User talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive2

  == Anthony22 ==

I'm glad somebody has the energy to keep up with some of this guy's bad edits; he long ago wore me out and I'm not inclined to make a personal project of following him around to revert his bad edits. I see your username on his UTP from last year, so you're aware of at least some of the history.

There are plenty of incompetent editors, that just comes with the territory, but there aren't many who are that prolificly bad while repeatedly lecturing other editors in their edit summaries. In my view Anthony22 needs to be kept away from highly visible content, and I would support some kind of topic ban to that effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's so tiresome. We have been here before. I shall be warning them again. It's getting absolutely ridiculous now. About 1 in 30 of their edits are good, ten in 30 are totally unnecessary, and 19 are just flat out wrong.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I shall be warning them again - Yeah, that's kind of my point. I think it's abundantly clear that warnings will not be effective, and we're past that. At one point the warnings were so strong from so many editors that he disappeared for something like six months, then reappeared and picked up where he left off. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Tell me about it! It's actually quite hilarious. It's as if nothing has changed. Even the belief that all words ending in 'ing' are in the present tense and must be changed! NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson murder case is on my Watchlist. After observing yesterday's edits, your history, and Anthony 22's history, I'm amazed that you haven't used WP: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Unless you have some good reason not to do so, I plan to post a report there about Anthony 22. Tapered (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't raised the issue as I feel bad about it. I don't blanket revert and I do attempt to judge each edit on its merits. I just wish the editor in question would pay attention to the concerns many others have expressed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Info and update: I still plan on bringing Anthony 22 to the attention of the Admins. I'll admit there are still worse editors roaming Wikipedia, but he's using up way to much Editorial oxygen. I'll do it as circumspectly as I can. Now for the interesting stuff—as a productive grammarian, are you aware of User:Giraffedata, "Mister Anti-comprise," as I'd label him? If not, check him out. Regards Tapered (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've filed an Incident report. You're mentioned and cited in it. Are you a member of the Guild of Copy Editors? Cheers Tapered (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Parenthetical commas

Parenthetical commas are used to separate words or phrases that are not essential to the sentence. Without the word "Leeds", the sentence would read "After this incident Atherton and England headed to Headingley for the second Test", which would be fine as a sentence. However, the word Leeds is a qualifier of the word "Headingley". It's not part of the phrase "for the second Test" (which is not a clause because it has no verb in it). Do you follow my reasoning? Deb (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You are not correct at all.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The corollary of your argument is that the adverbial clause should read "Leeds for the second Test", which would be completely meaningless.Deb (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, no. 'After this incident Atherton and England headed to Leeds for the second Test.' There's your sentence.

Main clause 'Atherton and England headed to Leeds'. Adverbial clause of purpose 'for the second test'. You're confused by Headingley, which is not part of the essential clause. Pretend it's not there.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Puzzled by your change

How can "Their version of the song, which was inspired by the fact that it had featured on Gavin & Stacey" be correct? If their version of the song had already featured on Gavin and Stacey, how could it have been inspired by that appearance? Or, when you said "their", did you mean that the Comic Relief version, featuring Tom Jones, was inspired by the version sung by Rob Brydon and Ruth Jones that had previously appeared on Gavin and Stacey? I suggest this improved wording: "The Comic Relief version of the song, on which Tom Jones featured, was based on a version sung by Brydon and Jones in an episode of Gavin and Stacey." I'll put this on the article talk page as well. Deb (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, which is why the edit 'Their version of the song, which also featured in the BBC's hit sitcom Gavin & Stacey, was released in aid of Comic Relief ' was unsatisfactory. This is why I said that 'The song, inspired by its having featured in the BBC's hit sitcom Gavin & Stacey, was released in aid of Comic Relief' was a better edit. I didn't say 'their'. Because if you say 'their version' it confuses the issue, as their version wasn't featured on Gavin & Stacey but rather the release of this version was based on the fact that the song itself had been.

I sought a compromise as that's always the aim. Grammatically speaking, I assure you that the reverted version was sound but if you're not happy with it let's figure something out. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, "the song" was certainly not inspired by anything remotely to do with the programme, because it was written in 1983. So what is wrong with my wording as suggested above? Deb (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's overly verbose and repeats 'version'. The subject 'song' in the original is the one that 'was released in aid of comic relief', as is made clear after the non-defining relative clause. I have to admit I'm still nonplussed as to why you changed it in the first place.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No. The song is the the words and the melody that were written in 1983, not any individual recorded version of the song. The latter could be called a recording, a version or a recorded version, if you like. Or even a single, in the case of the Comic Relief version. Deb (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion on the talk page that fits.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019: A case study of gross disproportion, threats and how not to use ANI

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Prostitution, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 12:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I restored the template. You reverted my revert and restored the disruption. I also used an edit summary.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prostitution; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Check again bud. I just restored to the original pre all the added names. I'll forgive the template but it leaves a slightly sour taste.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter WHAT you were doing. Edit warring is not permitted, even to restore a consensus version. Again and we'll discuss at WP:AN3. General Ization ^Talk 17:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ffs. I'm not warring. I'll leave the important addition of a load of names into the opening paragraph. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We can let the community decide that at AN3, if you're bound and determined to continue. Shall we? General Ization ^Talk 17:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not continuing and have not. Why are you continuing to threaten me? NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I won't threaten. I will act. In the meantime, please review:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

- General Ization ^Talk 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No 3rr and no edits post warning. You threatened me. I stopped. You threatened again. I didn't restart. You reported me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

See the following at WP:EW3: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Your attitude here makes clear you believe you have done nothing that violates policy. As I suggested (and which you wasted as an opportunity to advise that you would desist), we'll let the community decide. General Ization ^Talk 18:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I did desist. That's sort of the point. Yet you continued.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Any further conversation on this topic should now occur at WP:AN3. General Ization ^Talk 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't return to the page. And I wasn't warring. You reported me for discussion. And the links that you provided as evidence were from talk pages. Not great. And unsurprisingly unsuccessful. Whatever happened to 'letting the community decide?NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2019 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 17:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

'Stop warring.' 'I wasn't but ok.' 'I said STOP WARRING.' 'I haven't returned to the page.' 'Do it again. I dare you.' 'Haven't. Why the threats?' 'That's it. I'm reporting you. Let's let them decide.'

