User talk:Archon 2488

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


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:
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]


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.


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)

Comment moved[edit]

FYI, I moved a comment of yours from the section about closing the AU/au discussion to the AU/au discussion itself, since the comment was almost entirely about the substance. If you disagree, of course please undo my edit. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't make a huge difference either way. I'll just add a briefer comment to the lower section. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Units of measurements[edit]

You have already been notified about Arbcom discretionary sanctions concerning UK units of measurement. So stop edit-warring over whether miles of French kilometres should be mentioned first in the article on Dnepropetrovsk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you really being serious? Unless my geography is very very wrong, Dnipropetrovsk is not in the UK, so the GS/UKU are simply irrelevant. You have not presented a good reason why an article on Ukraine should not use the units of measurement in use in Ukraine, nor have you explained why the WP:MOSNUM section on UK units is relevant to Ukraine. Miles-first should not typically be used except for articles relating to the USA or UK, because the unit is not really used outside those two countries. You are also edit-warring, and you are defending a MOS-disfavoured style. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Serious accusations require serious evidence[edit]

Hi Archon, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are one of the types of comments listed in WP:NPA as being "never acceptable". It also says: "Serious accusations require serious evidence."

You did not supply any evidence to support your accusation here, specifically this comment: "You've repeatedly pushed your minority opinion that the UK units section should be like the US units section, and it has repeatedly failed to gain consensus." That comment is untrue in every way. My request to you to supply the necessary evidence to substantiate that accusation was treated by you with contempt, specifically with this comment: "I am not under any obligation to allow you to waste my time trawling through your edit history to find enough evidence to satisfy whatever standard you have concocted."

Well as we see from one of the Wikipedia conduct policies, WP:NPA, you are obliged to find the evidence to support your allegation, and I have come here to invite you to produce that evidence. Bear in mind that "repeatedly" implies more than once, and probably more than twice, so we will need probably at least 3 different diffs to get anywhere close to enough evidence. If you cannot find the evidence (because I know there is none) you might like to apologise instead. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Archon 2488, this is too serious to ignore - violations of WP:NPA are serious, and may lead to a block for disruption. I suggest a prompt apology. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
A more prudent person might know when to drop the stick. Your passive-aggressive tactics and your hectoring tone will make you very few friends here. I have no idea what you expect to achieve, beyond irritating me, by trying to start yet another argument on a third talk page. If you actually want to get anybody else to listen to you, posting baiting comments and trying to get a reaction out of them is not the way to go.
FTR what I was referring to, which is obvious to anyone who examines your edit history, is that you have consistently advocated the imperial-first unit style in UK articles (not too long ago you were hauled off to ANI because of this), and you have suggested (somewhat absurdly in my opinion) that UK unit use is going back towards imperial. My point was not that you are not allowed to hold this opinion (it isn't an "accusation" to say that someone is advocating a particular POV), but it is a minority opinion about a contentious topic, and bringing it up is potentially disruptive. It was also irrelevant in the context in which it was mentioned, since I was very clear in establishing that the talk page section in question was not intended to be about UK units. You tried to discuss UK units, then denied that you were doing it. I assume that you understood discussing UK units in that context to be an effective derailing tactic. I accept that I got more involved in discussing UK units than I ought to, so I preemptively shut down the thread before it could head to a really dark place. Now you've expanded that tedious (and irrelevant) discussion again, after I collapsed it, and you are trying to continue the other collapsed discussion thread onto my personal talk page. At no point in this entire smoke-and-mirrors performance have you answered the original questions relating to unit use in Ukraine and what the MOSNUM standard for unit use requires.
I am certain that you will not accept my interpretation of your conduct or opinions, because I have never yet seen you accept an argument which was not favourable to your apparent objective; instead you have demanded more and more evidence for opinions you disagree with, to meet your own personal standard (now I need three pieces of evidence, whereas a few days ago it was two – apparently, however you define evidence, it has a high interest rate!). The only possible outcome of that is the wasting of my and other editors' time. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Archon - have you considered that the way you describe Speccy4Eyes is a good description of yourself?-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that your comment has as much substance as a playground taunt of "I know you are, but what am I", I'll ignore it. This conversation is not heading anywhere constructive and I suggest abandoning it now. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Archon 2488, forget the weaselly excuses, further personal attacks and the belligerent, yet irrelevant, arguments - just apologise for the serious and unsubstantiated accusation you made, and then we can move on with the air cleared. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry that I used phrasing like "repeatedly" and "pushed"; I said that only because I was frustrated when I wrote the comment and it was not measured, rational language. It was not neutrally phrased, and it did not suggest an adequate assumption of good faith on your part. I recognise, in retrospect, that it was unlikely to be a helpful comment, especially in the context of a MOS discussion on a topic which can cause an atmosphere of hostility. I hope we can now defuse that hostility. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that, I'm sure we can respect each other, even if we disagree on certain points now. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edits[edit]

