User talk:Amaury/2010/October

2010 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • December

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Hi, Chicago MoS, 16th ed, just out now, says no dots, in a long-standing reversal of their insistence on them. Tony (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. Don't go claiming things willy-nilly. You need to prove your point. - Amaury (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit-summary and your response here are almost a breach of WP:CIVIL. Do not issue orders to other editors. So ... you want me to pay for a copy to be delivered to you? Tony (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but if your so-called source is a book at home, and that's your only source, then there's no way for you to prove your claim. Also, WP:CIVIL does not apply here. Don't accuse me of things. - Amaury (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement whatsoever for citations to commonly available sources to be available online for them to backup claims. Here, despite a possible change in Chicago, the relevant authority is WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations. If there is a change in Chicago, perhaps a discussion on changing the guideline there should be initiated on the guideline's talk page. ^Bongo_matic 03:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I bought Chicago 16th last week, and Tony1 is absolutely correct about its change in handling US without periods. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)l

Zhou, language and punctuation has never been set in stone and has continued to flex and develop over the millennia. most of the rest of the world outside of America has quietly, slowly but relentlessly ditched dots after abbreviations over the past 30 to 40 years. Global communications and the internet almost decrees that changes become universal. Wikipedia is merely reflecting that wider change. Already you will struggle to find ANY online style guide that requires dots, full stops or periods after abbreviations and the printed dictionaries (always slower to adapt) are also falling in line. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Or just see here. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's Chicago's. In the U.S., U.S. is still preferred. - Amaury (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think Chicago is, but it's definitely part of the US. Have a look at TCMOS. As our own article says, "It is considered the de facto guide for American English style, grammar, and punctuation." In my experience, most other US style guides defer to Chicago. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that it's in the U.S.. Let me rephrase that, then. That's Chicaho's "manual of style". However, in the rest of the U.S., U.S. is still preferred. - Amaury (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Which manual of style would that be? The two major style guides are Chicago and the AP Stylebook, and the latter conserves space whenever possible, so I know they use the US spelling without dots. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that Zhou Yu is edit-warring at WP:MOSNUM on this matter, leaving tendentious, bossy edit-summaries. Tony (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because no resolution has been reached yet. Whenever there is dispute, the article in question is to be left as it is until a resolution is reached. Also, I am not edit-warring. The recent revert was the only one so far today. You really should read WP:3RR. - Amaury (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read it; it restricts one to three reverts within a 24-hour period. You've made three so far: [1] [2] [3]; also, it's not a hard-and-fast rule. The pattern counts, and your pattern on this page is not looking good. Why not discuss the issue on the article's Talk page? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

I noticed the above and glanced at your recent contribs. I see that you have been edit warring at several different pages. You do not have to break 3RR to be edit warring. The pages I saw are Phantasy Star Universe: Ambition of the Illuminus, Phantasy Star Universe, Apostrophe and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). You even broke 3RR on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). You have participated minimally (at best) in discussion on any of these pages. I don't know the appropriateness of any of the edits, but if you don't start discussing instead of reverting, I'm afraid that you'll likely find yourself blocked very soon (I'm honestly afraid that it may already be done by the time I hit save for breaking 3RR on an MOS page). Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. However, I honestly feel there are users out there that are out there to get me. Take my Huggle access being revoked, for example. An I.P. address kept being persistent and eventually got what it wanted, which was to have my Huggle access revoked. If it hadn't continued, I would still be Huggling happily. Sorry if this sounds like I'm upset with you, because I'm not, I'm just frustrated. - Amaury (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I understand that you're frustrated. At times, Wikipedia can be very frustrating, but it is extremely important not to let that frustration take over and cause you to make mistakes. I looked a little further in the MOS:NUM reverts, and it may not have been a 3RR violation (I thought you were reverting to the same version that you were yesterday). That being said, I don't see how anyone in the above articles are "out to get you". The IP in the whole Huggle ordeal, maybe, but he was constantly reverted and accused of vandalism for removing a copyvio. That was a very bad mistake with Huggle, and by itself really was a valid reason to take it away. Honestly, edit warring like this is part of the reason Huggle was taken away, instead of stopping and discussing, it seems that too often your first instinct is to re-revert. I would really encourage you again to try a self-imposed 1RR restriction. The edit warring is really developing into a pattern, and you really need to find a way to break yourself from it. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about another I.P. address. I only reverted it once, and it got all hostile against me. In this case, I mean hostile like persistent (if that makes sense). Also, L.O.L. at your edit conflict x2 thing. - Amaury (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I never got a chance to look deep enough into the entire situation to remember details. I'm sorry you got blocked, but it would be a good time to re-think the way that you've been editing recently. You really need to look into learning how to use dispute resolution. I would also suggest that while you are blocked, take a look at the edit wars that you've been involved in and research how your side reflects policy. Then, when the block expires, make well-reasoned, policy-based arguments on the talk pages (if you still believe your side to be correct). For instance, I noticed that it seems that you believe that WP:V means that the source has to be on-line. You might want to re-read that policy. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a report on WP:AN/EW regarding this issue. If it were just the periods-in-US thing, that'd be one thing, but it looks like it's more than that, and you're a pretty experienced editor—you should know better by now. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the phrase you used on my talk page was "I can't wait to rub it in your face that you were wrong". This is me rubbing it in your face for ignoring the warning I gave you six days ago that if your behaviour continues, you will be blocked. 117Avenue (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but it is generally believed that two wrongs don't make a right. There is no way that comment was intended to help. Please click here for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Words of (unsolicited) advice

