Talk:List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#[edit]

(copy pasted from original discussion at User talk:AussieLegend) regarding edit war over use of "#" for episodes number in table.

You coincidentally turning up at an article, just after I edited it, to make your change might make a more paranoid person think you were stalking me. Anyway, looking at Category:Lists of British television series episodes, for example, I see that # is used in a great number -- perhaps most -- such articles' tables. The admonition in MOS seems to refer to prose in its examples, not tables. So I have reverted your change. Perhaps you could try to educate, for example, those at List of Spooks episodes, which scandalously uses both № and # in its tables. Your view could be tested by debate with a larger pool of editors. Barsoomian (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before reverting, you should always check the manual of style. MOS:HASH, which I linked to in my edit summary,[1] specifically says, "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."". It goes on to say "Do not use the symbol №". Examples, by their nature, always are limited in scope. For example, MOS:HASH says "An exception is issue numbers of comic books", but it says nothing of tables. Using your argument, that would indicate that tables aren't an exception. My view doesn't need to be tested by debate, The Manual of Style is quite clear and it as been discussed previously. As for educating editors at List of Spooks episodes, perhaps you could do that after viewing the MoS. If you have any problems, I can help out but it's not an article that I frequent. I should warn you that reverting simply to prove a point is disruptive. Try discussing things in future before you revert. As a long term editor you should realise that's expected of you. It doesn't sever any useful purpose not to. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read the MOS. Don't be patronising. MOS does not prohibit use of #. It only gives examples of prose where it should be avoided. And many, many tables use it all over WP. If you ignore all the other articles that do exactly the same, while forcing it on an article I edit that you have never touched before, minutes after having an unrelated dispute with me, it's clear what your motive is. And your accusations of being "disruptive" are obnoxious, untrue and offensive. Barsoomian (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're reading the MoS then you don't appear to be understanding it, which historically has been the case. That something may be used somewhere doesn't mean it's correct to do so. There are plenty of cases where incorrect practices are evident in numerous articles. You're the only person who has ever had an issue with not using "#" once presented with MOS:HASH. Why do you prefer "#" over "No." given the obvious preference for the latter in the MoS? Your paranoia regarding this is amazing. I actually turned up at that article because of this edit, which did not revert vandalism. I was wondering what other similar reversions the editor had made. You had nothing to do with it. Sorry to disappoint you. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history: 

21:45, 25 February 2012 (diff | hist) List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes ? (MOS:HASH) 
21:39, 25 February 2012 (diff | hist) List of Primeval episodes ? ((null edit) ...That's why the general refs are in the references section

You expect anyone to believe it was just a coincidence you turned up at an article I had just edited, reverted my work, 6 minutes after reverting my edit in Primeval? It's not actually wrong to check through another editor's edits for irregularities, I do it myself when a spammer turns up. But it's absurd for you to pretend that isn't what you were doing. As for "You're the only person who has ever had an issue": Sorry not to be so easily intimidated. Again, I refer you to the hundreds of articles that ignore your rule. For a start: Eight out of 20 shows in Lists of British television series episodes, starting with "A" use the # :

Also, if it is purely a content issue, prove it by taking on the many, many other articles that use exactly the same convention. Preferably an actively edited one like List of Game of Thrones episodes, List of Modern Family episodes, etc. Again, you don't have to. But otherwise it's clear you are targeting "articles edited by Barsoomian", and not "edits that defy MOS".

I cannot find any explanation or justification of this part of MOS. The Talk archives are voluminous and poorly organised. However, see [2] which seems to be when this guideline was proposed. There were plenty of exceptions mentioned. I do not know how that ended up as simply "avoid", nevertheless, your hardline prohibition is not supported by the discussion there.