I have to go offline now but I noticed that some of your edits are being reverted by User:TWaMoE. Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Your recent edits[edit]

Dear Mr 2488,

Hey, thanks for the message. I am surprised you had to rely on another editor to tell you about my edits. I imagined that editors who were interested in the content of articles they had contributed to would monitor changes themselves. The lack of revert flags on my edits isn't notable, it is because my edits were not reverts. In most cases I simply modified your edits to match your edit summaries. I would suggest that to avoid the charge of disruption in this area, you should give accurate edits summaries. For example "Adding convert template to give precedence to the metric measure" or "Adding 'order=flip' to to give precedence to the metric measure". Your typical summaries such as "adjust unit presentation style", "add convert template", "adjust convert template" or similar do not wash. In contrast to your own, I think you will agree that most of my edits have accurate edit summaries. It is for those reasons that I decline your request to revert my edits. Additionally, I would suggest that if you revert any of my edits, you give a robust and accurate edit summary to cover all your changes.

Best, TWaMoE (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The standard isn't whether your edits have accurate summaries, it's whether they are compliant with the manual of style. That is what I disputed. The edit summary is second to the content of the edit.
Stating that unit presentation has been adjusted (always, implicitly, in accordance with the MoS) is not a problem, I think. Nor is it a problem to state that a convert template has been added. I am sorry that you don't approve of the way that I write edit summaries, but this is not an adequate reason for any article to deviate from the MoS.
I am not asking you to revert everything, merely to restore all the articles you have edited to the format which is clearly prescribed in MOSNUM. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


If you don't explain in your edit summary exactly what you've changed and why, you cannot complain when another editor removes the unexplained change. Additionally, you're interpretation of the standard might vary from that of others, so it's doubly important that you make clear your reasons to help others decide if it is a valid reason.

Best, TWaMoE (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate style is spelled out in the MoS, which is why the MoS exists. It's a simple standard and it doesn't need detailed interpretation. I don't need to give a reasoned argument every time I adjust an article to comply better with the MoS. Your reasoning is no justification for repeated mass-scale reversions of another editor's edits. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "it seems you're not willing to listen"

On the contrary, I listened, digested, stifled a laugh and profoundly disagreed with your pleadings. It isn't me who is likely to become disruptive, it appears it is yourself. I explained my edits (as if I needed to). If you expalin yours in your summaries, and if the reasons are convincing, you are less likely to have your edits modified.

Best, TWaMoE (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "The appropriate style is spelled out in the MoS"

It may well be. In which case, put that in your edit summary to allows other to check you interpretation. You do need to give a sufficiently detailed summary, to avoid misunderstandings and agravation, especially if you know, as you said, that the edits you are making may lead to disruption! And as you pointed out elsewhere, I have not reverted your edits, just fine-tuned them to match your edit summaries.

Best, TWaMoE (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to join your campaign[edit]

Now I understand the ground rules, I would like to join your metrication mission. Can you let me know the search engine and search phrase you use to efficiently find large number of articles that need flipping to metric please.

