FF-UK

GPO

Hi FF-UK Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that Australian wiring rules do not mention the term GPO. I don't know if they ever did, I've never seen a copy. But the term is well understood by electricians and architects, and appears to be used by electrical manufacturers and wholesalers. https://www.sparkydirect.com.au/p/932442/double-gpo-10amp-250v-white-2000-series.html http://www.electriciansupplies.com.au/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1498 Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added the Australian colloquial term, with references, in the appropriate place, the Concepts and terminology section. FF-UK (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Mass revert to Mains electricity by country

Hi, in this edit, you removed some formatting changes, undisputed wording changes, and a {{which}} tag at the same time as you reverted a wording change that you objected to. Would you mind very much putting back the undisputed changes? I specifically made the formatting changes in separate edits from more potentially controversial edits, so that folks could undo the disputed changes without undoing undisputed changes, and so that unrelated rollbacks could be explained in separate edit summaries, just as I explained unrelated edits in separate summaries. But your edit undid every single change I made to the page, apparently whether you disagreed with it or not. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), I think that you need to tell me what specifically. For instance, one of the changes you made was File:Multi plug.jpg|So-called "universal socket" which meets no standard but accepts a number of different plug types. to File:Multi plug.jpg|So-called "universal socket" which accepts plugs that meet a number of different standards.. But, that has a very very different meaning. As far as I know, there are NO standards for multi-standard sockets, even those Chinese ones do not show up in any Chinese standard I know, hence the original wording is correct, remember it is the socket pictured being described, not what plugs it accepts! FF-UK (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a list:

• I will raise the "meets no standard" question on the article talk pages, since it sounds like that's disputed.

By whom is that disputed? Without a reference to a standard? Lets stick to facts, not speculation!!!! FF-UK (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I assume you do not object to the formatting changes in this edit?

This is typical WP trivia, but no I do not object, if you want to change it back.FF-UK (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please change it back so the article complies with MOS:NOITALQUOTE. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you did not change it back, I have done so. I was not happy that I had to do this work twice, even though it was not disputed. -- Beland (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• For this edit, the {{which}} tag is still required, and you have not yet raised an objection to "They are rarely seen in other countries, and may not be allowed by the local building code." which I added to satisfy a complaint from another editor.

They do crop up, usually illegally, in many countries. It is actually quite a major problem, but there is a limit to how much should be put here, it descends to trivia when we try to put an exhaustive list of all the contraventions of local codes. That is not the purpose at all of this article. My revert was correct FF-UK (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• It is unclear to me whether or not you object to this edit or if you reverted it by accident. [Correction: I meant this edit about the IEC web page, explained at Talk:Mains_electricity_by_country#IEC_map.]

The revert was deliberate, the original is all that needs to be said, plus the edit is simply not written in English! FF-UK (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be grammatical English to me; I'm not sure what you mean by "simply not written in English". -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I re-read it three times and found the missing "which". Next time, you can just say there was a grammatical error; I found that reading my edit was not written in English to be confusing, hyperbolic, and mildly insulting. -- Beland (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

-- Beland (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have chosen to leave my answers against your points above. FF-UK (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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. Thank you. CplDHicks2 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Section headers and neutral language on talk pages

Regarding this edit, according to Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments section headers on talk pages are not owned by any one editor. Yes, that page also recommends consulting the original author, which I did not do in this case. The reason I changed it is that it is a rather in-your-face accusation. The talk page needs to cool down so that editors can focus on improving the article and not attacking each other, or else the article will remain locked. Please use more neutral language in your section headers in the future, and also in the comment text. It would help to refrain from hyperbole; for example, phrases like "seems wrong to me because X" are more cooperative than "is grossly inaccurate" and "hopelessly wrong". Other editors usually have a rationale for writing what they did, and coming in with severe language like this makes them feel like you are disregarding what they think, before they even have a chance to explain themselves. You often make interesting and correct technical arguments, so I'd like to see other people have the opportunity to calmly read and understand what you are saying, rather than writing an enraged and indignant reply. -- Beland (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), As I explain in my latest edit, by any standards those terms are grossly inaccurate, and that is why the section is headed the way it is. FF-UK (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's your opinion, but if that were a universal opinion, that text would probably have never been there in the first place. -- Beland (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

FF-UK: Then you should put your opinion in your first comment under the header. The header should be neutral. Jeh (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying that it is grossly inaccurate to describe major appliances (eg the 600 lb refrigerator) as "small appliances" or "small electrics" is a fact, not an opinion. To claim otherwise is to completely ignore common usage! FF-UK (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is expressing that fact in your body copy not sufficient? Your section head could easily be "Small electrics/appliance terminology" or even "Disagreement with Small electrics/appliance terminology". You don't have to tell whoever wrote the text you're objecting to that they're "hopelessly wrong" - complete with your far-too-habitual exclamation point - in a section head. It was, of course, on all fours with the vast majority of interactions that I've seen you participate in on WP, and likely that is a big part of the reason you get so much pushback. Jeh (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I have made an edit that I think is compatible with Beland's suggestion but preserves all of your words. If you object, please explain: Why is it not sufficient? Jeh (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeh (talk), I have to wonder if the level of outrage that this heading seems to have caused is due to a difference between American and British English? I use "grossly" as an adverb in the normal British sense of "very great; flagrant; glaring", so I am referring to the flagrant inaccuracy of describing a group of products which includes everything from electric toothbrushes to 600lb refrigerators as "small". A topic heading on a talk page is required to be "clear and specific as to the article topic discussed" and "Small electrics" or "small appliances"? without the following sentence is neither, especially as the following sentence does not appear in the contents list. The fact that Beland (talk) still considers it only a matter of opinion raises significant doubts as to his understanding of the issue. FF-UK (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Try to stop wikilawyering (i.e. poring over the P&G to try to find something that justifies your position) and understand the real point here: Your original section head as much as says "whoever wrote it that way is damn effing stupid!!!" Per P&G you aren't supposed to express such in a section head, and doing so is unlikely to do much besides raise hackles. And no, there is no issue with English variants. The issue is with your too-frequent use of hyperbole and absolutism and your flagrant assumptions of article WP:OWNership. We also see here your habit of evading questions - in this case, "why is the current structure insufficient?" Jeh (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeh (talk) I did not evade the question, you have ignored the answer: A topic heading on a talk page is required to be "clear and specific as to the article topic discussed" and "Small electrics" or "small appliances"? without the following sentence is neither, especially as the following sentence does not appear in the contents list. FF-UK (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

