User talk:Archon 2488

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Archon 2488! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Helmer Alexandersson

Hi, I'm EagerToddler39. Archon 2488, thanks for creating Helmer Alexandersson!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please provide some reliable sources to support the contents of the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

MOSNUM

If I may offer a word of advice. Whilst as a professional engineer I am sympathetic to your frustration about the beggars muddle that currently exists in the UK, however, expressing it in a policy discussion is inappropriate; it leads to a wall of text that deters other ediors from commenting and you come across as a zealot.

I would suggest you consider that Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia for all and the idea of WP:MOSNUM is about presenting information to our readers in an manner they are comfortable with. Hence, as editors we should put aside personal opinions to build an online encyclopedia that is more accessible. Ultimately education is key to achieving wider acceptance, compulsion only leads to entrenched attitudes. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal

I see you have added a subsection with "a modest proposal". This appears as a sub-section of the RfC, which was only about the differing drafts. Is it OK with you if I change the heading level? --Boson (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can change it. I was perhaps too careless with the positioning. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM for articles about British topics

Thank you for your interpretation of MOSNUM - it explains your actions, at least. I disagree that the articles in question are "engineering" articles though. They are generic descriptions of proposed infrastructure projects, with, amongst all their other content, some engineering details. I believe the UK convention of using miles and mph for this type of data applies, per MOSNUM. Passy2 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use edit summaries

Please use edit summaries to clarify what you are changing and to distinguish error corrections from undiscussed metrification. ProProbly (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question, on the human scale article, was not "undiscussed metrification". The article had already used metric units, which in any case the MOS requires for articles not specifically related to the USA or UK. I provided additional content to the article, and intended on providing more. You have removed all of this for no good reason, and you are being disruptive. If you would like to add unit conversions, the convert template is at your disposal. If you believe there is a reason why a different article style should be used, start a discussion on the article talk page or at WT:MOSNUM. Fair warning: if you continue to behave in an obstructive manner, the admins will be notified. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced customary with metric - that IS metrification. IF you used edit summaries properly we would know what you were attempting. ProProbly (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ensured the article used a consistent unit presentation style, which the MOS generally requires. I did not remove imperial or US customary units where I found them. For articles which are not directly related to the USA or UK, the preferred units are metric units. Please read WP:MOSNUM before commenting further on the issue. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the lack of edit summaries we don't know what you were doing. It looked like undiscussed metricification. Please summarize each change you make to make lifw easier for all. ProProbly (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent visit from DeFacto

Based on several trips to SPI wrt this editor, I think we're going to have to let a few more edits go by before an admin will consider a block. I'll be keeping an eye on their contribs, and will be happy to endorse the eventual SPI if you file it before I do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there's not quite enough evidence to justify blocking the account yet, but of course if you've interacted with DeFacto in the past you can tell that the duck is quacking rather loudly. For now we just have to wait and see whether the disruptive behaviour continues, and try to minimise the frustration he causes. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI reopened. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Two weeks and no activity on the SPI. The problematic editing appears to have ceased. I can keep an occasional eye on the user. Any objections to closing this, or would you like it to run its course? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it might as well be closed for now. We can always reopen whenever disruptive behaviour resumes, or if DeFacto reappears in another guise. Thanks for being vigilant. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

Hi, Archon. I've just realised my mistake and apologise to you, and and to all others involved, for it. See the talk page of Human scale for details. ProProbly (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC) PS. in mitigation, I suppose I might not have fell for that one if you had explained your edit in the summaries. ;-)[reply]

Why are you metrifying articles?

Like Tayberry and Human scale for instance. You seem to be visiting articles to change the units from customary only, to metric (with customary as secondary in parentheses). For no apparent reason other than merification. Is this mandated by Wikipedia policy? Please explain. ProProbly (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain this to you in the past. The normal Wikipedia policy, expressed in the Manual of Style, is that articles without specific connection to the USA will use a certain format of unit presentation. Specifically, the convention is to show values as "metric (imperial/USC)". For non-science US-related articles, and in some cases for non-science UK-related articles, that style is reversed. The encyclopedia is supposed to use a consistent unit presentation style, and in most cases conversions are to be provided (for instance, I added a conversion to degrees Fahrenheit in the Tayberry article). The convert template exists for this reason. The English-language Wikipedia is not intended exclusively for Americans, so it does not make sense to give measurements exclusively in US customary units. Articles should comply with the style guide unless there is a good article-specific reason to the contrary. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a lot of patience to find the missing units! As you seem to understand the rules and are adept with the tools, would you mind going back to Human scale and adding the appropriate customary units to each of the measurements that are now in metric only. I messed up last time, and caused unnecessary anguish. I'll watch, and try to learn how to do it correctly. Thanks. ProProbly (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you help with this please? Thanks. ProProbly (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article is now in the MOS-compliant style, as far as I can tell. For future reference, it's generally best practice to discuss an article on its own talk page rather than on a user's talk page. If you want to learn how to use the convert template, then Template:Convert is at your disposal. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the article, and thanks for the tips. The converter is very powerful. ProProbly (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Jaggee (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am aware of the policy in question, and I would dispute that my edits constitute changing the variety of English used in the articles you reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuala_Lumpur_Tower&oldid=620819489&diff=prev

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unruh_effect&diff=620820077&oldid=620791856

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freetown&diff=620822509&oldid=620150075

In the case of the Sierra Leone and Kuala Lumpur Tower articles, those articles previously used an inconsistent mishmash of spellings (and in the case of the latter, the quality of the English was in places quite poor, which I made a slight attempt to fix). One could argue that since Malaysia and Sierra Leone are both Commonwealth countries, those articles should be expected to use Commonwealth/British English spelling conventions such as "harbour" and "metre" (the US spellings of those words are not standard anywhere but the US as far as I know), but I don't massively care to press the issue, so long as the articles are internally consistent. If you believe there is a good reason for those articles to follow US spelling conventions, the appropriate forum to argue that point is on their respective talk pages.

