User talk:Colonies Chris - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 24 November 2008 (→Warning regarding unlinking of dates: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:21, 24 November 2008 by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) (→Warning regarding unlinking of dates: response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello Colonies Chris, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- GraemeL 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Belated thanks for fixing up the references in the Descriptive psychology article. A definite improvement. Anscombe (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Thanks for the good summary of the arguments. It helped me see where some people were coming from, though I still have my reservations. Cheers either way. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a large scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits are in accordance with the Manual of Style - and I do participate in the discussions. I will disregard this weaselly and bullying attempt to make me comply with your agenda. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris, this is a cut-and-paste message that did the rounds last week under the hand of Cole, just before he was blocked. That attempt met with similar responses by victims! Tony (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Cole, he seems to be trying to take things into his own hands now: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to join Tennis Expert in asking that you stop these types of disputed/disruptive edits (example: ). Whether or not TE has an "agenda" is irrelevant if you are ignoring the consensus building process going on at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. It is difficult to reach consensus on an issue if you have editors unilaterally deciding their way is best and implementing those changes despite an ongoing discussion (again, see the ArbCom decision and the quotes provided above for the rationale). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits are in line with the MoS, as you well know. I will continue converting articles I edit to bring them into line with the MoS. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read nothing of the above? Whether or not your edits are covered by the MoS is irrelevant. There is an ongoing dispute over the current MoS and performing these edits is disruptive (again, please read the quoted ArbCom decision above). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Your edits have been reported here. Tennis expert (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary changes

I'm curious how do you work out the arbitrary changes you made to this page with this edit . For example why remove the link from "Switzerland" but not the "English Channel"? Now that we no longer have automatic date changes why remove "the" from in front of a date instead if you do not like "the 22 March 1816;" why not change it to "the 22nd of March" why change it to "~~the~~ 22 March"? --PBS (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also why did you change Blucher to Blücher in both the "Treaty of Paris" and in this edit to "Hundred days" as Blucher is spelt Blucher, Bluecher and Blücher in reliable sources? --PBS (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what the Misplaced Pages page uses, what matters is what the reliable sources for the particular article uses. Do you know what the sources are using for those two articles? I suggest that if you wish to dates on an article which you have little familiarity then unless you are willing to take time to read the article and the sources used to create the article that you do not arbitrarily change the spelling of words. For example would you change every (Lech) "Walesa" to "Wałęsa" just because the Misplaced Pages page is spelt that way even though the majority of English language sources spell his name "Walesa"? --PBS (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"The implication of what you're saying is that articles should use different variants of a person's name, even within the same article, if the original sources for different parts of the article differ in their spelling. It makes sense to standardise on the spelling which other editors have agreed upon." No I am not saying any such thing, clearly words should be spelt the same way within the body of an article , (unless they are in quotes) but the spelling in that article should follow the spelling used by verifiable sources cited in that article --unless as will happen occasionally, some other spelling something is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole (because the reliable sources use archaic spellings or whatever). I do not see how, when you are doing many changes to many articles, you can have spent the time it takes to decide in each article how a word is spelt in the context of that article and its sources.--PBS (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article Battle of Waterloo you changed Hugh Halkett's to Hugh Halkett's do you really think that the "'s" s easier to read in black when the rest of the word (Halkett) is in blue? --PBS (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you do not change one style to another when using AWB. --PBS (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)