User talk:StephenTS42/Archive 2

Forum Shopping

You might not want to constantly go to different sections of the site. That's called fourm shopping. And that's not allowed on Wikipedia. — JJBers 18:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I think people have argued enough; I wish they'd stop.

2nd opinion requested

 – StephenTS42 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

To JJBers: There is no basis for your accusation above. You have provided no proof that this editor has raised essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards. Yet you repeatedly post it here in my talk page.

Addendum: You have put several warnings in a row (copied from an archive) on my talk page, which is spam, and continued to re-add them, even when told to stop. You have provided no viable proof of forum shopping. Furthermore, You have shown no proof of refactoring, whatever you mean by that, nor what policy, if any, exists to support your accusations. Please stop making threats to have this editor blocked in your editing comments, you have shown no proof of any removal of any comments from your talk page by this editor. If you disagree with my work you may do so in whatever article with which you having a problem. I will regard your opinions or disagreements in the highest esteem.

FYI

 – It might be in your best interest to refresh your understanding of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Behavior that is unacceptable|User talk pages as well as Wikipedia:Harassment

.

 By the way: Wikipedia might be a much better environment to work in for the both of us if we worked together! Thank you and have a great Memorial Day weekend! StephenTS42 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If you really want the burden of proof, here are the diffs of you forumshopping: on WP:EAR, the help desk, teahouse, someone's talkpage, and a earlier use of WP:EAR. That discussion you spread out should've been concentrated on Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut. —JJBers 19:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

No, my fellow editor, I don't believe you understand what burden of proof means: at least not as established within Wikipedia. It's true I put questions in each of the forums on your list. However, each question I asked had nothing to do with you. Each question was phrased neutrally and none were posed as a means of swaying or developing a consensus regarding either population density nor the use of yellow pages, except for one which you apparently missed, which I quoted to you and which you promptly deleted. I would like to point out that as a result of my asking such questions I have learned that there is no agreed upon or set formula for calculating population density within Wikipedia; at the time I asked. Secondly, using the yellow pages as a reference is acceptable so long as it is attributed correctly. I would also point out that I did not use what I learned to revert or delete any edit you made. So, once again where I go to learn within Wikipedia is none of your business: unless your business is to track or stalk my edits for the purpose of... (?). As far as burden of proof is concerned, please read Responsibility for providing citations . What you provided included not one citation, but rather, for whatever reason you may have justified, a rather unjustified demonstration of of how well you have been tracking my edits. Please read: Wikihounding to wit: The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Therefore, my friend, I must ask you to think seriously about who has been violating Wikipedia policy here.  Thank you very much!—→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that with the "burden of proof" concept Stephen mentioned, he linked to a page supporting it, but probably didn't realize that that page, Wikipedia:Expert retention/Burden of proof is a failed proposal:

Please look again at that page. And WP:BURDEN only applies to content on a mainspace article, not editor disputes. Thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Ɱ→ Thank you!→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Just next time, try to limit discussion to the article page itself. — JJBers 15:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey you have a BA in journalism? That's really cool; I've been writing for a small newspaper right now, and hope to eventually become the editor. Unfortunately as I have no actual training (only relying on Wikipedia etc.), this is much more difficult. Any suggestions of good resources? Thanks ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:StephenTS42/sandbox

User:StephenTS42/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:StephenTS42/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:StephenTS42/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —JJBers 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My user talk page

Please stop adding templates to my user talk page, it gets annoying, and I'm on the verge to report you to WP:ANI if you don't stop. —JJBers 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Inuse templates

Please stop placing that template on the page, it's only used for major edits to high activity pages. Please revert/remove the template. —JJBers 01:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment regarding the article Norwalk, Connecticut. Please do not comment about article contents in my user talk page in the future. Please make your concerns or objections to other editors in the article's talk page. I don't want to keep stopping what I'm doing to explain fundamental aspects. If it helps I hope you will read: Template:In use as I asked you to do in your user talk page. Please co-operate. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk, Connecticut

My apology, didn't notice the tag. I have more edits but will wait until you're done. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal comments

Hello Stephen. I am puzzled as to whom you are addressing in this edit ? MPS1992 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your inquiry! I was addressing the user directly above my comment, as I am now addressing you. With all due respect, and to further explain: the particular user had requested that I not ping him...thus the comment has no re: beginning. I hope this explanation suffices. Thank you! StephenTS42 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, although the comment directly above yours was in fact mine. Regardless, I think personal comments about another editor, as you used in that edit, are not conducive to a constructive editing environment. Personalizing disagreements in this way contributes to the sort of dispute that has intensified over the last few days. It is more than likely that you and the other editor will shortly be banned from interacting with each other, however I hope you will avoid using this sort of approach with other editors in the future. MPS1992 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I owe you an apology. You're right and I will clarify to who I was directing my comment. I regret my error. If you ever need a favor in the future: I'm at your service! Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind. I'm confident things will soon improve. Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. —JJBers 02:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Have you lost your mind? This is a talk page. If anything it is you that is being disruptive! I beg you to please stop this mindless editing war. I am not afraid of you! Your threats don't work anymore. Go ahead... carry out your threat! But, don't make any more of a fool of yourself than you already have. I'm waiting!StephenTS42 (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions. —JJBers 13:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Here's a cookie to help cheer you up after enduring that sour attack from the childish IP account. I do pity them most days, as they come out with comments that describe their own sad behaviour, because thy are jealous that other's have better lives than their own. Keep up the good work, and ignore and deny any troll. Wes Wolf Talk 14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