It appears that your thinking about on-Wikipedia events is focused on "what are my rights and what are other people doing to me"? This is a poisonous WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is at odds with the goal of the project—building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for you to win points or favor, but participation in a collaborative, consensus-based effort. Your opinion is one of millions. There are behavioral guidelines for dealing with differences of opinions for the benefit of the content, not to right wrongs between editors. My belief is that your personal immaturity and inability to detach your ego from the editing process gives rise to so many negative interactions here as to more than balance out your positive contributions. I think (length of block notwithstanding) you should strongly consider a self-imposed moratorium on editing until you can modify your approach. ^Bongo_matic 02:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind advice, but please try not to insult me. - Amaury (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This quote indicates how thoroughly you fail to understand the way to work effectively here:

• if I am expected to be civil, then administrators, namely Beeblerox, in this case, should be civil, too.

Wrong. You are expected to be civil always. Period. You are expected not to edit war ever. Period. This is not a kindergarten playground. Your approach is disruptive and even in your purported apologies and promises to behave differently in the future, you demonstrate that the underlying mentality that appears to be behind so much disruption is unchanged. ^Bongo_matic 02:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for five days due to edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of five days for rapid edit warring on a highly visible and very important Manual of Style document. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amaury/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well, there goes my two years without being blocked goal. To be honest, I'm surprised I wasn't blocked sooner. Anyway, since I haven't been blocked in over a year, I am hoping that you maybe could reconsider your decision. There are two ways of going with this that I was thinking of. You could either reduce my block to 24 hours (I won't ask for any lower than that) or unblocking me completely, and, possibly, if you'd be willing to, remove this block from the log. Either way, I admit I was edit-warring and hereby agree to cease it and to never do it again. I might even take a break over the weekend from this. It's all up to you, of course. I hope that, before you reply, you'll, at least, give it some extensive thought. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see any reason to believe anything you say. You knew you were edit warring, you've been blocked for it many times before, and you have promised not to do it again before. Wikipedia would be better off without this sort of behavior. I'll be watching you after this block expires, and I'm not as nice as the previous admins who have blocked you.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{Unblock|Well, there goes my two years without being blocked goal. To be honest, I'm surprised I wasn't blocked sooner. Anyway, since I haven't been blocked in over a year, I am hoping that you maybe could reconsider your decision. There are two ways of going with this that I was thinking of. You could either reduce my block to 24 hours (I won't ask for any lower than that) or unblocking me completely, and, possibly, if you'd be willing to, remove this block from the log. Either way, I admit I was edit-warring and hereby agree to cease it and to never to do it again. I might even take a break over the weekend from this. It's all up to you, of course. I hope that, before you reply, you'll, at least, give it some extensive thought. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)}}

