User talk:Roy McCoy

Should all instances of 'tbd' in this article be changed to 'TBD'?

Hi, in the article List of aircraft carriers in service, the abbreviation 'tbd' is always used with all lowercase letters, instead of 'TBD' in all caps. They can be seen in the Carriers ordered and Other planned carriers sections. I propose changing them all to 'TBD' as this form is much more commonly used and is widely considered the correct format. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Roy McCoy! You created a thread called Meaning of "esp." signifying beginning of partnership at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Your thread has been archived Hi Roy McCoy! You created a thread called Anonymous vandalism at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Your thread has been archived Hi Roy McCoy! You created a thread called Re: Meaning of "esp." signifying beginning of partnership at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC) You're my hero! [1] EEng 17:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks, EEng. Your humor is much appreciated. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Your thread has been archived Hi Roy McCoy! You created a thread called Falsely attributed revision at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC) DS notice 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 the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. 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. 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. Template:Z33 I don't agree with this notice existing (though its wording has been improved, mainly through my own urging over the last several years), nor do I agree with WP:Manual of Style pages even being subject to discretionary sanctions (I took that to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for review last year to no avail.) Regardless, the Arbitration Committee actually requires this template to be delivered to someone who appears unaware of the applicability of discretionary sanctions to a topic area in which they are editing. Since your pre-emptive supposition that I would engage in cherry-picking of sources to contradict you, before I'd posted any at all, constituted precisely the kind of assumption of bad faith issue that prompted ArbCom to impose DS on MoS in the first place, your receiving this notice is effectively mandatory. All that aside, I feel I may have kind of "triggered" you, somehow, into reacting with this kind of hostility. I'm sorry if I said something that got your dander up. Looking over the thread, I think it was "straw man", but I have to point out that observing that one's argument has been mischaracterized isn't any kind of attack against, or comment upon the personality or motivations of, the person mis-presenting the argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC) PS: It's also unfortunate that this anger, whatever its source, is derailing the revision progress we were making at WT:MOS#Deleted sentence at Punctuation inside or outside / Proposed reordering at Names and titles (the first half of that two-topic thread; the "reordering" thing should already be resolved).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC) @SMcCandlish: I will probably reply to this, but not at the present moment and possibly not be for a couple of days. In the meantime I will say only the following. (1) Nothing has been interrupted at WT:MOS#Deleted sentence at Punctuation inside or outside / Proposed reordering at Names and titles as far as I am concerned. I made a correction with which you concurred, and I left further treatment of the matter up to you. If you want to submit a provisional revision to me or post it on the talk page before putting it in the MOS, that's fine. [Added note: I would prefer that you send it to me rather than the talk page, for two reasons that I will explain to you if requested.] I take your revision of the list (which apparently included deletion of the period also, though you didn't say so) as an acknowledgement that correction was in order and in fact called for, as I don't suppose someone of your seriousness (I've never for a second thought you were acting in bad faith) would modify MOS text merely as a favor to someone. (2) I accept your apology, though I don't think it's what you should be apologizing for. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)