User talk:Kitchen Knife/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

October 2020

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Volley gun, 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, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article 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. SpinningSpark 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your re-revert of the article, has put back the change of spelling system. That is, you have changed labeled to labelled. Please either self-revert that or give a reason from policy why this article should not be in American English. Your edit summary claims you did give a rationale, but that seems to be on an unrelated point so I think maybe you did not understand what my first message related to. Please also read WP:BRD which explains how you should behave if you are reverted. SpinningSpark 13:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oscar Gnosspelius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coniston. 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) 06:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Integrated Rail Plan

Hello I was just wondering if you meant to revert my edit to the Integrated Rail Plan article? Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't, not sure how that happened.Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay. No worries NemesisAT (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Merseyrail article - Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I know you have history with this editor, so you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wisdom-inc reported by User:10mmsocket (Result: ) - if only to be sure you get your side of the story across. --10mmsocket (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I Commented. Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

b.t.w. the lock has expired and the article is now open for further improvement. Have at it... 10mmsocket (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

NOticable

It is noticeable that people like head bomb don't take responsibility for the accusations they through around but think others have to agree with them.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu

Why has User:Muboshgu removed my AWB, there was no misuse. The only accusations of misuse come from a user who seems to have developed their own set of rules and is more interested in the format than of a page rather than its utility. I stated exactly what I was going to use AWB for and that is exactly what I have done. There was no misuse.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Because your behavior as detailed at WP:AN/I#User:Kitchen Knife's utter failure to assume good faith and personal attacks following AWB use shows that I made a mistake in granting it to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You either detail now exactly how I misused AWB or reinstate my usage. Unless you can show some variance from what I said I was going to do you should remove yourself from being in a position to issue rights.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This totally sounds like a strategy that's going to get what you want. --JBL (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You assume you know what I want.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean normally when someone demands that an interlocutor take a very specific action it's safe to assume that what they want is for the other party to take that action. But it's true that I didn't fully consider the possibility that what you really want is to be blocked indefinitely. --JBL (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course highlighting their double standard and hypocrisy could never be a motive.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

LOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're in no position to be making any sort of demands. I should have asked you a follow up question or two before granting the right. Clearly that was my error. WP:AWBRULES #2 says Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices and your WP:NPA and lack of WP:CIVILITY is enough to justify revoking the right. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm in every position to make a complaint about you. The edits have now been undone with no good reason, that you dont consider they should have been done with the tool doesn't make the edits invalid or wrong and unless you come up with a better reason than the one you have given they will be reinstated as soon as I'm able. You claimed specifically I misused AWB but you still haven't explained how, now you've changed the excuse but not retracted the original claim. The original complaint now uses this bogus claim as a reason to undo the edits this is just petty vindictive vandalism on your part. If you count the error of my accidental repeating of an edit was sufficient to justify removal as you claimed then the error you have admitted in granting me rights should be sufficient for you to lose your admin rights. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

AWB Rule #3 is clear. Do not make controversial edits. While I don't doubt you made these edits out of good faith, you should have stopped making them once they were contested, per WP:CITEVAR. Ultimately it is your refusal to take responsibility for your edits (rule #1) and repair the damage done (even if you personally disagree that this is damage), that ultimately lead to the removal of your AWB rights. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

They were not controversial, only you disliked 1 of them, that does not make them controversial --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior will most likely result in a longer block. Girth Summit would likely not be happy to see this lack of contrition. I have no intention of responding to you again here. As I've said, your behavior when getting called out for your edits is enough to justify revoking them. Consider being WP:CIVIL and things may go better. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You made claims you refuse to retract them and then you make petty vindictive edits and throw threats around. It is rather difficult to be CIVIL to someone who makes claims and when challenged on them doesn't substantiate them. You would seem to be in breach of WP:BATTLEGROUND with your revenge reverts. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my super "controversial" claims that you edit warred (first edit by you, explanation on how to properly do those edits when linking, reverting to prior state, same edit by you minutes after you were reverted) and were indiscriminately linking en masse (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kitchen_Knife, 33 AWB edit spree on January 30, with another 29 AWB edit spree on January 29). I fail to see what I need to retract here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem with people doing multiple edits that is what AWB is for, if you have a problem with it I suggest you get it closed down. I know it is a little difficult for you to get you head around but the Retract comment was not about you it was to Muboshgu you can tell by the fact that it is below one of their comments, not everything is about you. You clearly don't know what indiscriminate means either. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hi. We have a tradition of allowing blocked users to blow off steam on their talk page after a block. I'm prepared to view the threads above in that light, and to overlook some of the things that you've said - specifically, the accusation of vandalism, which itself is another personal attack, and the indication that you intend to return to those articles and reinstate your edits after they have been disputed as soon as your block expires.

