User talk:I dream of horses

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #216

This user has opted out of talkbacks

en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

Fortescue

Maybe disambiguation pages shouldn't have something that needs cited, but if they do have something that is cited, the solution is to remove the material, not just removing the citation and leaving the material that needed it, in complete violation off WP:V. Agricolae (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: Fortescue doesn't have anything controversial that needs to be cited, though.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Somebody sure thought it did or they wouldn't have included the cites. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: If they still think that, they can come talk to me directly.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed the material that the cites were documenting, as should have been done from the start. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: I reverted it. If this mysterious 'somebody' still thinks it needs to be cited, they can still speak to me directly. If they can't even figure out how to email me (links to the userpage section containing how to do so via Special:EmailUser are here on my talk page), unfortunately there are severe issues with technological competence that would interfere with Wikipedia. Until then, it can stay.

A surname meaning 'strong shield' typically isn't controversial. No need to remove that, IMO.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: If you revert my edit again, I will have to report the both of us to the edit war noticeboard. The worst case scenario from doing that is we both get blocked temporarily. I'll advise you to please cease and desist reverting immediately.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead, make your report. Maybe when you do you can explain how it is that you are declaring that challenged text to be sacrosanct, neither do be documented nor removed. Agricolae (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It was dubious enough with the cites, which represented the credulous just-so-stories of centuries-old family tradition, but at least someone could see what kind of sources made the claim. Now you want to declare it uncontroversial truth based on, what? your gut feeling alone? Agricolae (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on about 12 years of editing (see my user page for previous accounts), I think it's non-controversial. So, sure, I suppose you could spin to being my intuition or "gut feeling" alone, but that's something that develops with experience.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

And with my however long I have been editing, I have not found 'it is uncontroversial because I say it is, in spite of your claims to the contrary', to be a convincing argument. Anyhow, maybe with all your years of experience, you can explain why it is that you have decided to treat this Set index article as if it was a disambiguation page. Note that guideline explicitly lists surname pages among Other types of SIAs and further, it states that "Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article", and guess what? List articles can have citations. Agricolae (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae, fundamentally set indexes are list articles, but, at least in the case of human names, there appears be no difference between them and disambiguation pages of peoples' names.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Except there is a difference. Lists allow citations. Agricolae (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae, right, except in this case, this is a set index basically being used as a disambiguation page. I really don't understand how it's different beyond the ceremony of calling it a list article.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It is different because the guideline says it is different. Lists can have citations, disambiguation pages should not, and rather than being a ceremonial distinction the difference determines which citation policy applies. As to it 'being used as a disambiguation page', that is clearly not the case. Disambiguation pages distinguish among subjects that might be referred to (or searched for) by exactly the same text string (e.g. people sharing the name John Smith). This page is not doing that, it is simply listing people with different given names who share the same surname. Further, if this was truly a disambiguation page, then it should begin simply "Fortescue may refer to the following people:", and nothing more. Any attempt to describe the surname, such as the text on its origin and meaning that you have insisted on reinserting, is a description of the unifying characteristic of a list, not disambiguation. Anyhow, such disagreements over how similar a list might appear to a disambiguation page are subjective and entirely unnecessary. The prohibition against citations on disambiguation pages does not apply to surname pages because the guideline tells us they are not disambiguation pages, they are lists by definition. Agricolae (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: I still don't quite get it. "Because policy says so" doesn't quite make me content. I'm more interested in the why of the policy.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The 'why' of the guideline is for the same reasons that cause this page not to be a disambiguation page: 1) because were it a disambiguation page it could only disambiguate people who would otherwise occupy exactly the same namespace - disambiguation pages are not used to distinguish every instance where a word occurs, they do full matches; and 2) it is so that a surname page can describe the origin of the surname, what type of surname it is, its ethnicity, distribution, etc., material inappropriate for a disambiguation page but pertinent to a surname page, and that represents novel encyclopedic content of the type subject to WP:V. These descriptions can be extensive, even excessive (Hackett (surname),Belknap (surname), Spencer (surname)) or they can be minimal (Audley (surname), Ayala (surname), Stanton (surname), Zimmer (surname)), but having such descriptive content is a desirable feature of a surname page that would be inappropriate were they just disambiguation pages, while classifying them as not disambiguation pages places the appropriate burden of verifiability, proportionality, etc. on such descriptive information - if novel information can be included, it likewise can be (and in many cases needs be) cited. In restoring non-disambiguation content to the Fortescue article, as you have twice done, you are effectively recognizing that this is not simply a disambiguation page, but it leaves you pushing for mutually incompatible conclusions, that the material must be there (not a disambiguation page) but can't possibly be cited (disambiguation page). Agricolae (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: All right, got it. Sorry about all this.

