User talk:Bonewah

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

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

3RR[edit]

For your information: while you should be careful with consecutive reverts and edit warring, you are not currently over WP:3RR in the article you've recently been editing and warned about, since the warning stated that you did more than 3 reverts "in a couple of days", but the 3RR rule is specifically about more than 3 reverts in the span of 24 hours (although WP:GAMING should obviously not happen). You were also previously warned about being "way over 3RR", but the same applied: you had been editing over the span of several days. The user who has been warning you made a similar number of reverts. I'm telling you this just in case you are unfamiliar with policy. If someone does exceed 3RR, they can be reported at WP:ANEW after warning them. LjL (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Your editing at Laffer curve is problematical. Please take a look at WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD, which is a strategy and not policy. 7&6=thirteen () 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen I thought I had been clear that I wasn't endorsing edit warring with the "while you should be careful with consecutive reverts and edit warring", but apparently I wasn't clear enough, since there was a further revert by Bonewah. Nevertheless, the other user proceeded to revert again and to accuse Bonewah of 3RR breach again, even though Bonewah is still not technically over 3RR, while the other user now is. Therefore I have reported the other user because I don't like to put up with that sort of unjustified arrogance. LjL (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I warned the other editor again. 7&6=thirteen () 14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
For my part, i handled that situation poorly. I should have listened to LJL and walked away for a bit. The problem im having here is that there seems to be a consensus for the edit I was re-adding, but Lipsquid keeps reverting it and accusing others of edit warring. If you look at the bottom of the economists poll section you will see that at least 3 other editors agree that this material should be left out, and that is on top of an RfC that i opened in an attempt to resolve this issue which was closed in favor of remove. The edit in question was itself the result of a compromise from supply side economics talk which lipsquid himself agreed to, see my comment here. Clearly edit warring is not the way to resolve this issue, but good faith discussion doesnt seem to be working either. If you have any advice on how to proceed, that would be greatly appreciated. Bonewah (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I would honestly not say there is consensus one way or the other at the moment. What does irk me are the continuous claims from Lipsquid that there is consensus for inclusion when that is clearly not the case. But that doesn't necessarily mean there is consensus against inclusion, either. The latest quote he's been adding just sounds silly within the article. But I had recently stepped away from the whole thing, because last time I had reverted Lipsquid, that resulted in him reverting several of my edits on completely unrelated articles. It felt like a way to intimidate me; I reported him on WP:ANI, but that just put me in a bad light because other people I had had bad experiences with ganged up against me, and nobody would speak up for me. Sometimes things just happen that way, and I don't have great advice aside from "wait and think before doing". Now I'm speaking up about the whole thing again at the edit warring report page, since there is some actual administrator attention. It might be a better time to bring up these issues. LjL (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think my principal problem is that the edit war looked sort of WP:LAME - the presence or absence of the Thaler quotation (that was being fought over) doesn't really contribute to much to the understanding of the topic, certainly less than this. Anyway, there is clear remorse shown and I am happy to believe you won't be continuing the edit war, so I'm happy to unblock. We'll see how Lipsquid reacts to their own block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: far from me to try to taint an admin with content! but for a bit of context, yes, the huge war about the presence or absence of that small quote is silly, yet the quote is part of a more long-winded attempt to keep an entire paragraph. This paragraph is basically about a survey to some economists about whether the Laffer curve scenario applies to the (then-)current US situation, but it doesn't really cover whether the Laffer curve in itself is correct or incorrect as a general theory. By quoting one of economists responding "that's a Laffer!" at the survey question, the proponents are furthering an attempt to use the survey to undermine the validity of the Laffer curve in general - and doing so in the lead of the article as well as in other related articles. The survey is sourced, but it's being used to show something else, and in an WP:UNDUE (WP:LEAD, WP:CRITICISM) way. This is all just to say... the quote is short and the reader may not even notice it, but accepting it there will inevitably mean accepting more. LjL (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
My problem with all this is that every attempt ive made at a good faith resolution has been thrown back in my face. Again, the edit i was pushing was itself the result of a compromise that Lipsquid himself agreed to, only to change it later without explanation. When i asked what the reason was for the change he ignored me. Im totally ok with editors changing their minds, but i think that a)if you do, you should explain your reasoning in such a way that the other editors involved can meaningfully respond, and b) you should off on editing the article until you have at least tried to reach a new consensus. Neither of those things happened and that, to me, is very frustrating. Bonewah (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