You've been editing here for a long time, and you've made thousands of contributions. Please don't think that I don't recognise that, that I don't respect it, or that I don't want you to continue editing. However, your actions in the last few hours have been very problematic, and I get the impression that you don't understand why. I would be prepared to talk all that through with you, to listen to what you have to say and let you know what I think about it - but that will only work if you would be willing to listen to what I have to say and take it on board. It needs to be a two-sided process, or it would be pointless.

The alternative, obviously, is for you to allow the block to time out. You can do that - I'm not going to extend it at present - but if you do that, and start reinstating disputed edits when the block expires (as you have indicated that you intend to do above), you should expect the next block to be immediate, and indefinite. I want to work with you on this, but some introspection will be needed. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

P.s. - please don't feel the need to respond to this immediately. I'm about to sign off myself, and it might be better to pick this up tomorrow anyway. Cool heads and all that. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I do understand why it was WP:CIVIL but the accusations of misuse of AWB was not part of it and the claim of misuse are not substantiated. The reverts are not justified by a claim that the tool was misused to do them and that is what is being claimed for undoing the work. Undoing the edits for that reason is simply vandalism. One person has raised one objection to the edits and more people have said in the discussion that the edits are valid than have supported his undoing. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You have repeated the accusation of vandalism - that is another personal attack. Look, I don't want to jump down your throat here, but this has to stop. Please don't respond tonight - think about it, and put something together that shows that you've considered other people's viewpoints.

FWIW, I do see the claim of misuse as being substantiated: you used AWB to engage in a (very small, espresso cup-sized) edit war. You turned that minor slip into a bigger problem by insulting the person who called you out on it. But as I said - we can talk about this, if you're willing. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Stirone, Shannon to Stirone, Shannon is not a substantial change to the reference, it does not change the reference style, reverting the edits because of how they were done not the edit itself is petit. I'm not sure what other word can be used. It is a gross misrepresentation to say that it is, literally, all that has changed visually is the colour of the text. The claims that it "Shannon Stirone , don't mess up with citation styles" & "now revert to previous style, where none of the authors are linked, all of which are insanely more relevant to the topic more than Stirone" are hyperbole at best. I'm not sure what other word than the one I used fit as to how bizarre these claims are. That none of the other authors are linked is a total irrelevance and seems to put the editor's aesthetic sense. Perhaps we shouldn't put any internal links anywhere until every possible page has been created so that every word, phrase or name that needs linking can be linked. As for "if it was a good thing there would be a tool for it", there is it is called AWB. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the expectations of consistency for featured articles? That's a serious question, not a rhetorical one. If you've thought about it, and have some points to make, I'll consider them.

When I've had articles at FAC, I've had to spend time checking that the refs are all formatted similarly - to the extent that I'm using the same type of ISBN number format throughout the citations. Having some authors linked, and some unlinked, would probably be a jusrification for some reviewers to fail an article at FAC or FAR. Have you considered how people who probably invested tens of hours in getting these articles through that review process would feel about your changes? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How they feel about it is really irrelevant as the goal of Wikipedia is in its utility not the pride of the authors. The purpose of an article isn't to be selected for FEC, and if the people making those choices are taking such things into account then perhaps they shouldn't be. There is no manual of style covering this, no requirement for everything or nothing to be linked. This is not just about the 1 article they have all been reverted.Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of those author templates used a format like last2= first2=. The proper way to add an author link is to use the author2-link= field. Instead, you were making changes that makes the generated metadata less useful by removing the last name/first name fields. When citations in the article use the first and last name fields, your edits should preserve them. See Wikipedia:Citation templates for more info. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It make make the meta data less useful but it improves the accessibility for the user, it was not a retrograde step. It may be capable of further improvement but that is all, further improvements you could have made but decided not to.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I brought up how people feel because it does have a bearing on how people act. You were annoyed with Headbomb because they accused you of edit warring (which you were guilty of, albeit in a very minor way), and indiscriminate linking. The way you felt about the way they spoke to you led to you making an unacceptable personal attack, and to you refusing to retract it - which is what led us to this current situation.

