| Revision as of 21:52, 19 July 2024 editKoavf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits →Why do you keep on doing this?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:55, 19 July 2024 edit undoCloversMallRat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users26,026 edits →Why do you keep on doing this?: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::::::Incorrect, that edit you keep referencing shows significant beneficial contributions to the article in question, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up as an effort to prove your point. I'm also even further perplexed because it has absolutely nothing to do with your initial reason for posting on my talk page. And even further so that you once again showed that you did not actually read and take into account any of what I said above. You're clearly just -- unsurprisingly as it is a common thing for you -- here to engage in a mindless cyclical debate. It's a shame you spend this much energy on useless drivel instead of just editing Misplaced Pages for the better. ] (]) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | ::::::Incorrect, that edit you keep referencing shows significant beneficial contributions to the article in question, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up as an effort to prove your point. I'm also even further perplexed because it has absolutely nothing to do with your initial reason for posting on my talk page. And even further so that you once again showed that you did not actually read and take into account any of what I said above. You're clearly just -- unsurprisingly as it is a common thing for you -- here to engage in a mindless cyclical debate. It's a shame you spend this much energy on useless drivel instead of just editing Misplaced Pages for the better. ] (]) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::In that edit, you added {{tl|track listing}}. I am obviously only referring to that aspect of that edit, so please stop being obtuse. You added it in spite of the fact that there was an established style. Why did you do it? I'm asking you again: will you be reverting yourself or not? If you refuse, I'll escalate this. I'm hopeful that you will abide by ArbCom and the editors' consensus at ]. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | :::::::In that edit, you added {{tl|track listing}}. I am obviously only referring to that aspect of that edit, so please stop being obtuse. You added it in spite of the fact that there was an established style. Why did you do it? I'm asking you again: will you be reverting yourself or not? If you refuse, I'll escalate this. I'm hopeful that you will abide by ArbCom and the editors' consensus at ]. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::For the record, ] that you seem to be frequenting lately is a perfect example of the style you prefer working because the entire record is single-handedly written by 1 person. That is the only time when it is preferable and effective to utilize that over the format that I've implemented in other articles because it requires no extra specifications for additional writers, featured vocal collaborations, or differing producers by track. There is a reason why you will see {{track listing}} on every big mainstream artist's current releases, which is why you obscurely linked an album from 1999 to prove your point instead of something relevant. ] (]) 21:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:55, 19 July 2024
 Archives |
Why do you keep on doing this?
We have discussed this multiple times and you persist in doing this for years. You have once again changed the track listing style on an established article. We have talked about this so many times. Why do you keep doing it in spite of what MOS:VAR and WP:ALBUMSTYLE explicitly say (bold added): "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you do not revert this change, I will escalate this matter. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've also done this here and likely at other articles. Please undo this per ArbCom's words above on all the articles where you have changed an existing style. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- "unless there is some substantial reason for the change" Quite literally in the explanation here that you gave. Your tracklisting lacked information valuable to the article. It is a DUETS album and the tracklisting lacked any indication of the featured vocalists. It was an incomplete piece of information. I am tired of your hostile attitude towards me editing Misplaced Pages in good faith and for the better just because it doesn't suit your particular outdated style of things. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to use that template and there 100% is no substantial reason here. Please tell me why you did this. As you likely know, there is no requirement to use {{track listing}} for duets, as 1.) this is listed in the personnel section and 2.) plenty of articles are just fine without it (e.g. Tears of Stone (album)). You are making changes without consensus to your preferred version in direct contradiction to ArbCom's directives. I am asking you to revert yourself and ask for consensus prior to changing styles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- You know why I use that template, because the vast overwhelming majority of album articles on Misplaced Pages utilize it. Please stop acting obtuse as if I'm the one using some off-brand style that hasn't been widely embraced by the Misplaced Pages community. The fact that you had to dig up an article on an album released in 1999, from 25 years ago, as an example in favor of whatever angle you're trying to make here only further proves that. And, unlike you, most editors don't attack others with this type of hostility when edits like these are made to add additional information to articles and improve upon them. The creator of the Riley Green album article created a base in rudimentary fashion and I simply made significant, beneficial changes to it on all fronts beyond just the tracklisting, i.e. You are literally the only editor on this site I've come across in two decades of editing that has 1) been this inhospitable toward me over literally nothing that requires this amount of investment and 2) even cares remotely one iota about using the basic old format for the tracklisting. Just because it is "acceptable" doesn't make it good, and it is especially lackluster for something like Stampede where it is a duets album and the format doesn't even properly allow for the featured vocalists to be listed, which is essentially removing valuable information. