User talk:Trackteur

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ferguson, Missouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000 census. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but today this section no longer exists. Thank you. Trackteur (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive search header is misleading[edit]

Your archive box is misleading and you should remove it. You've blanked your talk page instead of archiving it. You're allowed to do that but to put an archive search box there implies that your archives exist. The Dissident Aggressor 16:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, the content is still here... just invisible. The old material was included as an invalid parameter of the Archive box template. Since the parameter is invalid, the Wiki software doesn't know what to do with it so it doesn't render it... but neither does it disappear. Whether this was an accident or deliberate, I don't know. Just click the "edit source" tab for this talk page and you'll see all the old contents within the Archive box template. – JBarta (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, not only has nothing been deleted, most of it is now in twice (+80kB). Trackteur, would you like some help archiving? SpinningSpark 17:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, i already asked this day (16:58, 8 December 2014‎) at Yunshui, for this error. Trackteur (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. SpinningSpark 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{IPA-fr|inse|}}<ref>Not the {{IPA|[ɛ̃se]}} expected from the rules of French orthography</ref>) is the [[France|French]] [[List of national and international statistical services|National

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. I think it's better now. Trackteur (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Socialist Program may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • party program it was renamed the NSDAP, ''Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei''), headed by [[Adolf Hitler]]. Hitler announced the party's program on 24 February 1920 in front of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. I think it's better now. Trackteur (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

With lede refs, as here, we don't need them as long as you put them with the appropriate text in the body. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate text is one to three million copies. Trackteur (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Details of weapons[edit]

Please don't delete the simple descriptions of what these weapons are (eg. "assault rifle", "rocket launcher", "submachine gun") from the Charlie Hebdo shootings article. Most readers are not arms experts, and it's unreasonable to expect them to click on the description of a weapon to find out what kind of weapon it is. For most purposes, they only want to know what kind of weapon these are, and putting it in inline text suffices. If they want full details, then that's when they can click on the link and go to the full article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not share your point of view, these details override unnecessarily introducing this article. Trackteur (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know: I can see we both agree we disagree on this, and we can't go on reverting one another, so I suggest we let the community decide on either which is better, or some sort of compromise. I've started a discussion of this on the talk page at Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#Removal of simple inline descriptions of weapons. -- The Anome (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Skorpion vs. AK-47[edit]

The source cited says "The weapons seen in various images of the attackers include a variant of the famous AK47; a Czech-made sub-machine gun called a Scorpion; several Russian-designed Tokarev TT pistols and a grenade or rocket launcher — probably the Yugoslav M80 Zolja."[1] This is not saying that the Skorpion is the AK-47 variant. Look at the picture in the cited source, and in particular where the magazine is located on the weapon. On the Skorpion, it's situated toward the front of the weapon; on the AK-47, and on the weapon in the image, it's situated toward the rear. The weapon depicted in the photo is clearly not a Skorpion. -- The Anome (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep on removing mention of the AK-47 as being uncited. Please note that this is cited in the reference given in the article which you can also find given directly above in my previous comment, which handily also contains an image of one of the terrorists holding an AK-47-type rifle that looks nothing like the Skorpion, a short-barrelled submachine gun which is not a variant of the long-barrelled AK-47 assault rifle.

If you want more cites for usage of the AK-47, try these:

...and I can give many more, if needed.

Please take this to the Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting article talk page if you disagree with me, instead just repeatedly removing stuff from the article without discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on DARPA. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. -- Sam Sing! 13:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why? Seriously, Why?[edit]

Please explain what the point of this is. I cannot comprehend why anyone would include such a detail in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear and consistent information to wikilink. Trackteur (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It was clear and consistent before. Now please answer the question. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
and more accurate for readers. Trackteur (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No, actually, it's not in the least more "accurate", it's merely more long-windedly and pointlessly precise at the expense of readability and and at the expense of getting to the point. Seriously, Tracteur, this is an issue of prose quality, readability, and getting to the point. This is a detail that is out of scope for the lead. Please, please try to understand. What you're doing is headache-inducing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seriously, do you just not know how to write? Stop with the reverting already. You're damaging the article Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC).
    • And there you go again. You are absolutely unbelievable. You are butchering the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop it, Tractuer. Your edits are incompetent. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits at Charlie Hebdo shooting was filed[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Curly Turkey reported by User:MoorNextDoor (Result: ) It appears you have broken WP:3RR. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will promise to stop reverting this article before consensus is reached. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Charlie Hebdo shooting. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bjelleklang - talk 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ARPANET. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
The linked article name is DARPA. Stop changing the accepted article names. Kbrose (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlie Hebdo shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. I think it's better now. Trackteur (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't 3RR again[edit]

Trackteur, your edit to Charlie Hebdo shooting was wrong in every way: the English was broken, it was incompetently overwritten, it had a cite in the lead that wasn't in the body, and it had information that wasn't in the body. Stop breaking the article. You've just come off a two-week block for this, and you're in the middle of another edit war at ARPANET. You will be blocked again, and not for only two weeks. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Curly Turkey. Trackteur (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Piping redirects[edit]

Hi Trackteur. Don't do this. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Links through redirects are not a problem, and don't need to be "fixed". Links through redirects are generally preferable to piped links.--Srleffler (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Srleffler, we must also think about the readers the meaning of an acronym is not always known by all. Trackteur (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The pop-up "International system of units" when hovering over the link is useful, without cluttering the article by spelling out the acronym.--Srleffler (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy and precision[edit]