Best, TWaMoE (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I adjust articles' unit presentation styles as and when I find an inappropriate style in a given article. It's dependent on context, and what the Manual of Style says. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The sheer number of metrications that you get through each day indicates that you have a sophisticated strategy for finding them. Can you let me know how you do it please, so I can help. B, TWaMoE (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have already been extremely rude to me, and have stalked me, I do not think I need to let you help with anything. You created quite a mess for me to clear up. I would encourage you to ensure that articles comply with the manual of style, and that is all. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to be so touchy, I was offering to help you! I may have been confused by your previous edits, but that was down to your lack of clear edit summaries, and nothing else. You created that rod for your own back. And to be honest, even your recent edit summaries don't really make it clear that by "MOSNUM-preferred unit presentation style" or " instate MOSNUM unit precedence" you mean give metric units precedence over imperial units. Try making that clearer please, to help others who may be confused as I was. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, so let's bury the hatchet eh? All I'm asking is for an idea of how best to find the non-metric-compliant articles, without having to read through them all one by one. B, TWaMoE (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not accept that it is my fault if someone else harasses me. Edit summaries are no excuse for such behaviour.
The fact that you were grossly offensive to me just above, and have not apologised, might offer a clue as to why I am not willing to "bury the hatchet". You expect me to ignore how rude and subversive you have been without your making any real gesture of good faith or contrition; moreover, you have patronised me and blamed me for inviting your own bad behaviour.
It is entirely clear what the MOSNUM-preferred unit presentation style is. That would be the unit-presentation style described by MOSNUM. That does not entail, in every case, the metric-first unit presentation style (and it includes more than just "metric goes before imperial"), so you are wrong to equivocate them.
In light of our unfortunate introduction to one another, I think it would be best for everyone if we concede that we do not get along, and we simply agree to leave each other alone. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Hearty congratulations for succeeding in your efforts to revise MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

kWh and metrication[edit]

I have started a talk about kWh and metrication. --Robertiki (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rigside, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LPG (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) 09:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disregard the warning. That previous person was an imposter[edit]

Hi, Early you received a post about being warned and possibly being blocked. That was an imposter who created a similar username, but with only 1 “p” at User:Winterystepe. He's now blocked. im just letting you know that Im the real person and I won't do that. Shoutout to Tassedethe for taking quick action in 6 minutes. Happy Editing Winterysteppe (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Units in tropical cyclone current infoboxes[edit]

Just so you know, we don't use {{convert}} because the primary unit of tropical cyclone winds is the knot, in 5-knot intervals. When other units (km/h or mph) are desired, we convert from knots and then round to the nearest 5. This means that the template {{convert}} will not always produce correct results when applied to either the mph or km/h estimate. For at least a year or two, this has been the established convention; if you want to change it you'll need show that WT:WPTC consensus has changed in favor of it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm extremely confused by this for several reasons. Firstly, the version that you have reverted to does not contain knots at all, primary or as a conversion. Secondly, it does not differ in substance from the output of the convert template. Thirdly, it glosses common units (kilometres and miles) which is deprecated by MOSNUM. There is no justification in MOSNUM for avoiding the convert template because of what the "primary" unit is; if you are arguing that knots need to be primary then per the MOS, 50 kn (95 km/h; 60 mph) would be perfectly adequate, I think. What problem does that pose? Archon 2488 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
What I meant is that official tropical cyclone intensities are given in integer multiples of 5 knots (for example, 185 knots is the peak intensity of Hurricane Patricia which we converted to 215 mph or 345 km/h), even when we do not (in this basin) use them in articles. Therefore we can't use {{convert}} even in that version (because the knot, while the source unit, is not a unit we display to readers, except in the eastern Pacific or Atlantic basins). Again I did not make this decision, and for now we have to respect the wikiproject's consensus on this subject. If you want to dispute it, the wikiproject talk page is the place.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)