^-^

I hope you feel better soon! Coraggio! Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

TBAN Norwalk, Connecticut

As the disruption continues, and there seemed to be a consensus for a six month TBAN, you are here by banned form editing this and related articles for six months.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

What was this edit about? El_C 16:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Norwalk

 For total transparency and even-handedness I am post the exact same message here and at the talk page of JJBers. This is not intended to be an invitation for "let's you and him fight" or cross-talk-page bashing, but an informal peer third opinion. As a Connecticut-based editor, I have seen the issues with the Norwalk-related pages. I know Norwalk fairly well, it is a nice little city and always ranks highly in several quality-of-life and financial measures. None but the most extreme partisans would say, I think, that it is worth the levels of hurt feelings and animosity that these edits have engendered. No pointing of fingers or assignment of blame for this observation is intended and neither would anyone benefit from attempting to make such an assignment. As a third-party opinion, I see nothing in the main article now that requires any kind of time-sensitive intervention. There is no deadline here, after all. I would therefore like to offer my services as a peer with some familiarity on the topic. This only intended to prevent further dragging of this topic into other rabbit-holes of Wikibureaucracy. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you want an observer's opinion on an edit to this topic or its related pages. I hope this offer is helpful to the topic and to the project in general. Thank you for you time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a gracious offer. I have some questions though. Have you ever made such an offer before and, if so, how much experience do you have as a third-party peer opinion giver? Have you ever worked with or alongside editor JJBers and do you know him in any other way? What are the terms of this service you offer? Will either myself or any other editor be obligated to follow such advice? Will there be any additional restrictions or sanctions beyond what is already in place here in Wikipedia? What happens if either party (JJBers or myself) disregards your advice and begins to ride roughshod over one another's edits?  Thank you very much!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Stephen, I think you are missing the point of the phrase: "informal peer third opinion," as well as the link to the Ignore All Rules page. This is not a requirement to participate in a formal process or procedure, merely an offer of an another editor's opinion. As to your inquiry about prior interactions with JJBers, you are welcome to look for me on the Editor Interaction Tool and draw whatever conclusions you wish. I have nothing to hide, but I think I may be forgiven for forgetting if I've had any significant interactions (I don't believe I have). I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reply! I wish that once in a while I could get direct answers to my questions here on Wikipedia. That phrase you quoted is arcane jargon which does not appear in IAR and had nothing to do with any of my questions. So, I don't understand how I could have been expected to hit the point. I find it difficult to communicate with someone who regularly refers to some other source as their answer, which implies that I should have already known that, instead of just answering the question. So, I suppose I did miss the point. Please answer my questions above directly. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware that "informal peer third opinion" was a complex or arcane phrase. It means my personal views as a fellow editor who is not on one side or another outside of formal policies and procedures. The link to the IAR page was meant to emphasize that this is not part of formal policies and procedures. You are free to accept or reject the offer. There are no sanctions attached or implied. There is no jeopardy which can attach if I express an opinion. It's just me expressing what I think about a question. Does that clarify? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you aren't going to answer my questions. I apologize if I seemed uppity. It won't happen again. I was just testing the water, to coin a phrase, (to put your toe into water to see how cold it is). Brr! ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how you think your questions remain unanswered at this point. If "informal peer third opinion" remains unclear, please explain how I have not answered your concerns. I don't mean to sound cold. I'm genuinely puzzled as to how that is not communicating the offer clearly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice request

@Eggishorn:

The list of categories at the bottom of the article lack the following:
Category:People from Norwalk, Connecticut
Category:Geography of Norwalk, Connecticut
Category:Companies based in Norwalk, Connecticut
Category:Buildings and structures in Norwalk, Connecticut