I'm still a little confused as to why the information being cited would be seen as controversial. Is it the word "epithet"?  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It is because family history before the 20th century is rife with claims of origin that are simply made up. Many of the English noble families could not be traced before the mid-12th century, but the families invented, or had invented for them, fantastical origins, with just-so-stories explaining their coats of arms and in some cases their surnames. Claimed surname origin tales that rely solely on such pre-20th century material must be viewed with skepticism. This origin of the surname may be authentic, but I would not view it as such based on the cited sources (and certainly wouldn't without the cited sources). Agricolae (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae, OKay, got it.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: By the way, I do not appreciate you reverting me again before getting a chance to respond. I had work yesterday, and decided to unplug the computer after being on all day. I won't go forth with the noticeboard report, though I technically can. If you hadn't been so incredibly insistent on reverting me, I would not have been so difficult for you to deal with. Reverting like this outside of the context of vandalism is very incivil, and I would highly advise against it in the future.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

My perspective of this content dispute has been rather different than yours. Would you like to hear what I did not appreciate? my advice to you? Agricolae (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: Perhaps this is hypocritical of me (I'm a bit flawed), but unsolicited advice is actually a pet peeve of mine, so thanks for asking if you can give it.

You can go ahead and give advice, your perspective, etc. I may or may not take your advice in the way you'd like/expect, but I'll read it and it'll most likely alter my behavior in the future.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I will modify your own words: if you hadn't been so incredibly insistent on your version of the page, I would not have been so difficult for you to deal with. My perspective was that you arrived making a unilateral change to a page you had not previously edited, then seemed to claim ownership over it. Not only did you revert my attempt to restore the status quo ante pending discussion, you also rejected the alternative I suggested - your version and only your version was acceptable. And you went further, indicating that if anyone didn't like it they should come here and talk about it with you (as opposed to discussing it on the Fortescue Talk page), again suggesting that you were now claiming the right of refusal over any other edits. And finally, you reinforced this by decrying that I did not wait indefinitely for you to grant me permission to again edit the page. Then there are the repeated threats to report me - what do you think would have happened when you did that? The first thing an administrator usually does is return the page to the version before the dispute - the version I returned it to. If you make a change and it gets reverted, the burden is on you to make your case before you put your text back in (WP:BRD). Saying 'If you don't let remain the version I keep changing it to, I will report you' is not how it is supposed to work. I could go on, but I will just give my advice: that you not project such a sense of entitlement in such disputes. Agricolae (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae, I can assure you that I don't usually act this way on Wikipedia, but rigidity is a struggle that I have in real life.

ETA: I felt like I needed, twice, to get you to communicate on my talk page to explain things to my satisfaction. Perhaps this is an area where you need to improve on. It's not an excuse, in any case, so again, I apologize. This is honestly my first big conflict on Wikipedia where the other party had any interest in not only (eventually) communicating at all, but also doing so in a civil-ish fashion, so I'll probably improve in the future. Thanks for saying what you said, in any case.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 07:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC) (added paragraph at 07:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)) (fixed unindent at 01:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC){

A message from DDB9000

Hello again (maybe?)

I have been having horrid problems, and as such, I am writing to the info@wikipedia.

I decided to have you see this also, as I am clearly WAY out of my depth suddenly... below is that e-mail

---

Hello,

  I have been editing various pages in the last few hours, and after first being contacted a very nice person (I dream of horses), I am now being accused of vandalism which couldn't been further from the truth.

This is what has been said...