But, to end on a happy note, you win, thanks to another old enemy turning up an an article he's never edited before to revert me with snarky comments. That Big Bang show must be popular. Congratulations. Barsoomian (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • AussielLegend then archived the original discussion, above, declining to respond. Barsoomian (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of An Idiot Abroad episodes also uses the numero sign, which MOS:HASH specifically says not to use, so it's clearly incorrect. List of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet episodes does not use "#", it uses "Episode", so, out of the first 20 articles one is very wrong and 13 do not use "#". That should tell you something. I didn't respond further at my talk page for the very reasons expressed in the section of the discussion that you conveniently chose not to copy here:
Not for nothing, but this is a discussion that would seem to be better suited at the article discussion page, where other contributors could weigh in on the topic. I reverted Barsoomian for failing to initiate dialogue in what was clearly an issue in dispute. Revert-warring is never the answer. Indeed, it almost always is the source of the problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you two will be very happy together. You have so much in common. Barsoomian (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there's no need to be snide. Just use the discussion page instead of edit-warring. It's not really that difficult a request to fulfill, now is it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:HASH says to avoid use of the hash symbol, so it should be avoided and the majority of articles you apparently checked do that. I don't see the problem with doing it here. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't copy the remarks of Sebastian, since he simply attacked me personally, and didn't address the issue at all. But I see you insist on regurgitating his crap here, in a totally inappropriate venue, making it clear that it all is simply a personal vendetta. Barsoomian (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Sebastian gave some good advice; take the matter up on the article's talk page instead of edit-warring was a completely valid suggestion and very relevant, since that is what you should have done. Discussing on someone's talk page wasn't going to achieve anything. Your response, "I'm sure you two will be very happy together", was inappropriate and uncivil, as was this post, which you fortunately saw fit to edit. Jack Sebastian most certainly did not attack you. Claims of stalking and personal vendettas really don't help your cause and make it hard to carry on a reasonable discussion; you need to concentrate on the topic at hand. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are at the talk page, because I opened the discussion. You just reverted, and put insulting and stupid templates on my Talk page to try to intimidate me. Barsoomian (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You only opened this discussion because I archived the content from my talk page. In doing so you excluded content that sets you in a bad light. I templated you because your persistent refusal to comply with the MoS warranted it. If you're only going to argue, don't expect me to reply. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I included all your remarks. I excluded another editor who just abused me personally. Which I'm sure you agree with, but are not on the topic of this article. As for your template: "Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles", it is complete garbage. As I have demonstrated by numerous examples, my usage is NOT "unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand ", it is just not what you like. There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia that do exactly the same without anyone complaining of "difficult to understand", except you. Barsoomian (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned through hard experience that "Other Stuff Exists" isn't the strongest of arguments for inclusion. Were it a standard method of doing things and made sense for this particular article, then noting the precedent would seem on point.
But at least, both of you are talking now. So long as the conversation focuses on the problem and not on personality, it should be a resolvable issue, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have an interaction ban. You are deliberately, repeatedly breaking it. Stop it. Barsoomian (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of where this interaction ban was stated as such. Could you kindly provide a link to it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you recently suffered a brain injury?Alzheimers? "Also, please do not make any edits that the other could even conceivably take offense to." We were asked by mop, and we both agreed, to abide by that. Apparently you've decided to break your commitment? Barsoomian (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've elected to point out your (numerous) errors on your talk page. I am fairly certain that the airing of your petty little grievances here have little to do with actually improving the article here. You've been given solid advice by two different editors with substantial experience within Wikipedia. If you don't believe us, post within the TV wikigroup or MOS; they'll likely confirm everything that we are telling you.
Further personal attacks here will be reported to the appropriate venue. Consider this your only warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have no standing to act as an "honest broker" . Your pretence at being here to facilitate discussion is a nauseating charade. This is an article and an issue you have no interest in except that it gives you an opportunity to revert my edits and to snipe at me. Barsoomian (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Have you recently suffered a brain injury?Alzheimers?" - Do you somehow feel that Master of Puppets' advice does not refer to you at all? This statement is at the very best blatant incivility, but most editors would see it as a personal attack and it very definitely falls into the class of "edits that the other could even conceivably take offense to". --AussieLegend (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is is with you? You already pasted a template whining about this on my talk page. Make a formal complaint if you think it's serious. If Sebastian wants to make a case, I'll answer it. You both turning up here to take turns reverting me and threatening me is getting pretty old. Besides, perhaps you've noticed that Sebastian had already decided not to honour that agreement. Any chance of upbraiding him for breaking his word? I thought not. Barsoomian (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Redundancy Department[edit]

