User talk:Dicklyon

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C ☎ 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015 UCI professional continental and continental teams

I think you should've brought your move to lowercase up at WT:CYC. I've question which it should be previous, but have found UCI using both. Also, you've left a another mess behind as you haven't moved all the others and it's still mentioned in uppercase in numerous pages. Bald Boris 20:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing overcapitalization in WP is a gradual and ongoing process. See MOS:CAPS and let me know if you think there's any reason to see these as needing caps in WP style. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, thanks for your work on cycling articles; it's much appreciated by a few editors I know. The UCI Rulebook is directly quoted within the text of this group of articles as downcasing when generic. Tony (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard

An issue in which you are involved has been raised at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 470 (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) 09:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me a liar (thanks for stopping, now the rest of the matter...)

Dicklyon, you are entitled to your own opinion but you must stop calling me a liar. I've provided reliable sources that refer to the styles in question as "British" and "American," and I have shown them to you. You are free to say that you think I'm wrong. You are free to say that you think the sources are wrong, but I have proven that I am not lying. You don't even need to assume good faith; I've given you proof. This message does not apply to any other part of our interactions. You have made many posts that I don't like, but this is where you're crossing the line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have persisted in saying that the 1950 writer argues for "American" style when he does no such thing. You've let your campaign to call it American override the source. This is not honest. Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"American style" is just the common term for it. I read a short story where a man says of his lost horse, "I think a painter got her." I'm not lying if I say that he thinks his horse was killed by a cougar or killed by a mountain lion, and the reader is more likely to know what I mean. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe it's not lying, but it's also not correctly representing the source, in a way that you are well aware is somewhat sensitive and where you are spinning it to better adhere to your own POV, while keeping up the pretense that it's about sources. It's maddening how you do that. And dishonest. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing dishonest. If you think that the source isn't properly presented, then don't violate CIVIL or AGF; just fix it, and we'll triangulate our way to a text that we all think is reasonably accurate.

Caring about the sources is not pretense, and you'll see that if you look at the page history. I've added sources that say "logical," and kept the term in its proper place even though I think it's biased; heck, this whole MOS:SUPPORTS section is a list of sources that disprove one of the problems with WP:LQ—the allegation that its proponents are just making things up—and I provided all but two of them.

If you really think that my take on the matter does not reflect what the sources say, then show me sources that disagree with me. Are there any RS that say "'British' isn't this system's real name," enough to establish that those that say otherwise are flukes? If we line up all the sources that say "British" and "logical," do we see a clear difference in what they describe, enough to establish JISS and CMoS, etc. as flukes? Because if you can't find any, you need to adjust your attitude about how much of my position is spin. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do keep fixing it, and you keep adding the misrepresentation that it says something about "American style". Cut it out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you two: can we step back from it and by all means continue debate, but wipe the slate clean on the emotional side? "Liar" is probably an epithet to be avoided, Dick. And DF, I do believe that you're too quick to ascribe nationality to several aspects of style; and please remember that many reliable sources don't refer to some stylic questions as British or American. Our task of creating global stylistic guidance for English, in my view, should minimise splits; we put up with binary allowances for spelling, date format, and metric vs colonial British weights and measures as main/converted units. It doesn't help to carry a flag for striking unnecessary divisions in the language. Tony (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I never actually said "liar" or called DF anything, but I said in an edit summary "Please stop trying to say that this guy argued for "American" style; that's your lie, not a sourced position." My point was that repeatedly saying that a source said something about "American style" when it did not was not an honest portrayal of the source. I shall choose my words more delicately in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm pretty confused by DF's edits like this one on a page that claims to be about "support" for the MOS, but which she keeps modifying to misrepresent and undermine what the MOS says. I add stuff about Americans supporting logical style that she wants to call British, and eschewing the aesthetic style that she wants to call American, and she undoes it and replaces it with the opposite. Did I misintpret "Support"? Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you did, Dicklyon. The page is about external support. We were going to call it "MOS:SOURCES" for a while there. The way I see it, the purpose of the External Support page is to show that there are reliable sources outside Wikipedia that call for the same thing as the MOS, to prove that none of us made those rules up. It's not about providing intra-Wikipedia opinions or arguments (we have MOS:REGISTER for that). Saying negative things about American style does not serve this purpose because American style doesn't have much to do with the rule in question.

Tony's right. My take on MOS:SUPPORTS is that this page doesn't need to make a particular point of the Britishness of this rule, but actively hiding it would be wrong. Remember, "logical" is disputed too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're saying that my clause "similar to what some sources call British style" is "actively hiding" "the Britishness of this rule"? What about sources that describe the British style in great detail, that different somewhat from what we say "logical style" means? Should we just ignore that and pretend that logical is British? Seems odd. We (our MOS) recommend logical, not British. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in various places you've connected these styles to the dialects "American English" and "British English". Sources pretty much don't do that. The "aesthetic" or "typesetter's" or "American" style is American/Canadian, even though Canadians use a dialect closer to British English. These style issues don't much correlate with English dialect variants. Dicklyon (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that particular clause is no good because it's untrue. The sources don't say they're similar. They say that they are the same thing. You're trying to say that they're two different systems, but the sources say they're two names for the same one.

Most of these sources either refer to the systems as "American" and "British" and some of them expressly state "in American English," or "the British system." [1] [2]

I also notice that you've been checking the "minor edit" box on your reverts. That prevents them from showing up on watchlists. Yesterday was the second time (I figured the first could have been an accident). Please be more careful. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, you have to stop marking your reverts as minor. 1) It's against the rules, 2) I cited "he stopped when I brought it to his attention (and might've been an accident anyway)" as an example of your good behavior on RG's complaint, 3) if any other Wikipedian does have this page watchlisted, we're missing out on what might be a useful third or fourth participant. (Edits marked "minor" do not show up on watchlists.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I was doing that. From reviewing my contribs, it appears that when I used the "Rollback" button it marks the revert as minor. There must be a preference some place to control this? I can't find it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went into this page's history and hit "undo" twice. It does not mark anything as random.

Though frankly you should probably stop the full rollbacks. I don't see why you'd object to including the authors' names in the section or the quotes showing that the sources in question actually do call for British style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that my rollback sometimes undoes more than what I object to. But when your first edit is to put back the stuff that you're certain I'll object to, I don't want to do the extra work you're laying out for me, and I rolled to behind that. I might keep doing that if you keep provoking that way. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should look more closely. I usually try to phrase things in a way that I think you might find more palatable. And I've gone through your edits bit by bit to remove only the changes that I find inappropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I see you did stop that, and I have made some minor tweaks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked your tweaks and brought up Oxford Dictionaries for the talk page. We're getting there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Please see this thread at the arbitration enforcement page. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to 2.223.1.14?

2.223.1.14 responded to you on his talk page, and because of that I highly doubt you saw it. It may be a year later, but I have an urge for you to see his response anyhow. Coteup (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]