User talk:Stevietheman

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

AWB edit problems[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. The sections currently titled:

  • <br> line breaks incorrectly changed to <br />
  • References are not supposed to be in alphabetical order by <ref name=ABC>

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Already have seen those, and answered them. I reverted back based on my answers. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please allow discussion to finish before reverting again. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Timeshifter:, I obviously will not be edit-warring over this, so for now, have it your way, although I believe you are reverting without understanding the edits. There seems to be a misunderstanding on your part about the reference order -- it's not by abc order -- it's by footnote numerical order. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timeshifter:, I just wanted to note that I've tried very hard to keep this discussion over at AWB on-point. But so I might contest your overall complaint/accusations against me, let's review:

  1. You violated WP:3RR. I didn't want to be a WP:DICK, so I didn't report you.
  2. I accepted the consensus on the subject page that insisted on a particular ordering of citations, without asking for proof, as I was assuming good faith.
  3. I thoroughly discussed this matter with you, and we came to some agreement that there is a genuine conflict between AWB's recommended change and the idea that one citation was much stronger than the other, in one case, for the first time you or I have ever come across. Even borne of a minor edit conflict, we came to an understanding.
  4. We don't agree on all the possible solutions, but it's not rude for me to disagree with you on that, or anything.
  5. It also wasn't rude for me to revert a couple times, as indeed, you didn't provide any non-vague reason for disagreeing with the change. I did nothing unusual here.

I would suggest that the best strategy here is to not expect some major solution for one edit disagreement while you have three workarounds available:

  1. Drop the least strong citation between the two.
  2. Add an HTML comment asking editors to not rearrange a particular clump of cites.
  3. Put an HTML comment between consecutive cites to avoid AWB even suggesting the rearranging.

I think it's pretty clear that I and many others have reached out to you and have tried to help. This is even while I've had to answer your accusations. If you are complaining about all the extra time involved in this discussion, perhaps stopping the accusations and overall negativity may have helped. I know you are flabbergasted by my reverts - OK, so you're flabbergasted. Move on. Also, consider the workarounds. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team[edit]

There is no rule that tabular information is to be discounted when assessing whether an article is a stub.Rathfelder (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: There is also no rule that tabular info is to be counted. It's just two paragraphs and I rule it a stub. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong about this. There is no rule suggesting that tabular information is to be ignored in assessing whether an article is a stub. Please have a look at StubRathfelder (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rathfelder:, I fully know what a stub is and what is not. I am right about this. Please stop de-stubbing obvious stubs. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
How are you blessed with this special knowledge? Is it written down anywhere?Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: We don't build articles out of tables. We build them out of prose. How is an article with just two articles of prose above a stub? My special knowledge is editing Wikipedia for 11 years. I won't use that as a reason for not de-stubbing, however. The reason is because the article is obviously a short one. This should be as obvious as "1 + 1 = 2". Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Some articles are essentially tabular. That doesn't make them stubs. If this policy is obvious it would be written down. It isn't. Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: As far as policy and guidelines are concerned, you have nothing backing up your position, so we may as well be equal there. That's why I'm using reason to explain the obvious. The article is short. Hello? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, the only tabular articles without much prose that are also not stubs are called 'lists'. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that words are to be counted either. The article must be judged as a whole. Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:, so you judge it not a stub and I judge it a stub. Perhaps ask for a third opinion on the talk page. I will abide by the third person's opinion. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
OKRathfelder (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: An alternative idea would be to de-stub it but tag it with a request for expansion of the prose. I can accept that as an honorable compromise. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like third party assurance that I am right in counting tabular content in assessing whether an article is a stub.Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, have it your way. But there's a possibility you won't get the result you want. With the alternative idea, it's de-stubbed.  :) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The guidance I have is, essentially, that there is no guidance. It's a matter of judgement. But there is a policy that an article which is just a list is not normally categorised as a stub. So I am happy to accept your compromise.Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: OK, but other articles like this have more prose, so we shouldn't want them to be limited to just being lists. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the stub tag being removed as long as there is a tag calling for more prose. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

AWB Cite error[edit]

When AWB encountered this task it left a cite error remaining. I've noticed that when extended dialogue is insrted within some citations, this type of problem often happens. Regards CV9933 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- I reverted myself. I'll look into this later to see if any rework of that cite is necessary. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)