User talk:Mitch Ames

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

Fremantle project items[edit]

We cannot put hangon on the whole project - your edits, as always were not wanted. Please leave alone as there is a possible re-arrangement, and if you had asked first what was going on, it would be all that easier to cope with. There may be a complete re-shuffle of things in the short term. Ask first please. No pings. JarrahTree 14:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I would really help to talk through the whole process of how the re-vamped freopedia process might look, rather than slapping on the cat changes as if they are set in stone - they are not, and they are something that needs to be worked through, with discussion JarrahTree 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia#Wikipedia:WikiTown/Freopedia/Articles/Round 1 articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mitch Ames. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
==your edits==

your deliberate trolling at station articles last night, and your continued edits are close to WP:WIKIHOUNDING - please note that your editing goes close to requirements of WP:TOPICBAN - if I make mistakes I would like somebody other than you, follow almost every edit I make, it has got to the point where I Informally ask you to edit elsewhere, regardless of your incapacity to see how your 'tinkering' might prove a problem. thanks JarrahTree 12:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, your continuing to edit when I ask you to give it as break is bad faith - and in effect means you have no idea of how to respond such issues JarrahTree 14:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I ask you to stop and you proceed to edit as such: 22:02, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Perth City Link ‎ (→‎top: Fixing presumed typo: Rose St --> Roe St) (current) [rollback: 1 edit] [rollback] [vandalism] 21:56, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+94)‎ . . Burt Street, Boulder ‎ (separate section to Goldfields Hwy (according to Google Maps)) (current) [rollback: 1 edit] [rollback] [vandalism] 21:50, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . Roe Street, Perth ‎ ("link" --> Perth City Link) (current) [rollback: 5 edits] [rollback] [vandalism] 21:49, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+19)‎ . . Roe Street, Perth ‎ (link "city" --> Perth (suburb)) 21:48, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-133)‎ . . Roe Street, Perth ‎ (Location of other brothels in WA is irrelevant to this article) 21:47, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Roe Street, Perth ‎ (+link) 21:45, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Roe Street, Perth ‎ (fixes for MOS:REFPUNCT) 21:43, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (re-order paragraphs into chronological order) (current) [rollback: 8 edits] [rollback] [vandalism] 21:39, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (remover superfluous hyphen/dash) 21:34, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+79)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (reword because inanimate objects such as railways do not have hopes) 21:23, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (link and write out in full: Super Pit gold mine) 21:21, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (Remove unnecessary italics - these are not word-as-words) 21:19, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . Wilson Bluff, Western and South Australian border ‎ (Remove unnecessary italics - not "words-as-words" here) (current) [rollback: 3 edits] [rollback] [vandalism] 21:14, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (→‎top: +comma) 21:11, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+3)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (Add full stops to ends of sentences.) 21:09, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Boulder railway station ‎ (remove spaces before refs - MOS:REFSPACE) 21:06, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Wilson Bluff, Western and South Australian border ‎ (Remove duplicate"east of Euclar", which is already mentioned in the first sentence. More corresponding ref to that first sentence.) 21:02, 5 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Wilson Bluff, Western and South Australian border ‎ (add full stop)

That is indeed bad faith and fails to understand an informal request. Please stop. JarrahTree 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

... you proceed to edit as such ...
As always, if you disagree with one or more of those edits, please link to the specific edit(s) and let me know exactly why you think that particular edit is wrong - preferably on the article's talk page, for ease of reference by other editors or in future.
... deliberate trolling ... WP:WIKIHOUNDING ... WP:TOPICBAN ...Please stop.
Response by e-mail. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
email read, your re-laying of comments on talk pages, and continually recycling freo west end issue - now to national noticeboard is purely vexatious - your sense of conciliation on your email is completely undone by your on wiki activity. JarrahTree 11:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
In a non-trivial discussion, spanning multiple posts and multiple pages, I sometimes find it useful to be specific about what I am referring to, so that my readers know what I am talking about. It also helps me remember later what I was referring to, especially in contentious discussions where I may later get challenged about what I wrote and/or need to defend my actions/edits. I know that I personally sometimes have trouble working out what an editor is talking about when that editor includes vague references to other edits or posts - especially when the referent edit is not the post immediately previous in the discussion thread - and there have been numerous edits/posts on the subject. (And, as is the case here, the thing that the referent post talks about does not appear to actually exist in any concrete form.) I find the discussions more productive when we are precise in our references to other edits/posts. When I need to refer to an entire post, I can simply link to that post, but sometimes a single post has multiple sentences, multiple thoughts, or multiple thoughts in what the punctuation attempts to delimit as a sentence, and it is important that I refer only to a part of that post; the easiest way to do so is by quoting the relevant part - that way everyone knows exactly what I'm referring to, without ambiguity. It's unfortunate that you find this off-putting, but I'm open to alternative suggestions as to how to unambiguously refer to a specific part of an earlier post whose structure, or lack thereof, does not otherwise lend itself to unique identification of components thereof.
Of course if I have misquoted you, or quoted you misleadingly out of context, or otherwise misrepresented you, let me know and I shall correct that. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I still think the West End article name is important, and the discussion was not getting anywhere. The original discussion has two (myself included) clearly in favour of the change (with minor variation), one clearly against, and several comments that were not clearly either way. I doubt that you would have accepted 2:1 as consensus - and your non-acceptance would have been perfectly reasonable. So I raised a more formal request to help resolve the matter. That is one of the documented purposes for WP:RM, per the 2nd and 3rd bullet points of WP:RM#CM, and the sentence immediately following those bullet points. Per WP:RM#Requesting a single page move, "Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.", which I think we need, given the relatively low number of definite opinions in the original discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(lost lots due to edit conflict, sigh) Well no one ever to seems to turn up these days anyways - it all great to know all the technicals, [1] You have taken time out to explain. Fair enough. I do find over-quoting/repeating information on the wa noticeboard extraordinarily problematic, in that I believe it should be short, concise or otherwise linked to somewhere else - it is not a forum for drawn out sections: -