February 2016[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Laffer curve. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock|{{strikethrough|I will abide by the terms of the block, but would like to respond to user LJL on his talk page.}} per below, ill respond here.}}

I'm not an admin, but I'm afraid that's not a valid unblock request. But you can reply to me just fine here... I have your talk page in my watchlist. I actually much prefer to keep conversations on one page instead of jumping back and forth between two user pages. LjL (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

Incident report - Fired US Attorneys[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I stress that I respect your good intentions, but find that I object to your extensive revisions, while not wanting to reargue the points again. The incident report is entirely premature to be sure; I hope for advice on how to deal with the general problem of political articles. Best regards, Bdushaw (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Shipwecks[edit]

Trophy.png Shipwrecks
I'm glad you like shipwrecks. I love Titanic and mostly World War II battleships like the Bismarck. Dallas G. Spencer (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Bonewah. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment[edit]

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.


A1 Houston Office Oil Traders on Monday.jpg

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!


Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Bonewah. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - theWOLFchild 13:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 13:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously...?

I just added a notice requesting you add edit summaries to your edits, right after you made a whole slew of unexplained changes to a couple of naval ships on my watchlist, and your very next edit has no summary. Please add a summary to all your edits, it is expected of all users here as a community norm and it makes life a little easier for your fellow editors. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 13:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure ok, i didnt carefully read your canned message on my talk. I cant guarantee that i always will, especially when the edits are smaller than the summary. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A few things here: 1, edit summaries are nice, but they aren't required. 2, TWC, you're not the Wikipedia police, you don't get to make hostile and condescending demands on others. 3, WP:DTTR - Bonewah has been here for a decade. 4, It would be more convincing if most of your most recent edits lacked an edit summary. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow... I've seen people carry grudges, but you wear it like a second skin. Get over it already. Anyway, your point about tenure here is moot. The longer someone is here, the more they should know about such things. Even then, all I did was use the standard ES template. (WP:DTTR is nice, but it is not required). And, if you really think that is "hostile and condescending", then you should take that up on the template talk page (maybe get it changed to something that doesn't upset you so much). Unless you're referring to my second post, where I used "please" and "thank you"...?
By the way... the edits of mine you're referring to are all minor edits, that are marked as "minor" (that's what the "m" is for, it stands for "minor"). Now, are we done here? I don't really see the point the of your reply, but how about moving on to more constructive things? Have a nice day - theWOLFchild 17:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with a perceived grudge, and everything to do with your general hostility to other editors. I was referring to your bolded text and the implication of your second post that, because you told Bonewah to do something, he is obligated to do it. Do you know that, despite the fact that we can't hear your voice over text, your tone comes through, loud and clear? That is what is hostile and condescending.
Funnily enough, I don't see anything at Help:Edit summary that says minor edits are exempt from summaries. Idiosyncratic readings of something that isn't even a policy are fine and all, up until you decide to try to force others to adhere to them. As for moving onto constructive things, you might have considered that advice before you posted your first message here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TL;DR... but I do hope your day gets better. Ciao! - theWOLFchild 19:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Updates[edit]

Hi, I see you've been updating the infoboxes for several US Navy ships, which is both great and appreciated, but with this edit, I had a couple questions; the "ship compliment" originally stated: "73 officers, 1009 enlisted", which you changed to simply say: "1208". There is a difference of +126, is that based on a source? (again, this is the kind of thing where edit summaries are helpful) Also, why switch to a combined number, instead of listing numbers for "officers" and "enlisted" separately? Was this decided somewhere by consensus, or is it part of a guideline? I only ask because I would think that most readers would find the previous, non-combined way more informative. If you could enlighten me on those two items, it would be appreciated. Thanks - theWOLFchild 23:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, I honestly didnt check either one, i was just making the infoboxes consistent. Ill see what the sources say and update them all. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Added a note on the wasp class talk page. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep saw that. You only mentioned the troop numbers, not the ship's compliment. (the "1208"). I corrected using the source you supplied (66 officers, 1,004 enlisted for Wasp class). - theWOLFchild 14:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans[edit]

Thanks for your efforts there. You are doing a good job. JohnInDC (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)