Report concludes the obvious.

Argues with the conclusion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 3 modification

Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

This is just a notification. Thanks.

Regards,

---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, another modification has occurred. Rather than only a modified proposal there is now an "original" proposal and an "alternate" proposal. Just letting you know. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Co-operate

The script I am using changes cooperate → co-operate. By searching on the Internet I found that cooperate is the most used form in American English, but in other forms of English it's preferred co-operate. Since A Clockwork Orange is written in "EngvarB", that means "non-specific but not N. American spelling", I thinks it's correct to change to co-operate. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on the talk page that includes links to UK dictionaries. The hyphenated word is always a variant but not preferred.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

O J Simpson article

Hello! I read your comment and edits and I wanted to say that I really do appreciate your help with my additions. Im new to wikipedia so I'm still trying to figure out all the different ways to edit and communicate with the other editors of the articles. Initially in my draft article for the DNA evidence I used excerpts from the trial transcripts but I got dinged for copyright infringement so now Im using paraphrasing but then you run into the issue of violating the synthesis. Im working really hard on this and in either case I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Watch out for apostrophes.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with the article. I couldn’t figure out how to thank you any other way other than here. I’ll ad more citations and publish it soon. Samsongebre (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

...

Was there a reason you just mass reverted ALL of my edits, and not just the ones adding the wrestling content? I mean, he's more than likely going to be confirmed to perform at WWE's next PPV on Monday anyway, but whatever. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't use a single edit summary and it looked like all the edits were on the same section, which you added without discussion, consensus or explanation. Or WP:RS. 'More than likely going to be announced' not the best reason for addition to an encyclopedia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

PWInsider is considered an RS by WP:PW, and I didn't actually include any speculation, but nice try. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

'I mean, he's more than likely going to be confirmed to perform at WWE's next PPV on Monday anyway' sounds like speculation to me. And personal attacks aren't a good way to make your point. Edit summaries help, too. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I was obviously referring to the article. I did not add any speculation there. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you did. Well done for starting a discussion. Now establish consensus before restoring. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide John Lennon's solo career album sales erased in John Lennon's introduction article

Hello,

you reverted my edit as being too detailed. Why not ? But in this case you should also move the following section : "By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." English wikipedia is not "USA Wikipedia". The USA aren't the alpha and omega of the earth Biosphere. The USA are just a little part of the landmass. There are many other countries in the world, some larger and some more populated and perhaps (debatable) one even more powerful, China. Therefore privileging the USA to the entire human world is a total ineptitude in an article introduction. In that case why the Canadian or the UK or the Italian sales have not been displayed. English wikipedia is the version of Wikipedia written in English but certainly not the version of Wikipedia restricted to the USA or to the USA views, angles, opinions. So, using your logic, I will move the ""By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." section (to the Discography section) which has no reasoon to be written here in introduction and I will replace it by something much more accurate : my old section with no details because it concerns all the countries.

You said in your headline revert that the contents of my edit was indicated "elsewhere". I would really appreciate to know where worldwide sales of John Lennon's solo discs are indicated. If it is the case then let me tell you that it is very well hidden.

About the Website that counted worldwide sales, their method is much better than the method used by the RIAA to count US sales. In other words, the "worldwide" 72 million units is a result much more trustful than the "US RIAA" 14 million units. First of all, the RIAA doesn't count sales but certifications. For instance in the US, more than 925,000 "Walls and Bridges" physical albums (vinyls and CDs) have been sold. It has been certified gold by the RIAA when the 500,000 mark has been crossed. Since the 1,000,000 has not, the album is not certified as platinum therefore with no new certification, RIAA credits this album with only 500,000 sales instead of the real 925,000 figure. 800,000 Milk and Honey physical albums have been sold in the US but the RIAA figure is only 500,000 (Gold certification). Double Fantasy is RIAA certified "only" 3×Platinum whereas the 4 million mark has been crossed (4,050,000) because RIAA simply lacks time to count album sales (there are many albums by many artists sold) : perhaps Lennon album sales will be scrutinized by the RIAA in ... ten years. In fact Lennon has sold more than 22 million physical albums in the US and not 14 million as stated by the RIAA. Of course this underrating is also true for any other artist.

However in the end if you consider that my original edit was too detailed for an introduction (and finally I agree with you) therefore the US RIAA sales and the #1 singles in the US Billboard charts have absolutely no reason to be indicated in this introduction whereas the WORLDWIDE sales are much more adequate. Besides as I wrote before are not indicated, to my knowledge, elsewhere. In fact there are no "solid" worldwide disc sales indicated in any Wikipedia article, be it in English or in any other language. --Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi- as a featured article, the lead is very well-scrutinised. I would suggest seeking consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of the sourced material elsewhere in the article. It simply doesn't work as the final sentence of the lead.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)