You didn't actually answer the question about whether you considered the internal consistency of the articles you edited.WP:CITEVAR tells us that we shouldn't change citation style within an article which is already internally consistent. I haven't checked to see whether those articles were internally consistent, but that would be a matter that could be ironed out at the talk pages of each of the articles. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change the citation style, I changed the way in which the style is set up. I interpret Style to mean how it appears in the final page and once I had changed it to Last, First then it was visually the same as the others with the exception of the highlighted link, this is not a change in style. The page you pointed at says "To be avoided, When an article is already consistent, avoid switching between major citation styles or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's – except when moving away from deprecated styles, such as parenthetical referencing;" it further goes on to refer to citation templates and they are what I primarily consider to style. In any event, this was not a change between citation styles.

What this is indicative of is the continued erosion of Wikipedia intent to be an encyclopedia and the increase in the domination of pedants who do not care about utility or function. Their behaviour is pathological and detrimental and inevitably lead to the paralysis of editing of an increasing number of articles, as their need for order is given priority over functionality and utility. It is a sign of dumbing down when people ignore the fundamental nature of a thing and instead concentrate on some easily measured facet. Taking this overly literal interpretation of consistency as something of value and a measure of quality os a prime example of an inappropriate metric.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of the guidance - which you're entitled to. Other people may see things differently - they are entitled to do that too. That's what talk pages are for, people airing their disagreements and coming to a solution, and hopefully moving forward on the basis of consensus, or at least compromise.

Now, here's another question: why did you respond to Headbomb with a direct insult? If you didn't like his tone, why not say 'I don't appreciate your tone,' while at the same time asking him to expand on what he thought was wrong with your edits? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought his language was hyperbolic and rude and I can't be bothered wasting words dressing something up, so I used the fewest words I could think of to convey my opinion, nothing about his attitude since has led me to think any better of him. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

For context, this was the language. There is nothing hyperbolic or rude in there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

And in the real world the language is, I leave it up to the reader to judge why the author of it chose to omit it. " now revert to previous style, where none of the authors are linked, all of which are insanely more relevant to the topic more than Stirone undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted"--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look rude or hyperbolic to me - it's direct, perhaps even confrontational, but you're surely capable of addressing people without calling them names? You've been editing for over 14 years, so I am assuming you're an adult. If you don't like someone's tone, you're free to tell them that, but you're not free to insult them.

I'm not sure that this discussion is going anywhere. I'd hoped I might have been able to persuade you to look at this from other people's perspective, and perhaps see why someone might reasonably disagree with those edits. If that's not working, I'm sorry I've wasted your time. You know what will happen if you make further personal attacks, or reinstate your changes without gaining consensus once this short block has expired. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You are obviously didn't look when I quoted his summary "insanely" is definitely hyperbole. Which disputed edits do I need to get permission for, the ones reverted because someone didn't like the tool I used. That is not a valid reason for reverting, are you saying I uniquely have to now discuss all my edits before I do them. You failed to address my point of view or accept that the allegation regarding the edits I made are nonsense calling the results if people revert they have to have a good reason, that they want to keep control of a page that they feel ownership of is not on not a good reason it is also a violation of WP:OWN. Their respective is in contravention of a lot of Wikipedia principles, which you seem happy to ignore, you seem insistent that I should see things from others POV but you don't seem to believe others should see it from mine. I think I do see it from their POV and that POV is a very regressive one and against the basic tenets of Wikipedia and Wikis in general.

As for your little crack at "I am assuming you're an adult." so much for your civility line. You think you can bully people into agreeing with your POV, that you've failed can't be a shortcoming in you or your argument, so you claim it is mine. One of the logical conclusions of your and their arguments is that AWB should be suspended as its entire raison d'etre is to do bulk edits.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You may not use WP:AWB to get around WP:CITEVAR. That, and the edit warring, is why your access got removed, and your edits reverted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

My edits didn't violate CiteVar they violated your bizarre perverse interpretation of it. The template which defines the style was the same both before and after, you might not like it , so stop being talking nonsense and stop violating WP:OWN.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

CITEVAR covers a lot more than just template vs non template. It covers linked vs unlinked, |author= vs |last=/|first=, |author=James D. Smith vs |author=J. D. Smith vs |author=JD Smith vs |author=Smith, JD vs |author=Smith, J.D. vs |author=Smith, J. D. and all the sorts of variation you can find in citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't. In the relevant "Variation in citation methods" section it doesn't it quite clearly states what should be avoided and that is "When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles" --Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