Can you give me any advice regarding their inclusion to the list of categories in the article? Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I hate to jump in the middle of this, but that's not the correct use of the categories. — JJBers 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To: JJBers—→Well, I suppose you ought to explain your reasoning for your comment, improbable things do happen. —→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42:, As a first general observation: not every location needs or can sustain every possible category. To pick an unrelated example: Buford, Wyoming, shouldn't have an equivalent "People from Buford, Wyoming" category (since there is only one possible member of that category). The question that needs to be asked for any such categorization question is: Are there already enough existing members of each? That is, are there articles already on the site that would fit into a "People from Norwalk, Connecticut" (or any of the other proposed) category(/ies)? Fortunately, this is an easy question to answer for some of them. Norwalk,_Connecticut#Notable_people has 13 bluelinks, so that's probably good category. "Buildings and structures" I would suggest should be limited just to the ones listed in the Norwalk,_Connecticut#Notable_places_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places section and the museums like the Maritime Aquarium and Lockwood-Matthews House. The other two are more problematic. A "Companies..." category would have only two members, so that's not really necessary. The "Geography" category is also not very useful- not every neighborhood deserves its own article, after all. That's my view, but you can also get the views of the Wikiproject on categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I think he meant putting the categories in the article. The categories listed are already existing. — JJBers 14:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I was hoping that it was also implied that the People and Buildings and structures categories, being ones that had legit members, should be on the article and the other two should not. You are correct, though, that I should have made that explicit. In any event, I would recommend adding Category:People from Norwalk, Connecticut and Category:Buildings and structures in Norwalk, Connecticut to the article and that Category:Geography of Norwalk, Connecticut and Category:Companies based in Norwalk, Connecticut should not only not be added but also be cleared out and removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To: User:Eggishorn——→Thank you for your replies. I count 6 sub-categories and 57 pages in the category People from Norwalk, Connecticut; all of which are blue-linked. The article Norwalk, Connecticut has 12 people listed under the section Notable people. Five buildings are mentioned in the article, yet there are 31 pages, all blue-linked, in the category Buildings and structures in Norwalk, Connecticut. There are 32 pages, all blue-linked, in the category Companies based in Norwalk, Connecticut. The article mentions only 2 in the economy section. There are 16 pages in the category Geography of Norwalk, Connecticut of which only a handful are neighborhoods. The article mentions 9 neighborhoods, all blue-linked, within a total of 22 neighborhoods. The list of neighborhoods in Norwalk was cited from City-Data, which has since disappeared. There is an article in Wikipedia entitled National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut of which are listed several places and buildings in Norwalk. With the exception of the listing of places of worship, about eight buildings are mentioned in the article. This is for your information. I do not now, nor did I imply that every category in Wikipedia about Norwalk, Connecticut should be included in the article. However the numbers in the article do not match the numbers in the categories whether they have been included or not. Thank you——→StephenTS42 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To: JJBers—→I'll thank you to not explain what you think I mean about anything to anyone. I will do my own explaining of what I mean. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:Are you sleeping?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, @StephenTS42:, I've been busy with other things. I'll take another look and get back to you soon. Thanks for pinging me with the reminder. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged —StephenTS42 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, having taken a closer look, let's try to establish where there's agreement and where there might be questions:

1. I think that we agree that Category:People from Norwalk, Connecticut is a good category and adding it to the list of categories at the end of the Norwalk, Connecticut article is both improving the article and not problematic in any way. Am I correct in thinking that?
2. Category:Buildings and structures in Norwalk, Connecticut does indeed have more than what is listed in the "Attractions" and "Notable places on the National Register of Historic Places" sections of the Norwalk page (I guess we can thank railfans for all the Metro-North stations). I think we agree that adding it to the list of categories at the end of the Norwalk, Connecticut article is both improving the article and not problematic in any way but I would not suggest adding any individual members to the page that are not there already.
3. I think we disagree on Category:Companies based in Norwalk, Connecticut. Many of the members of this category are either not actually based in Norwalk (e.g., Bear Naked, Inc. is now actually based in California), only a local or regional business (e.g., Cervalis interestingly, I actually know their owner), a victim of corporate restructurings (e.g., GE Commercial Finance) or they have no existence at all anymore (e.g., Cameron (automobile)). This is what I meant about the categories should be "cleaned out". I would not add such a dodgy category to the main Norwalk article. It would not improve the article in any way.
4. I was probably wrong in my earlier evaluation of Category:Geography of Norwalk, Connecticut. Adding it to the list of categories at the end of the Norwalk, Connecticut article is both improving the article and not problematic in any way. I believe you probably agree with that statement.

I hope these reflections and statements are helpful. Thank you for your patience. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Very good advice! I agree 100%. I will attempt to boldly edit the page accordingly.  Thank you very much!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:Sorry to ping again, but he did it again. I may as well try and catch the wind. JJBers will not reason or help, he just deletes. It appears there is no end in sight. What can I do? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42:, I see El C protected the page for a week after the latest revert. This means that what you can do is what you and JJBers should do anyway: take the dispute to the talk page. Have you ever read the essay on the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle? Right now, you've made a Bold change (adding the categories we discussed). JJBers Reverted and now it is time to Discuss the usage of these categories. Assisting these sorts of discussions is exactly why I made my earlier offer. I will start the discussion for you both and copy my text from above as a conversation starting point. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI result

As of the closure of the ANI discussion, you are hereby topic banned from any page relating to Norwalk, Connecticut (broadly construed), for a period of six months. If you have any further questions please let me know either here or on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Very good sir, I will comply. ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)