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- So you admit that you made this edit from one of two acceptable styles to another purely because you prefer it and not because of anything substantial? Will you be reverting yourself here or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect, that edit you keep referencing shows significant beneficial contributions to the article in question, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up as an effort to prove your point. I'm also even further perplexed because it has absolutely nothing to do with your initial reason for posting on my talk page. And even further so that you once again showed that you did not actually read and take into account any of what I said above. You're clearly just -- unsurprisingly as it is a common thing for you -- here to engage in a mindless cyclical debate. It's a shame you spend this much energy on useless drivel instead of just editing Misplaced Pages for the better. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- In that edit, you added {{track listing}}. I am obviously only referring to that aspect of that edit, so please stop being obtuse. You added it in spite of the fact that there was an established style. Why did you do it? I'm asking you again: will you be reverting yourself or not? If you refuse, I'll escalate this. I'm hopeful that you will abide by ArbCom and the editors' consensus at WP:ALBUMSTYLE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, this article that you seem to be frequenting lately is a perfect example of the style you prefer working because the entire record is single-handedly written by 1 person. That is the only time when it is preferable and effective to utilize that over the format that I've implemented in other articles because it requires no extra specifications for additional writers, featured vocal collaborations, or differing producers by track. There is a reason why you will see
on every big mainstream artist's current releases, which is why you obscurely linked an album from 1999 to prove your point instead of something relevant. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)No. Title Length
- For the record, this article that you seem to be frequenting lately is a perfect example of the style you prefer working because the entire record is single-handedly written by 1 person. That is the only time when it is preferable and effective to utilize that over the format that I've implemented in other articles because it requires no extra specifications for additional writers, featured vocal collaborations, or differing producers by track. There is a reason why you will see
- In that edit, you added {{track listing}}. I am obviously only referring to that aspect of that edit, so please stop being obtuse. You added it in spite of the fact that there was an established style. Why did you do it? I'm asking you again: will you be reverting yourself or not? If you refuse, I'll escalate this. I'm hopeful that you will abide by ArbCom and the editors' consensus at WP:ALBUMSTYLE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect, that edit you keep referencing shows significant beneficial contributions to the article in question, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up as an effort to prove your point. I'm also even further perplexed because it has absolutely nothing to do with your initial reason for posting on my talk page. And even further so that you once again showed that you did not actually read and take into account any of what I said above. You're clearly just -- unsurprisingly as it is a common thing for you -- here to engage in a mindless cyclical debate. It's a shame you spend this much energy on useless drivel instead of just editing Misplaced Pages for the better. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- So you admit that you made this edit from one of two acceptable styles to another purely because you prefer it and not because of anything substantial? Will you be reverting yourself here or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- You know why I use that template, because the vast overwhelming majority of album articles on Misplaced Pages utilize it. Please stop acting obtuse as if I'm the one using some off-brand style that hasn't been widely embraced by the Misplaced Pages community. The fact that you had to dig up an article on an album released in 1999, from 25 years ago, as an example in favor of whatever angle you're trying to make here only further proves that. And, unlike you, most editors don't attack others with this type of hostility when edits like these are made to add additional information to articles and improve upon them. The creator of the Riley Green album article created a base in rudimentary fashion and I simply made significant, beneficial changes to it on all fronts beyond just the tracklisting, i.e. You are literally the only editor on this site I've come across in two decades of editing that has 1) been this inhospitable toward me over literally nothing that requires this amount of investment and 2) even cares remotely one iota about using the basic old format for the tracklisting. Just because it is "acceptable" doesn't make it good, and it is especially lackluster for something like Stampede where it is a duets album and the format doesn't even properly allow for the featured vocalists to be listed, which is essentially removing valuable information. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to use that template and there 100% is no substantial reason here. Please tell me why you did this. As you likely know, there is no requirement to use {{track listing}} for duets, as 1.) this is listed in the personnel section and 2.) plenty of articles are just fine without it (e.g. Tears of Stone (album)). You are making changes without consensus to your preferred version in direct contradiction to ArbCom's directives. I am asking you to revert yourself and ask for consensus prior to changing styles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- "unless there is some substantial reason for the change" Quite literally in the explanation here that you gave. Your tracklisting lacked information valuable to the article. It is a DUETS album and the tracklisting lacked any indication of the featured vocalists. It was an incomplete piece of information. I am tired of your hostile attitude towards me editing Misplaced Pages in good faith and for the better just because it doesn't suit your particular outdated style of things. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)