FF-UK:

1. None of us are omniscient. You may believe that something is a fact, but you might be wrong about it. What you are doing is asserting a claim or opinion that something is a fact. You should be prepared for other editors to challenge your ideas of what the facts are, based on reliable sources. Taking a tone that indicates you are unwilling to listen to other editors who may have different ideas of what the facts are is not OK.
2. Jeh is correct; your assertions about what you think the facts are or how the article should be written are best kept to the body of your comment. Putting assertions (whether true or not) in the header as you did, especially with strong language and exclamation points comes across as aggressive if not pushy. Other editors who have other points of view have to put their comments under a biased header they may or may not agree with.
3. In this case, I don't think anyone is claiming that a large refrigerator is a small appliance. You inferred that from context, which is a legitimate reason why the header should be changed (since readers have the same confusion) but it is not what was meant by the previous editors who wrote it. Instead of allowing other editors to explain the intention and sharing more information about context and interpretations, you have come in with the textual equivalent of shouting angrily, already starting to have a heated argument about something no one is disputing.
4. "Grossly" means exactly the same thing in American English as British English. It is partly that your choice to use "grossly inaccurate!" instead of "inaccurate" or "seems inaccurate" that is upsetting. Using such an intensifier raises the stakes of the conversation and makes the discussion unnecessarily heated. I recommend "seems inaccurate" because that phrasing allows for the possibility that you have misunderstood the intended meaning, which is actually what happened here. (That's not a criticism of your reading; the writing you are criticizing was in fact unclear.)
5. Stating or implying that other editors are being stupid is never acceptable. I feel you just did that to me above, and I would like an apology for that. -- Beland (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

FF-UK: The point is that the talk page contents list is simply not the place for what you want to put there. Calling previous editors' contribs "grossly inaccurate!" (complete with your ever-so-habitual exclamation point) would be borderline uncivil no matter where you did it, and WP:CIVILity is a WP policy. Policy overrides guidelines such as WP:TALKNEW, from which you keep quoting "clear and specific as to the article topic discussed".

More: If you will read just a few lines more from there in TALKNEW, you will find these points:

(begin quoted material)

• Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
  • [...]
  • Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may interpret the heading as an attack on them.

(end quoted material)

There doesn't seem to me to be any doubt or ambiguity about that. What you're insisting on doing is just not what we're supposed to be doing on Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Beland (talk), I am frankly amazed that an editor who is far more experienced than I (and also a long standing administrator) should continue to deny culpability for creating this mess. In your edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mains_electricity_by_country&diff=next&oldid=843781578 you removed the words small appliances and some major appliances, replacing them with appliances, equipment, and lighting typically found in homes and offices. That alone did not cause the problem, but when, in the same edit, you changed the table heading from Plug type to Plug type for small electrics, that was a very great change of meaning, and as I indicated in my comment on this error, there are only too plugs which meet that description, the type c Europlug, and the BS 4573 shaver plug.

You claim that None of us are omniscient. You may believe that something is a fact, but you might be wrong about it. What you are doing is asserting a claim or opinion that something is a fact. You should be prepared for other editors to challenge your ideas of what the facts are, based on reliable sources. However, anyone who thinks he is capable of editing a technical subject like this should have at least a basic knowledge which would tell you that you were completely wrong, and clearly there are no reliable sources which would tell you that refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers etc can be described as ″small appliances″. (I deliberately chose my two examples from a US website to ensure that you would understand them. The majority of other plugs in the list under your heading of Plug type for small electrics are used for a much wider range of major appliances including clothes driers and ovens.

My question to you is, will you please issue an apology (on the article talk page) for creating this mess, and the denying that there was any reason for you to know that you were wrong? FF-UK (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Not the worst case of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. But you're in the running, FF-UK. Jeh (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeh (talk), I am sorry to say this Jeh, but you too are very much in the wrong here. There is no excuse for Belands inaccurate edit. FF-UK (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

FF-UK, I wish you could hear the loud, long horselaugh you just triggered.

You're just trying very hard to change the subject from your WP:UNCIVIL and WP:POINTy section head. No wonder, since the content and tone of your section head is precluded by language in the very guideline page you quoted (twice) to justify it. You even admitted that your intent was to put your incivility up in the talk page ToC for all to see.

And in an attempt at deflection you're now demanding an apology for Beland's GF edit! That, too, is not something we do here. Jeh (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Then its time we did, for such gross inaccuracy at least. FF-UK (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

So you want it to be ok, even expected, for everyone here to rise up in moral outrage (whether feigned or real, doesn't matter) and demand apologies for GF mistakes?

Then I suggest you go elsewhere because you're never going to be happy here if that's what you want.

And with that, I am withdrawing here per WP:DEADHORSE. The horse may not actually be dead but it is clear that it is determined to be non-responsive. Jeh (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FF-UK. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)