In the case of the article on the Unruh Effect, I am not sure what you take issue with. It is a very technical article, and using unit symbols makes more sense than unit names, for fairly obvious reasons. I did not change the spelling of any words in that article from/to US English to/from British English, so I don't understand the objection.

As a more general point, I would ask you not to revert changes on a whim, especially when they are minor stylistic changes of the sort above (which also contained some more general improvements, such as fixing a previously almost unintelligible formula in the Unruh article). Archon 2488 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a little on my comment above, in addition to being Commonwealth nations, Sierra Leone and Malaysia both officially recognise English (in the case of the former it is the country's sole official language). I am almost certain this would be British English (since both countries were previously part of the British Empire, and most Commonwealth countries broadly adhere to British orthographic conventions rather than US ones). Obviously this is not the same as arguing that an article on, say, Alabama should use British English, which would be absurd. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frac template

Thanks for whipping that out, I didn't know it existed. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Temple Meads railway station

Re this revert. WP:MOSNUM#Choice of units says "UK engineering-related articles, ... generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in". Here's the original version: it says "The 72ft-wide (22m) train shed", which had become "The train shed is 72 feet (22 m) wide" before you altered it to "The train shed is 22 metres (72 ft) wide". By reverting me, and not discussing, you did not follow WP:BRD; and since it is a Good Article, it is normal to discuss such wide-ranging changes on the article's talk page before making the change. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this was considered too WP:BOLD, but my feeling was that differences in formatting which don't affect substance are not really all that wide-ranging (another example would be making spellings consistent). The UK units section of MOSNUM is a ridiculously embarrassing and needlessly confusing mess, and there is no political will to do anything about it (we have literally had pages of discussion about the potential implications of the phrase "most milk", resulting in a total stalemate), so in cases such as this there are ambiguities – either interpretation could be justified. I would say that UK engineering articles should always use the metric system, because that corresponds to standard practice in UK engineering (and virtually all modern British engineering publications use the metric system, so it is not POV pushing), but the present wording is something of a compromise to allow historical articles (e.g. about Brunel or Victorian railways) to give measurements primarily in imperial units. The question in this case is whether it makes more sense to view the article as being about the historical engineering, or to view it as more general-purpose. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources about UK railway topics - from books by reputable authors to quality magazines - invariably quote imperial measurements when discussing lines, stations or rolling stock that was constructed before the 1970s. Some give metric equivalents as well, but when there are in the text they always come after the imperial. Wikipedia articles about UK railway stations - there are over 2500 for open stations and thousands more for closed stations - are pretty consistent in their use of imperial-first conversions. Exceptions are made for certain recent engineering projects, like High Speed 1 and Crossrail. Please revert your changes to Bristol Temple Meads railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll honour your request in this instance. But the underlying problem remains; it's still far from clear what the MOS actually says about such articles. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metric/imperial unit order

Since our initial encounter, during which you introduced me to the "convert" template and its intricacies, I've been following your work. I notice that the majority of your edits seem to be put metric units first, even in articles related to the UK, where the tradition is still overwhelmingly to use imperial first. I notice too that is an article uses imperial you generally add the convert template, and arrange it to put metric first, but keeping the imperial too. However, you do not add the template if metric units alone are used. Surely we do not want a metric-centric Wikipedia rather than a dual-unit one which everyone can fully understand and enjoy. Do you appreciate that different cultures use and prefer different units? Please, whilst adding the conversion template to articles, try to add it where metric-only units are used too, and please try to make the unit order match that of the culture to which the article is related. Thank you. ProProbly (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProProbly (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with socks

Hey,

Reasonable people can differ on this, but after dealing with a dozen defacto socks I've decided the best response to his challenges is no response at all. I understand the impulse to argue and defend yourself (and others), and where a difference of opinion exists between competent, good-faith editors, then discussion is usually the best approach. Here, though, we're dealing with someone without much in the way of social skills who isn't very bright, and is also working under some sort of compulsion to keep coming back here over and over and over again. If reasoned conversation could be effective they would never have been community-banned in the first place.

I now think of DeFacto as a crackpot, and there's nothing to be gained in trying to talk a crackpot out of their crackpottery. There's also nothing to be gained from getting angry with them; they didn't choose their handicap. So (after learning the hard way) I just file the next SPI, let them rant, and leave the rest to the closing admin.

This may offend your sense of fairness, and as I said above, reasonable people can disagree on the best approach here. I just don't want you to feel obligated to respond.

And thanks again for the initial notification and for helping craft the SPI. Defacto has done a lot of damage here; kicking him out promptly is worth the extra effort.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly right that there's no use in arguing with him; I just don't want others to be misled by his nonsense. I have no intention of giving further responses to anything said by any of this hydra's heads; I won't feed his trolling. Thanks for your help. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]