User talk:Archon 2488

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

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)

Ways to improve Helmer Alexandersson[edit]

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.

Most recent visit from DeFacto[edit]

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)

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

August 2014[edit]

Information icon 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)

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)
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)

Frac template[edit]

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

Bristol Temple Meads railway station[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

Dealing with socks[edit]

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)

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)

Discretionary sanctions notification - MOS[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks again for the initial ping, and please don't be shy about raising the issue again, should it recur. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks! I'll stay vigilant. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Greetings Arch, I saw things like this {{convert|300|mi|km|abbr=on|disp=flip|sigfig=1}} which I've never seen before, is there an advice page on using them? When I bring an article to B class, I don't always bother to synchronise sources which have imperial and metric measurements but rather than put anyone to the trouble I'd like to learn more. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case you want to look at the documentation on the convert template, which explains all the options that it offers, including adjusting the significant figures of the converted value, changing the order in which the units are displayed, whether to use symbols or words, whether you want an adjective or compound adjective, etc. These options help to ensure that articles are able to use a consistent style of presenting information (for example, keeping the metric/imperial order consistent and using an appropriate level of rounding). There are several useful templates for formatting, including {{frac}}. The MOS describes the preferred Wikipedia style and contains other pieces of general advice, including for the use of markup and templates. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I found the frac template a couple of months ago but I'll look at the documentation page.Keith-264 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of WP:GS/UKU[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the United Kingdom.
Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in United Kingdom-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop changing the primary units of everything to metric without discussion first[edit]

If you carry on this way I will report you. Ceipt (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I love your baseless threats. What will you report me for, ensuring that articles follow the MOS? Do you have a valid MOS argument for, say, an article about a Ukrainian woman giving her body measurements primarily in non-metric units? The fact is, there is nothing to "report" here, because it's already cross-encyclopedia consensus. You are reverting against consensus, and you are already under investigation for being a likely sockpuppet. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Baseless? Do you deny editing thousands of articles to flip the primary units to metric, without even first discussing the changes on the talk page, and without making it clear in the edit summary what you had done. In fact you deliberately tried to obfuscate what you had done by using misleading edit summaries such as "adjust unit presentation" and even flagging these significant and possibly very controversial changes as "minor"! That looks like ample material for a report of serious disruption, or worse, to me. Ceipt (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you deny the clear consensus expressed at the MOS that articles without strong ties to the USA and UK should use the metric-first unit presentation style? The point of the MOS is that this stuff does not need to be discussed in every instance, the same as adjusting spelling conventions to bring an article into alignment with US or UK spelling as appropriate, or any other stylistic adjustment. This sort of stuff would normally be considered minor, yes. Demanding an extended discussion in every instance, and reverting until you get one, is utterly disruptive and totally pointless. Other editors are under no obligation to pander to that.
Anyway, I'm cutting off this discussion now; you don't get to waste any more of my time. We'll wait a week or so and see how your SPI works out. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Edinburgh of the Seven Seas[edit]

Surely you must realise that this - adjusting the presentation order of units in an article that is unambiguously UK-related - is well within the scope of the general sanctions? Kahastok talk 15:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Has it been explicitly clarified anywhere whether UK overseas territories are considered part of the United Kingdom for MOS purposes? I'd dispute that it's "unambiguous" since they are not actually in any sense part of the United Kingdom, nor are they considered as such for most purposes in international law. In the case of some of these territories there are clear differences in relevant practice; road signs in Gibraltar use the metric system, for example. Since you'll note that I've not changed the unit order in any articles that are actually unambiguously about the UK since the sanctions were instated, I don't appreciate the immediate implication of mala fides or sheer stupidity in being unable to understand what the sanctions mean. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it has, very clearly, on several occasions. It was also made explicitly clear in the sanctions discussion that BOTs were included, because the disruption caused by some editors pushing metric units in particular on other BOT articles has in the past been sustained and extreme - far worse than anything we've seen in on articles on the UK proper. I could never have backed the sanctions without that understanding.
I've tended to the view that special circumstances apply where there is clear evidence that the situation is different (e.g. Gibraltar), but I see no such evidence in this case.
And to be clear, if I'd looked through your history and felt that you were actually systematically changing units rather than making a small mistake, I would probably have considered a different reaction to a talk page post. I don't think you were being abusive, I think you fouled up. Which is something we all do from time to time. Kahastok talk 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And again. While as above I don't dispute the change in principle, the article is very clearly UK-related and the general sanctions do apply. Kahastok talk 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You've made the argument previously to me that road signs are in some sense a deciding factor. Since the road signs in Gibraltar use the metric system, that would appear to be a deciding factor in this case. You have opposed stridently anything that might depart from local unit use – or does that argument just not apply to Gibraltar? What part of that logic do you actually dispute? Or was that stuff about road signs just special pleading in the case of imperial units in the UK?
Moreover, nowhere does it explicitly state that the sanctions (or the stuff about UK units in MOSNUM) apply to UK overseas territories; that is your personal interpretation, fair enough, but it is not clearly stated anywhere. It's hardly fair to hold someone accountable for breaking a rule that isn't clearly spelled out. Depending on how broad your interpretation of "UK-related" is, you could argue that the entire Commonwealth is "UK-related". But I take your point and I'll leave all UK overseas territory articles alone for now. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon[edit]

Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more! Lirazelf (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)



Information icon 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 Hugh8 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Per Holknekt[edit]

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I have created. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)