SummerFunMan, you are invited to the Hot Chocolate Milk House!
Past tense for old products
Can't seem to find a policy or guideline that addresses this specifically, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Verb_tense seems closer than WP:TENSE (which is about how to write ancient history in a fictional tone of voice). The videogame project says "When describing a video game or console itself in the abstract, use present tense unless a reliable source proves that no instances of the product exist or the product was never released", and it looks like phone articles follow this as well - all other iPhone models are described in the present tense. Even the mighty Nokia 3310 is still out there! --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Your edits run afoul of WP:COMPNOW, which dictates that we do not use past tense on computing-related articles, as it implies that something is no longer available at all, or that it is no longer what it originally was. Although, past-tense may be suitable for certain statements (i.e. "It was the first camcorder to support 1080i resolution"), but that doesn't mean you change tenses around without discussion. 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Viper Snake. These both, as well as how many of those articles already fit that should work to the advantage. I'll go restore them to present-tense now.
Your recent editing history at IPhone 5S shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, @Callanecc:. Your recent editing history shows that you did not pay good enough attention to my edit summaries. If you had actually read them, then you would see that the people who were warring against my edits were ignoring my request that they not revert my other editions while correcting my tense changes. I don't dispute their changing of my tense edits back, but they should do it without just being lazy and reverting my unrelated edits back too. If they would go back and fix my tense changes without undoing my other editions along the way (by doing their reversions manually), then I would leave those reversions alone.
- All of your changes were tense changes. And besides, it's not other people's jobs to fix your mistakes. It's up to you to edit correctly in the first place and not edit against obvious consensus.JOJ Hutton 11:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- And that comment in the edit summary also constitutes ownership of the article. 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, @Jojhutton: and @ViperSnake151: in fact not all of my changes were tense changes. That proves that you guys lack reading, comprehension, and/or attention skills. One of my unrelated editions that was included in that same session was this, an adjustment of weird, somewhat nonsense wording about how many of these phones were sold within a certain period: . But see, neither of you had enough sense or respect to notice that and not revert that while you were reverting my tense editions.
Besides, asking you to leave my unrelated editions alone while reverting my tense ones is actually not "asking you to fix my mistakes." My mistakes were the tense editions; not the other editions. It's up to you to only revert editions that are incorrect and not ruin other ones in the process.
And no, my edit summaries actullay did not constitute some sort of supposed "ownership of the article." I never claimed to "own" anything here. I only asked that if you were going to fix one problem, not to undo fixes of others in the process. Can you not understand that simple concept?
And, @ViperSnake151: why are you completely ignoring my postings on your talk page as if I had never written them, even though you're not ignoring other people's?
- What you have is a lack for consensus and a lack of civility. Enjoy your block.--JOJ Hutton 23:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Uh, no, not true, @Jojhutton:, because I already stopped reverting your tense things after you reverted mine back last. What you have is a lack of attention to detail that there were other editions mingled with those.
And @ViperSnake151:, what business do you have of reporting me to the ANI after I had already stopped reverting your tense editions? Nice job "making sense" there.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SummerFunMan reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ). Thank you. 22:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I get that you're frustrated; I would be too. People can be idiots, and however reasonable your changes, sometimes they'll just see you've reverted the article again and reflexively revert back without reading your reasons. But continuing to holler isn't likely to convince anyone.
Best way forward would be to take the high road, just walk away from the article, and find something else to work on where the other editors aren't as stubborn. But if you're not willing to do that, at least please agree to stop editing the article for a couple days and continue to work out your differences on the talk page.
And if you are editing as P004ME2, that needs to stop immediately; you're not doing yourself any favors there, and the end result won't be pretty. —Cryptic 11:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
|This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text
Wait, what? @Cryptic:, why was I blocked without even having been given a chance to give any input on this? Who's POO4ME2, and who's MOP? Suddenly all this happens overnight and I haven't even done anything, and I haven't even edited iPhone 5s again! What the hell is going on that I should suddenly get blocked indefinitely for doing nothing?
- Aside from sockpuppetry, both of the accounts you've operated have demonstrated that they are not here to improve the project.
- You may file an unblock request if you'd like to, but I would recommend not doing so until you've thought out a nice, well-reasoned reply focusing on:
- A) How you plan on changing your general behaviour/confrontational approach to editing, and more importantly,
- B) Your new-found understanding that using multiple accounts simultaneously is against the rules of the project.
- Let me know if you have further questions, m.o.p 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I went to bed and then got up and suddenly I'm blocked for nothing. Where do you get the idea that I have these supposed "both accounts" you're talking about? What supposed similarities do you think there are between whoever this POO4ME2 is and me?
Oh, and then I went back to that false report against me and have now seen that you've collapsed my responses (including one collapsing that won't even show what I wrote when I click on the "show" and then what was supposed to have been a link, I guess) because you claimed they were "rambling." How is making down-to-the-point statements, including itemization, why someone is wrong to have posted that report, and then alerting you admins of such, supposedly "rambling"? What would supposedly have been a "shorter" way to get all those points across?
- Feigning ignorance does not help your case. A CheckUser has confirmed the abuse of multiple accounts.
- As for your report, it's apparent to me that you seem to be content to approach situations with a battleground mentality. That is not behaviour we encourage on Wikipedia, regardless of the point you are trying to get across. m.o.p 19:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
MOP, when I respond to you, will you please address all items instead of just one or some of them? This is why I sometimes itemize things for people; hopefully it'll help them not skip anything.
So, item 1: Is it this itemization that has you thinking I act like I'm on a supposed "battleground"? Or what is it, exactly? Does telling someone that something isn't a certain way and backing that up with certain facts and/or examples seem like "being on a battleground" to you? If yes and yes, then how is that supposedly "punishable" here like socking and warring are? Also if yeses, then what would be supposed "better ways" to tell a person that something isn't a given way they think it is because of such-and-such things?
2: I looked at the sockpuppet report where Poo has responded, and for whatever reason, the guys there haven't even answered all of her or his questions. Well, I want to post something there too but you blocked me before I even knew about it and had the chance to do it. Why didn't you at least give me an opportunity to respond like you gave that guy (or woman)?
3: And then what evidence does this checkuser thing have that gives them enough supposed conclusion that Poo4me2 and I are the "same person"? What, does it show IP stuff? Do we live in the same country or state or city or something, and that's supposedly enough? Or just what exact pieces of info. are compared that have your checkuser thing raising these flags?