Trackteur, I've already linked you to Accuracy and precision before. Please read it. These kinds of edits do not benefit the reader, and are not more accurate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Curly Turkey, thank you for that link, although in the specific case mentioned article Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178 it seems completely irrelevant and if I made a mistake in reading the reference, thank you for letting me know. Trackteur (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
If you think it's completely irrelevent, then you haven't read the article well. The edit you made was unhelpful. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:EGG, Trackteur. Readers who see a link to French press expect to see an article on the French press, not a list of publications. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I found a more appropriate link. Linking to the list of publications was not a total Easter egg, and was probably better than no link at all.--Srleffler (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Srleffler: It's no a better link, Charlie Hebdo, is not listed in your link. Trackteur (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should it be? The article links directly to Charlie Hebdo anyways! Regardless, linking "French press" to a list of publications is inapproropriate because it defies reader expectations. If you want to link to a list of French publications, put it in a "See also" section". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Tracteur, I find your reversion bizarre. Linking to Printing is completely worthless in that context. The link I made, on the other hand, was topically relevant. A reader clicking on "French press" should not be presumed to be particularly interested in learning more about Charlie Hebdo, but rather should be presumed to want to know more about the French press. The link to Media of France#Newspapers that you removed was on-topic and appropriate. You seem not to understand that the purpose of a hyperlink is to provide more information on the specific phrase that is linked.--Srleffler (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Srleffler: See comments of Curly Turkey: French press does not need to be linked, and in my opinion print media simply wants to make a distinction between the written press and other types of media. Trackteur (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If "French press" is going to be linked, Media of France#Newspapers is perhaps too narrow, as it excludes magazines. I doubt it needs to be linked anyways. The best solution would be for someone to create a French press article. nbsp;¡gobble! 07:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I agree with you, but now French press is an article with an title neologism. As you have already criticized me: my English is poor enough to proceed to the renaming of the existing and create new article. Trackteur (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Such neologisms aren't always a problem—sometimes a notable subject doesn't have an agreed-upon name, so Wikipedia has to make up a neutral, descriptive title. there are lots of titles like this, for example for murdrers: Murder of Joanna Yeates, Murder of Julia Martha Thomas, Murder of Leigh Leigh ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Not a neologism—that is the name by which this device is commonly known in North America.--Srleffler (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Srleffler: Thanks, I agree with you for U.S. and Canada, because I have read this article , section Nomenclature, which is also not very fully informed (Spanish = Cafetera de émbolo). Trackteur (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

MKS system of units[edit]

Trackteur, you make many edits and occasionally other editors will find that you have made a mistake. Please relax and do not insist on perpetuating your errors, going so far as to introduce similar errors into other articles to justify them, as you have with MKS system of units and then Giovanni Giorgi. At the very least, please respect WP:BRD, discuss your edits and leave time for our fellow editors to join the discussion. NebY (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@NebY:: This is the case, see my answer on the talk page. For Giovanni Giorgi, it's a other problem, several corrections are necessary. Trackteur (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

International System of Units[edit]

Once again, please don't edit-war as you have been doing lately at International System of Units. Even if you don't accept that you may not have quite as much experience in writing about metrology, even if you wish to persist despite being reverted, respect WP:BRD and discuss it. If you're not ready to discuss it, leave the revert in place. It is after all quite unnecessary to keep qualifying words and phrases with "SI" and "metric" when the very article concerns SI and the wider metric system. NebY (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Engage the discussion on the dedicated page, if you wish, my corrections are with direct links and in first point try to think for readers.Trackteur (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
First, please do read WP:BRD. When you have made an edit and it has been reverted, it is your responsibility to open a discussion rather than edit-warring. Second, I am thinking of the readers whereas you appear to be thinking only of unpicking the clear English phrasing of previous editors and replacing the piped text with the linked article titles, even when the full title is inappropriate in the context of the sentence you are editing. The last edits you made at International System of Units[2][3][4] were all of that sort and it is mystifying that you cannot accept that it is time to leave well alone and move on. NebY (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earthquake environmental effects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. I think it's better now. Trackteur (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous edit to Metric prefix[edit]

This edit to Metric prefix is in error because it fails to distinguish between all metric prefixes and those metric prefixes which were selected to be part of SI For example, myria- and demi- are metric prefixes which were not adopted for SI. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Metric prefix. Your edits appear have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Metric prefix 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are still misleading. Discuss at [[Talk:Metric prefix#Misleading edit]. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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:Trackteur reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: ). Thank you. —Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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:Trackteur reported by User:NebY (Result: ). Thank you. NebY (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Piping redirects, again[edit]

I've reverted you again at Gaussian beam. Don't change link targets just to avoid a redirect, and never pipe a link to avoid a redirect. The guidelines on this are clear. See WP:NOTBROKEN. You've been told about this before.

Linking both "singular" and "singularity" in the same article is not redundant. The terms are sufficiently different that a reader who is unfamiliar with the concept might not connect the two.--Srleffler (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References vs. Further reading[edit]

Re this edit: Stop trying to demote listed references to "further reading". References are materials that were consulted in preparing the article. "Further reading" identifies other useful materials that the reader might be interested in, but which are not specifically sources for the material in the article. It is never acceptable to change references into a "further reading" list as you are trying to do. See WP:APPENDIX and WP:FNNR specifically for more information on articles that have both "notes" and "references" sections, and WP:FURTHER for information on "Further reading" lists. Note that general references are explicitly not supposed to be in a "Further reading" section.

It appears that you are confused by the unusual referencing style used in this article. Unlike most articles, which use footnotes that contain the citation, this article uses footnotes that refer to citations by author name (as in Harvard or Vancouver style referencing), with the citations themselves then listed in alphabetical order by author. Per WP:CITEVAR, different articles can use different referencing styles, and we must maintain the original style used in an article.

The above is not affected by the fact that some of the references in the article are not formatted consistently with the original ones. If you want to modify the misformatted references to make them consistent with the original referencing scheme, go ahead. The edits I reverted did nothing to make the article more consistent.--Srleffler (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)