This edit by Jack Sebastian, with the comment "(Undid revision 480161533 by Barsoomian (talk) undo redundancy)" changed:
"Axl receives a prophecy from an old acquaintance of Olaf that Axl must become a man before he can be a god; and then Frigg will come to him." to
"Axl receives a prophecy from an old acquaintance of Olaf that he must become a man before he can be a god; and then Frigg will come to him."
-- which restored the ambiguity, of who "he" refers to, that my edit had addressed; so I reverted it with an explanation: "(there are three possible "he"s in this sentence.)". Sebastian made another try, making it:
"An old acquaintance of Olaf prophesies that Axl must become a man before he can be a god; and then Frigg will come to him."
with the smarmy, and interestingly spelled, comment "(Undid revision 480177030 by Barsoomian (talk) rahter than reverting, thios would have been smarter for you to do. Done and done. Next)"
One might wonder if this was the "smarter" option why Sebastian didn't do it himself the first time round. But he should be congratulated for making his first edit to this article that isn't simply a reflexive revert of my work. That his last edit loses the "redundancy" that bothers him so much at the cost of the information that it was Axl who received the prophecy is a small cost to pay for letting Sebastian count a coup. Barsoomian (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your question is..what, exactly? Pardon the bluntness, but if getting reverted bothers you so much, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. If you actually thought there was no redundancy of using Axl twice in the same sentence, and furthermore were offendd by a less "ambiguous" rewrite, then there is little to be said. Except for this: go edit something, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Go edit something ": which you will pick over, looking for any opportunity to revert my edits with a sneering personal comment. Well good luck to you. I can handle it. You've crossed the line when anyone could assume good faith in your edits and are well on the road to being a stalker. But enough about you. My comments above are on the edits to the article; i.e. that clarity trumps brevity, not your personal issues. But you have not the slightest interest in the topic of this article, so there isn't anything else you could talk about. Barsoomian (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you keep belaboring the point. I won't be commenting on your personal observations anymore, Barsoomian. It's tiresome, disturbed and (more importantly) not germane to the article. When you can have clarity without tossing out brevity, everyone wins. I've done that. Say thanks and move on. We're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits here haven't been about clarity, or brevity. Your first attempt restored an ambiguity I had clarified; the second attempt omitted a fact so you can smugly claim to have removed redundancy. You'd rather trash an article than admit your initial edit was ill advised. Barsoomian (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Jack Sebastian deleted the above section with this edit This being a violation of WP:TPO, "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission", I restored it. Barsoomian (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read TPO again (since you cited it). I removed this subsection under the 'refactoring for relevance' as well as 'Removing harmful posts' whioch of course, your personal attacks were. Now run along and edit something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My discussion has been about the text and our varying opinions on it, which is exactly what a Talk page is for.And if you're planning to deep six the page by archiving it, don't. You can strike your own comments if you feel embarrassed by them. Barsoomian (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Jack here. The motive behind these threads seems to be to publicise arguments where you haven't gotten your way. Neither discussion seems to have a point. "#" is clearly a MOS issue and that was resolved, for now, by you circumventing MOS. This discussion is just a whinge about the way in which Jack resolved an issue in the article. Discussions here need to be relevant and aimed at improving the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you "have to agree" with Jack. Excuse me for not accepting either of your assessments of my motives. The topics above, that Sebastian tried to summarily delete, were focused on issues arising from edits to the article. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox."? Coming from you, never missing a chance to hector and lecture and threaten, hilarious. Barsoomian (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

As per WP:TALKCOND and WP:ARCHIVE, article talk pages are generally archived when page length becomes excessive, about 50kB or when there are more than 10 main sections. Archiving short talk pages such as this (only 20kB and 3 sections) is unnecessary. There's no need for archive pages or an archive box on the page when there is nothing archived, or likely to be archived in the foreseeable future. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, {{Archive box}} is not necessary at all, as the functionality is included in {{talk header}}, making {{Archive box}} redundant. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Almighty_Johnsons_episodes&oldid=1200161831"