP edits"? He's taken some bizarre dislike to me, and is simply attacking me. That is extreme incivility, and as I see that no-one else seems to think his behaviour is a problem, I am very disappointed, and very pissed off. Should I not be? 200.104.120.204 (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Antandrus but when I see an editor removing sources claiming to improve the article and edit warring to do so, whilst at the same time resorting to abuse I felt I had no choice but to report him for 3RR. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, I created this template {{Newbie-biting}} as a light hearted way to remind editors not to bite newbies. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. (As I'm sure you realize, I'm still following the saga. I did what I could.) I have trouble making templates; it gets into wiki-syntax issues where I'm just not an expert. Interesting how we are now producing specialists in things like that. Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I have tried to reach out to him as you did but I rather fear it will not be taken in the spirit intended. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

@200.104.120.204. I'll suggests that you create an account, it's free!!

@Antradus I'm not an English native speaker. What's wrong with "right stuff?? When selecting a few reporters to a war zone, hard-core war reporters would be logical, not paparazzis. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It was in quotes. What did it mean, exactly? Did it refer to The Right Stuff (film)? The book? I think it's best to be absolutely clear, precisely because we may have non-native speakers. It's not bad; either wording I thought was all right. There are probably more elegant solutions, but I didn't spend much time thinking about it -- "not all the reporters were up to the same professional standard, and not all were interested primarily in covering the war: two, for example, were along mainly to cover the activities of the Prince." Or something. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It was in quotes because it was (from the depths of my unreliable memory) quoting the Channel 4 documentary on the war with the follow up book on the 10th anniversary. Somewhere along the line the reference got removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "the right stuff" was awful. Its meaning was unclear, it clearly assumes that the reader shares the viewpoint of whoever was deciding whether people were "the right stuff", its appearance in quotes gave it the appearance of being simply a copy and paste of some biased source, and its removal was necessary. So who made a good faith attempt to improve things, and who edit warred to restore this awful writing? And did the latter get sanctioned or even warned for it?

Antandrus, the bit about "same professional standard" is much better than what is there now. 200.104.120.204 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion but you edit warred to restore a version that was misleading see above and an independent corroborating opinion below. You were blocked for being uncivil and edit warring. I didn't break WP:3RR you did. See also WP:BRD and again this is a collaborative venture being WP:CIVIL is important. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Falklands War article is very long, so "not all the reporters were up to the same professional standard, and not all were interested primarily in covering the war: two, for example, were along mainly to cover the activities of the Prince." is too long. The issue is that there was a restriction of the number of journalists at the Task Force. One would expect that experienced war correspondents, who are used to flying bullets, would be preferred. The two journalists were probably good at covering Buckingham Palace, and were trained professionals. Anyone will agree that royal journalists, fashion journalists, film critics etc. are useless in a war zone, so where is the bias? Furthermore it was only the two "royal" reporters that weren't interested in covering the war.

"Due to the hasty departure, not all of them were "the right stuff"; two journalists on HMS Invincible were interested in nothing but Queen Elizabeth II's son Prince Andrew, who was serving in the conflict." is a precise description.

I don't know if "the right stuff" is American English or 1980s - so since some readers are ignorant of the right stuff expression then "The hasty selection resulted in the inclusion of two journalists among the war reporters who were interested only in Queen Elizabeth II's son..." would be precise too.

The words "travelling with the rest of the war reporters" gave the impression that Prince Andrew was serving in the conflict as a war reporter, hence the "you changed the meaning beyond recognition". 200.104.120.204 displayed his or her lack of cooperativeness by restoring his or her faulty edit with an arrogant "I don't believe I did.". But you did! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NE, I'm glad someone else could see it too. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unjustified block and revision

Hi,

As a courtesy, I wanted to inform you that I'm taking your completely unjustified block and abuse of power to ArbCom. It is my firm belief that the kind of cowboy adminning you displayed will hurt the project in the long run and chase of contributors, and accordingly that someone needs to take a stand.

Best,

Nachteilig (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)