I already declined a request with this exact same wording. You are on very thin ice right now, any further unblock requests better be a lot more compelling than this one if you want to keep access to this talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see from your edit summary that you wanted the blocking admin to review the request themselves. You probably should have stated that in the request itself as that is not normally the way it works, which you should know having been blocked so many times. I've dropped a note at his talk page, but I think HJ has already looked at your block log and seen that you have made such promises before, only to return to edit warring later. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that another admin I hold in high esteem hadn't just declined your unblock request, you have multiple previous blocks for edit warring and it seems you've been unblocked at least once after promising to cease edit warring, yet you continued to do so, this being being your second block for 3RR since February 2009. Even then, I might have considered reducing your block duration, but the aggravating factor was that you were knowingly edit warring across several days across one of the most high profile and most important project pages we have. Therefore, I believe this block is absolutely necessary to prevent further such disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I know I'll most likely get pretty much the same answer, but it can't hurt to ask. What about considering to reduce it to the original time you first had? That was 48 hours. I know I've said I'll cease edit wars before, but, technically, I never said forever. Yes, I know, that doesn't excuse it, but it, at least, explains it. - Amaury (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was originally happy with 48 hours, but when I looked further at the history of the page, I felt it was necessary to extend it due to the drawn out and combative nature of your reverting. I'm sorry, but I feel the block and its length are necessary to prevent further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not like most users or I.P. addresses, where they continue their "disruptive" behavior. Okay, well, I have, but you know what I mean. I don't do it with the intention of being "disruptive". Anyway, I understand. Five days is actually pretty lenient, considering I was blocked for a week in the past and two weeks later, although I was unblocked from the two-week one. "I hereby agree to cease the edit war". Anyway, should you decide to reduce it back to 48 hours, it'd be a nice surprise. However, should you not, I won't make a big deal about it (I won't make a big deal either way). I'll just wait out the the five days. Besides, I've got other things that I can do, which is basically what I already do every single day. I really only check Wikipedia a few times now a day. I won't really be fully active until February. - Amaury (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the incredible amount of disruption, and what appears to be a complete lack of recognition as to the nature of the problem, does anyone think a community ban is appropriate? ^Bongo_matic 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think a ban is appropriate, though I could see putting a one-revert rule or similar restrictions on editing after the block expires. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he just doens't know the rules. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you've been blocked for something multiple times before, there is no excuse for doing it again. He absolutely did know what he was doing, and that it was not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature, duration, and enduring attitude involved, I think a community sanction is indicated, and I don't think 1RR is sufficient. I see a similar case: User:Pedant17/Community sanction. I'd suggest a similar probation. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, please let's not go there. These probations and so forth do not work. They just prolong the inevitable. Zhou is currently blocked for edit warring. He's been blocked for it five times already. Do you really think some hand-holding probationary agreement is going to stop him next time he starts edit warring? The problem is that we've already been too lenient with him. Here's my proposal: if you ever edit war again I will block you indefinitely. You know it's not tolerated, you know it causes problems and never solves them, and apparently you can't stop yourself anyway. Learn to control yourself or expect to be indefinitely blocked next time. That's not a probation, it's a promise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zaphod, this one has to be make or break. Zhou has it in him to be a good editor if he can reign in his tendency to snap at other editors, stop edit warring over minor issues and sinking himself into infexible stances over things that he thinks he knows to be truth (eg "I always use periods in U.S. - therefore everybody in the US does too"). Only he can solve this and time will tell if he can. He is young and should be capable of adapting, but let's see. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem admitting to it. However, if I am expected to be civil, then administrators, namely Beeblerox, in this case, should be civil, too. Also, I understand that I've been blocked multiple times before. However, Beeblerox, I honestly feel that you're overreacting. "...if you ever edit war again I will block you indefinitely"? You seem to be looking at me as a vandal; therefore, you are treating me like one. I, again, admit that what I did was disruptive. However, I didn't do it with the intention of being disruptive. What I did was completely out of frustration, but it still wasn't intentional disruptive editing. Most of the administrators that have replied here do not believe that my acts have been in bad faith, but, rather, that I have let myself be drawn into edit wars and the such. It's like you've just decided that I'm a stupid editor who shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. It may not be true, but that's how I feel about you. Speaking of edit wars, Bread Ninja was edit-warring, too, and he / she didn't get blocked? Of course, the duration shouldn't be as long as mine. It's also not my intention to try and get him / her blocked, but he / she was edit-warring just the same as me on the Phantasy Star Universe articles. - Amaury (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I never once said you were a vandal, but there is no excuse for edit warring. Your intentions do not matter in an edit war, what matters is that you knew you were doing something that is in fact disruptive, that you knew very well was considered disruptive, and you did it anyway. I never said you were stupid either, but you obviously do have issues with self control. I have been blunt with you, but I defy you to show an actual instance of me being uncivil. If you cannot keep yourself from resorting to edit warring then no, you should not be editing Wikipedia. But maybe the knowledge that a junkyard dog admin is watching and will kick you to the curb the second you do it again will provide the necessary motivation to help you control yourself and avoid edit warring in the future. We can only hope. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one who's "upset", though. Also, here are two uncivil comments from you: Here and here. - Amaury (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not upset. There's very little that can happen on Wikipedia that would actually upset me. I just don't believe you have learned yet that edit warring is wrong, that it does not solve anything, and that it is not tolerable. That is the one and only message I am trying to send you. I have only recently realized that I dealt with you before under another name, so now I remember how easily offended you are and how you want people to be extra sensitive when criticizing your edits. Clearly that approach doesn't work, for Wikipedia or for you. Here you are blocked again. Nobody wants that, what is desirable is for you to learn to control yourself and not get drawn into edit wars. Ask for page protection and/or dispute resolution instead in the future. That is all I have to say to you about this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. May I suggest we reserve this conversation for another day? Zhou Yu, it might be wise if you find another activity for the remainder of your block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

John Coltrane

The message below from RepublicanJacobite is a response to a message I left at User talk:RepublicanJacobite: Edit warring.

I appreciate your message, but I am in no danger of being blocked for edit-warring. It is the anon. vandal who needs to worry. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)