with those sort of stats - I do think sorting things out about anything on that page is anything but bad form and not needed there - this has nothing to do with rules, laws or words - it is to do with gut feeling it is not the place to be drawn out, tedious or lengthy. If indeed there are 80 regular watchers watching - I would prefer we agree to keep the sort of current discussions off that particular page not on. I simply do not think the project talk page is the place. As I dont have your talk page on my watchlist, as I have little interest in your campaign to teach the world about your understanding of subcats. There are more issues raised here and on your email I simply will not have time to go through for a day or two. After all this, I still find it problematic that you have a need to go to edits that have been associated with my editing and change them. I do not think that full stops are what makes wikipedia great again. cheers. JarrahTree 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ but hey, sheesh, where the beer?


there are 5,353,090 articles in English - and you cannot stay away for a minute

I have just lost a lot of content for short street due to an edit conflict - please give it a break JarrahTree 13:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

See User_talk:JarrahTree#Short_Street.2C_Fremantle. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I lost a group of trove refs in the edit conflict, and I have never assumed any editors edits to be perfectly valid edits - there is no such thing
The street has been deleted and redirect into the park article - which has some relevant refs for that. JarrahTree 13:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you lost some work due to an edit conflict, but that was your error not mine. It doesn't excuse deliberately reverting my edits with no explanation. Per WP:REVERT "reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive". Mitch Ames (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
As you say, the article's gone now, so it's a moot point and we can move on, but please in future use {{in use}} if you want to temporarily stop others from editing an article. That's what that template is for. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I also have a pair of failing computers - one does not show edit summaries at all (according t tech issues its something in my sub page) and the browser jumps around like a ferret that had dropped 4 floors and hasnt gone into shock yet... JarrahTree 14:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I wish to hell youd archive your page some time (youre so finicky on other things and you cannt even archive), I get tired of seeing my messages. Also the supposed ref in previous message was to do with small - and nothing whatsoever to do with a ref - but hell, just archive why dont you JarrahTree 14:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

please understand that I have made the point at the page[edit]

drop the stick... and remember to WP:SIGN maybe we can talk about it in real life JarrahTree 12:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive category edits[edit]

Please stop your disruptive category edits in which you act on the false belief that you actually understand the category system and the MOS. Your edits are unwelcome and not wanted. You lose sight of the purpose of categories: help readers navigate to other similar articles. You also act with no knowledge of history or the articles themselves, confusing timelines and when things start or end. Hmains (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hmains: please explain exactly how you interpret WP:SUBCAT's

... an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category ...

to allow the duplicate categories that you have re-applied in your reversion of my edits. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Alternatively please quote the part of WP:CAT that overrides SUBCAT in each instance. I may have missed one of the exceptions - WP:DUPCAT, WP:EPONYMOUS etc - please let me know which exception applied in each of my edits that you reverted.
I am well aware that the sentence I quoted above includes the word "rarely", not "never", but I suggest that for those "rare" situations it would be helpful if you pointed out why that particular case was one of the rare exceptions.
Mitch Ames (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This subject is well discussed by several editors at Talk:Strasserism which you choose to reject and ignore. No one agrees with your interpretation of the MOS or your attempts to implement same. Quit. Hmains (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • as always - the problem of being a missionary for applying 'strict' interpretations of rules gets you into trouble... I definitely do not think you should quit, I think you need to drop the stick and work out where you can solve subcat issues without placing it upon editors who might want to answer back. That requires some inventive strategy, as there are vast spaces where the usual suspects are not seen that need work... JarrahTree 15:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Freopedia project pages[edit]

The page that is the wishlist, is not an item that is a mainspace 'article', that readers might interested in - it is in effect a project sandbox - and should be prone to mistakes - it is not 'owned' by anyone - it is somethng that might change from day to day and shouldnt be considered set in stone in 'correct form', as there are going to be mistakes all the time, as the project expands... That is my opinion, if you want to keep correcting it, It will probably be changed simply because of the nature of the material - your skills of enthusiatic corrections could be so easily deployed in other spaces JarrahTree 15:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi Mitch Ames, I see that you are changing my non-semicolon pseudoheadings to actual headings. WP:PSEUDOHEADINGS does not mandate that sort of change; it just says don't use semicolons. The reason I use bold is because it avoids cluttering the table of contents with useless sub-headings. "TOC limit" works badly because, at least as far as I can tell, it does not permit one to suppress the "==" level headings, and using it will cause problems elsewhere in articles with sub-headings. Being able to get to the subheading "Citations" directly from the TOC adds little functionality because there is virtually nothing to edit, and one can get there anyway through the "Notes, citations, and references" heading. As the WP says, "In cases where "TOC limit" cannot be used because of lower-level headings elsewhere in the article, then using bold for the headings causes the least annoyance for screen reader users." What you are doing is not just solving a non-existent problem, it is worsening the situation, albeit only a little. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)