"This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

   ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
   For help, take a look at the introduction.
   The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys was changed by DDB9000 (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2019-06-23T02:09:32+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 122.108.183.105 (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shoot Out at the Fantasy Factory, you may be blocked from editing. Butter72 (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at When the Eagle Flies. Butter72 (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)"

Here is a link showing the last revision I made...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Low_Spark_of_High_Heeled_Boys&diff=next&oldid=903033430&diffonly=1

This is how I responded...

"I changed my most recent edit to be more accurate, than the previous one, pointing out that it is ONLY the front cover that gives the 3D illusion. A previous iteration stated that is was a 'die-cut cover' which is not really correct. A die-cut cover generally refers to covers that have holes in them."

...and...

"I don't exactly get what's going on here. I realised that I changed the page a couple of times because after finishing I noticed I had made small errors.

I am not doing any 'vandalism', I just am not familiar with all the methods here, like apparently the "Sandbox". Instead of using that, I kept saving the page, and then when I realised I made a mistake

The information that I provided in my last edit is correct and in no way could be considered malicious in any way. If you just read what the differences are you will see I am IMPROVING the page, not vandalising it."

I think part of the problem here is that I have a very old, slow computer, and the page says... "Could not connect to the reCAPTCHA service."

Ever since they recently made changes, I cannot access reCAPTCHAs on my home computer anymore

I have also tried to 'talk' to these people who are falsely accusing me, but to no avail.

After getting the e-mail from I dream of horses, I responded to her

"Hello Emily,

 I wanted to thank you for your e-mail, and I wanted to tell a little bit about the Wiki stuff I've been doing.

 I have actually been making edits here and there for some time now. I had signed up and got a password and all that, and at some point I lost that info and tried to retrieve it to no avail. So I had been making anonymous edits until I recently straightened out the password thingy. I am a big music fan and a longtime record collector and as such this is where I have making edits.

 Recently a boxed-set of LP of the British band Traffic was released, and from talking with another collector, it was recently made clear that something that was believed to be a fact was not. And so I decided I needed to fix that, as I might have added the incorrect fact myself. So it was at this point I decided to get that password thingy set up again.

 As such, I have been making little edits here and there about Traffic albums, adding more info and fixing any (usually minor) mistakes I see, making sure I've checked the info as best as I can. As I have a very slow computer at home, sometimes it may seem like I'm doing more than I have, but much of the time is just waiting for the changes to go through.

 I'm pretty clear about how to make most of the edits and when I do make a mistake it's usually cause of a missing character, or dumb spelling mismatch.

 But I thank you for making you knowledge available, and if I need anything in particular, I'll let you know.

Take care! DDB9000 (David)"

Ironically when I wasn't signed on, I was also making mistakes and re-doing things. Now, suddenly that I'm 'official' I'm being accused of vandalism(!) for just not knowing exactly the way to do it right. I just want people to have the best facts at hand and use my knowledge to help. Isn't that the idea of Wikipedia?

This is really me...

David Ithaca, NY ILPS9000@yahoo.com

Is there a human who can understand what is going on and help me?

---

Maybe it's you - take care i any case, Emily DDB9000 (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@DDB9000: Well, it looks like you're in a bit of trouble, though even I am bit unsure as to why.

To clarify, Cluebot NG is a bot, but no one else who reverted is. So perhaps Butter72, or the IP editor who reverted you can better explain what's going on.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for any inconvenience caused by the edits I have made. This was a mistake that I have made because a ClueBot NG reverted your edits. This was the first time I had made a mistake reverting something that wasn’t actually vandalism. I have reverted the page to your revision. Thank you, 122.108.183.105 (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@IP: To be fair to you, I've also made mistakes reverting edits, and I'm quite the experienced editor with access to semi-automated editing tools. Happens to everyone. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A message from Hitesh2617

Hey,

i have added an incoming link to it. Can you please review ? curious to learn more. 

This is regarding the orphan tag - You have given on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aanand_Kumar_(_IAS) page. I have added more links to this article. Can you please recheck and give me your feedback on this again.

Hitesh2617 (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hitesh2617, you don't quite understand. {{orphan}} refers to links to the article, not from the article. So, try to link to Aanand Kumar ( IAS) from other articles to add to this list.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Aanand_Kumar_(_IAS)

I have added 2 external sources ( links ) but still the orphan tag is not going an you please help me ? i am curious to learn more.