|author= vs |last=/|first=, |author=James D. Smith vs |author=J. D. Smith vs |author=JD Smith vs |author=Smith, JD vs |author=Smith, J.D. vs |author=Smith, J. D. is exactly that. A variation in the style/method in which you cite the author(s). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't, not in any way shape or form and there is nothing in the document to support your claim, which is why you haven't produced the relevant text. In fact "Generally considered helpful The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information," The missing information here being that there is an article about the author which while give greater insight into the significance and vality of the information from them. It puts major changing of styles on a par with "replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's" --Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't believe me? Then I invite you to ask at WT:CITEVAR to see if it's OK to indiscriminately change |last=Stirone |first=Shannon to |author=Shannon Stirone across all articles, and see what the response is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't an indiscriminate change no matter how much you call it that, you just don't like people changing a page you feel you own. I notice you haven't pointed yet to the part of the document that backs up your opinion. I have no need to ask anyone, I've cited the relevant text, you haven't produced an answer and randomly throw in indiscriminate around. You have no valid opinion on the matter. no argument to put forward, no ambiguity in the text. What is indiscriminate is the reverting of the edit on spurious grounds because you don't like people changing articles you think of as yours and think you should have a veto over. Your reasoning changes every time your current argument is shown false and then you circle back. Wikipedia is her to serve a social function as an encyclopedia it isn't here for you or any other editors benefit. If you think you have an argument you make it WT:CITEVAR because currently you are clutching at straws. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Now resorted to snide comments along with User:JayBeeEll I see. After challenging me to start a discussion which I can't because I'm blocked, you opt not to do it yourself. How typical, your some with no inkling of what the word major means. It is typical of what Wikipedia has become that despite providing no evidence no quotes from the actual rules & regulations, you claim to be right and seek to create a veto by constant baseless objections. Sad, very sad. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidently I'm asking you to open that discussion once your block has expired. This shouldn't need to be explained to you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I do intend to start a discussion based around a complaint about you. I've asked you to produce the text you are rallying on and you haven't. I dont think there is any point in limiting the discussion to just CITE.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see much point for anyone opening a discussion while you are blocked, if anything it could just make the situation worse. Since so far your the only one who expressed the view, if you're not there the discussion may be pointless and just come to a simple conclusion. Worse though is since you can't explain your point of view, either people will waste time discussing something without your point of view which will convince them; or when you do explain your point of view it won't change people's mind but you may feel they made up their minds by a discussion held largely without you. Better the discussion waits for when you're not blocked, whoever starts it so you can fully participate. Note that any complaint about user behaviour would generally belong in one of the ANIs, whereas discussion about intepretation of our policies and guidelines elsewhere like the guideline/policy talk page. Trying to cross discussions over user behaviour with discussions about other stuff is rarely productive. Remembering also that someone can be wrong about how to intepret our policies and guidelines, but provided they acted reasonably e.g. engaged in civil discussion and accepted it when the community was against them, this is generally not a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

While I understand the point you are making I don't want to be having basically the same discussion in multiple places, using the same examples and as a large part of it is not actually about the rules as written but about the use they are put to and generally inconsistent interpretation as high lighted in this case, I'm struggling to find a single find a better place.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm bullying you - that has not been my intention.

You don't need permission to make changes, you need consensus; the expectation that you discuss changes once you know they have been contested is not being applied uniquely to you. All editors are expected to engage in discussion once they know that someone disagrees with the edit they want to make (for example, by reverting those changes). Once an edit has been reverted, the onus is on the person who wants to make it to gain consensus.

I don't know what you think my POV is in this situation. I've been trying to explain to you that reasonable people can differ, and that when they do, civil discussion is expected. I haven't been arguing that the other people are right and that you are wrong; I've been telling you that you can't insult them, and are expected to discuss things when you're reverted - that's all.

I'm not sure there's anything more I can usefully say to you at this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You can explain why you think it is legitimate for someone to revert an edit because they don't like the tool that was used to make the edit, without actually objecting to the edit itself. My POV is that the rules being sited to justify the reverts do not in fact justify the reverts. Using reverts is being used in this case to stymie legitimate changes because some editors feel they have a veto any change, you yourself.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You suppose that my objection to your edits was because of the tools used. I'd have objected regardless of what tool you used. The reason why you lost the tool is because you misused it to make mass changes without consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No I didn't say that about you, yours are a whole other bunch of irrationality, other people did the bulk reverts. I also don't need consensus to make an edit, which is enshrined in Wikipedia:Be bold, you seriously need to read the rules and stop thinking you opinions are the rules. Is it perhaps as a none native English speaker you don't quite understand them as well as you think?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT, it's your intepretation of the rules in most areas of your recent dispute, like WP:NPA, WP:Edit war (including the requirement to discuss your changes when there is dispute), and your responsibility when using tools that is disagreement with pretty much all Wikipeans who have looked into the dispute, whatever their level of English. Nil Einne (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You have a list of all those who have looked? In the original discussion in another place, more people backed my edits than opposed them but don't let that stop you linking to different things, as I quite clearly have not disputed the interpretation of the rules you cite as you could tell if you looked back at the discussion your commenting on. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm responding because you have asked me to explain something; however, I perceive your request as a flawed rhetorical device. You are starting with the premise that someone else did such and such, and asking me why I think it's legitimate. What I have been trying to do throughout this whole discussion is to get you to see that other people have a different perspective from you, and might see things in a different way. You are expected, nay required, to discuss such disagreements in a civil manner. You are welcome to your view that your edits were improvements; you are welcome to argue in favour of reinstating them; you are welcome to challenge people on the tone they take in comments that are addressed to you, or to third parties; you are not permitted to insult people who disagree with you, or whose tone you don't like; you are not permitted to reinstate contested changes once you are aware that they have been contested. I hope that is clear. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not a flawed rhetorical device. It isn't that clear when the revert summary is "Rolling back AWB misuse edits" that the actual change is contested only the mechanism by which they were done. So if I now manually readd them I will have addressed the concern raised. This covers the majority of the reverts of the edits. There may be an argument for using a different mechanism within the ref but the final page would look identical to what I produced.

