User talk:JmsDoug

Protip

If you create a page or template with the wrong title by mistake (e.g. typo) and then move the page to fix the name, you can get rid of the redirects that have been created by the move, by tagging them with {{Db-g7}} or {{Db-author}}. See WP:CSD#G7. I've already done a favour for you and tagged those typo redirects to the GPU infobox documentation with a different CSD tag, R3 which is for redirects from implausible typos or misnomers.

Hope you find this useful.

Regards, AP 499D25 (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

AM5 chipsets table

Hi JmsDoug, I see that you have objected to my edit on the AM5 chipsets template. However, I would like you to read through and maybe respond to the latest comment that I have left on the template talk page, link here. It explains in detail why I made the change and why I believe the fully expanded form of USB support info is inferior. —  AP 499D25  (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oulu (parliamentary electoral district), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Janne Heikkinen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Retirement

Listen to this carefully, mate.

It's perfectly fine for a disagreement to arise between you and another editor, regarding an edit. Pretty much any active editor on Wikipedia is guaranteed to run into content disputes every now and then.

When you see another editor oppose your edits, the important next step to take is to find out why they disagree with your edit, and reach some sort of conclusion with them. Start a discussion on the article talk page explaining why you disagree with their edit, and bring the other editor in to discuss.

Make sure to focus the discussion as solely on the content as possible, i.e. never call the other editors any names. If you make personal attacks, harassment, etc, it kind of "derails" the discussion and can turn it into an unproductive one (at the very least, the other editors will be less willing to talk to you).

Sometimes, you may have to end up making a compromise with the other party or parties when they have their strong points, especially points that go in line with policies or guidelines.

You could have a very strong opinion about how a table on an article could look, but if only two people strongly agree with that style, and 20 others moderately disagree, then the consensus is going to be in favour of that other style supported by those 20 editors, no matter how you put it or twist it.

If the dispute is only between two editors with strong polarising opinions of each other, and the discussion on the talk page leads nowhere, request mediation or third opinion.

If there's not enough feedback (nor not enough editors participating in discussion) to draw an effective conclusion, then you can do a requests for comment (RfC).

Once again, it's all on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page.

If any of this constructive criticism, legitimate feedback, and heck, even the several helpful words of advice I have sent you via email really means "bullying" to you, then I don't know what to say, except you probably don't belong in a collaborative project at all... Especially if you don't like any of your contributions to be criticised upon. You can't just go and make Wikipedia your very own, with your own preferred table styles, article layouts, etc, without some of it getting potentially revised / opposed upon. This is an open project where anyone can contribute, and so disputes can occur as part of the nature of that. Heck, I'm willing to let my table styles go if I see strong opposition (more opposing points than supporting points) against it. Editors are expected to work on and agree upon some sort of 'compromise' solution when a disagreement arises.

How about this: if you want a place where you can make articles your very own, with your own design, font style, colours, everything, and never be disagreed upon, why not create your own wiki or website?

Hope this helps and makes things clear to you.

— AP 499D25 (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this appears to be another sockpuppet from an account that was banned 3 times or so apparently. Autism is one thing, but it's no excuse for edit-warring. Azul120 (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Azul120 I am already aware, and quite confident that this is yet another sockpuppet of that user who had been blocked several times as other accounts before.

I was just giving them one last chance to edit collaboratively with other editors before potentially proceeding to administrative action, I also made them aware via email that they can get unblocked on their original account through the standard offer if they wish to get back to editing legitimately again. But it seems they chose to "retire" instead, oh well. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I just found it frustrating that they tried fishing for sympathy after being so difficult for so long. Azul120 (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)