In the other case despite being asked to indicate which part of the rules have been broken by the edits the person who doesn't want them has failed to produce anything. I have no doubt that if I revert their revert they will complain and I will be blocked, however, it is difficult to see how you can reach a consensus with someone who doesn't want an edit which the rules they cite would encourage the edit, they are simply contesting the edit to stop it. I have no intention of reinstating that one despite the fact that WP:CITE states "Generally considered helpful The following are standard practice: improving existing citations by adding missing information," which is what I have done. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There are various ways that two editors who disagree about how to interpret the guidelines can work towards consensus. Headbomb has already suggested posting at the talk page of the relevant guideline, asking for third-party input. You could also explore dispute resolution channels, such as asking for a third opinion. The approach I'd recommend, however, is looking for a compromise position. If it was me, I'd probably say something like "Hi, sorry about the earlier broohaha, I was angry about how you spoke to me, and acted poorly as a result. I hope there's no hard feelings, and I'd like to move on. I really feel that author links are useful for the reader, so I'm planning to go through and add links to all the authors in the reflists on these articles, one at a time, thereby maintaining consistency while enhancing utility for the reader. Of course I'll use the authorlink field, rather than just inserting a link into a name field, thanks for drawing my attention to that. Would you be cool with that?" I think that such an approach would very likely be acceptable to all parties, and would put an end to needless unpleasantness. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I cant start the debate anywhere I blocked. I do plan to start a debate but not there as I think it is broader than CITE and attempts to get answers on that here have failed. It is also a concern that as you point out FE seem to be being refused on what seem to be rather strange interpretations of the rules and this amounts to having a separate set of rules for FE than the rest of WikiPEdia.. Then there is also the bulk reverts for a very unclear version. I intend to bring them all together which is part of the reason I'm looking for guidance specifically about the reverts that do not cite the nature of the edit as the problem.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You can take whatever actions you think necessary when the block expires, naturally, provided that you remain civil. If you were to express your understanding that your actions were inappropriate, and undertake not to repeat them, you could have been unblocked already. I'd still council you to seek to understand other people's perspectives and try to find compromise as the better way forward for all concerned.

I think that Headbomb's comments on this talk page provide the rationale you are looking for regarding the reverts you ask about. You can explore that rationale in a future discussion, if you so choose. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The rationals provided don't stand up to scrutiny. I don't dispute I broke the rules, I chose not to apologise for them because I'm not going to fake contrition.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Capture Stirrone ref example.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Capture Stirrone ref example.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick reminder

Focus on the content, not the contributor.

It is safer, for instance, to say something like "I cannot follow the logic in that comment" or "the argument in the above post does not seem rational" than to direct the same comment toward the user.[1] It's mild, but it does fall within the broad category of personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hope not Hate

Why did you remove my edit where I stated Tommy Robinson has just released a documentary on HnH? Regardless of whether you like Robinson it's a known fact that he has just released this documentary and it did make these allegations. Surely factual information shouldn't be partisan? Sandy crowley (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

What Robinson does is irrelevant he is not a reliable source so mentioning his claims is not encyclopaedic You also didn't reference your information. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megaroc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Tory politicians

Hi, please don't add exceptional like ties to American right-wing groups without stronger sourcing and preferably multiple sources. I've removed your addition to Liz Truss for now and intend to do the same on the others but please feel free to restore it if you can provide more and better sources, or if a consensus develops on the talk page that the Byline Times is adequate sourcing for the claims. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)