Talk:List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Sebastian (talk | contribs) at 04:05, 27 February 2012 (→#: eh?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:05, 27 February 2012 by Jack Sebastian (talk | contribs) (→#: eh?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

#

(copy pasted from original discussion at User talk:AussieLegend) regarding edit war over use of "#" for episodes number in table.

You coincidentally turning up at an article, just after I edited it, to make your change might make a more paranoid person think you were stalking me. Anyway, looking at , for example, I see that # is used in a great number -- perhaps most -- such articles' tables. The admonition in MOS seems to refer to prose in its examples, not tables. So I have reverted your change. Perhaps you could try to educate, for example, those at List of Spooks episodes, which scandalously uses both № and # in its tables. Your view could be tested by debate with a larger pool of editors. Barsoomian (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Before reverting, you should always check the manual of style. MOS:HASH, which I linked to in my edit summary, specifically says, "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."". It goes on to say "Do not use the symbol №". Examples, by their nature, always are limited in scope. For example, MOS:HASH says "An exception is issue numbers of comic books", but it says nothing of tables. Using your argument, that would indicate that tables aren't an exception. My view doesn't need to be tested by debate, The Manual of Style is quite clear and it as been discussed previously. As for educating editors at List of Spooks episodes, perhaps you could do that after viewing the MoS. If you have any problems, I can help out but it's not an article that I frequent. I should warn you that reverting simply to prove a point is disruptive. Try discussing things in future before you revert. As a long term editor you should realise that's expected of you. It doesn't sever any useful purpose not to. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course I read the MOS. Don't be patronising. MOS does not prohibit use of #. It only gives examples of prose where it should be avoided. And many, many tables use it all over WP. If you ignore all the other articles that do exactly the same, while forcing it on an article I edit that you have never touched before, minutes after having an unrelated dispute with me, it's clear what your motive is. And your accusations of being "disruptive" are obnoxious, untrue and offensive. Barsoomian (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're reading the MoS then you don't appear to be understanding it, which historically has been the case. That something may be used somewhere doesn't mean it's correct to do so. There are plenty of cases where incorrect practices are evident in numerous articles. You're the only person who has ever had an issue with not using "#" once presented with MOS:HASH. Why do you prefer "#" over "No." given the obvious preference for the latter in the MoS? Your paranoia regarding this is amazing. I actually turned up at that article because of this edit, which did not revert vandalism. I was wondering what other similar reversions the editor had made. You had nothing to do with it. Sorry to disappoint you. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit history:

21:45, 25 February 2012 (diff | hist) List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes ? (MOS:HASH) 
21:39, 25 February 2012 (diff | hist) List of Primeval episodes ? ((null edit) ...That's why the general refs are in the references section

You expect anyone to believe it was just a coincidence you turned up at an article I had just edited, reverted my work, 6 minutes after reverting my edit in Primeval? It's not actually wrong to check through another editor's edits for irregularities, I do it myself when a spammer turns up. But it's absurd for you to pretend that isn't what you were doing. As for "You're the only person who has ever had an issue": Sorry not to be so easily intimidated. Again, I refer you to the hundreds of articles that ignore your rule. For a start: Eight out of 20 shows in Lists of British television series episodes, starting with "A" use the # :

Also, if it is purely a content issue, prove it by taking on the many, many other articles that use exactly the same convention. Preferably an actively edited one like List of Game of Thrones episodes, List of Modern Family episodes, etc. Again, you don't have to. But otherwise it's clear you are targeting "articles edited by Barsoomian", and not "edits that defy MOS".

I cannot find any explanation or justification of this part of MOS. The Talk archives are voluminous and poorly organised. However, see which seems to be when this guideline was proposed. There were plenty of exceptions mentioned. I do not know how that ended up as simply "avoid", nevertheless, your hardline prohibition is not supported by the discussion there.

But, to end on a happy note, you win, thanks to another old enemy turning up an an article he's never edited before to revert me with snarky comments. That Big Bang show must be popular. Congratulations. Barsoomian (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

AussielLegend then archived the original discussion, above, declining to respond. Barsoomian (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

List of An Idiot Abroad episodes also uses the numero sign, which MOS:HASH specifically says not to use, so it's clearly incorrect. List of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet episodes does not use "#", it uses "Episode", so, out of the first 20 articles one is very wrong and 13 do not use "#". That should tell you something. I didn't respond further at my talk page for the very reasons expressed in the section of the discussion that you conveniently chose not to copy here:

Not for nothing, but this is a discussion that would seem to be better suited at the article discussion page, where other contributors could weigh in on the topic. I reverted Barsoomian for failing to initiate dialogue in what was clearly an issue in dispute. Revert-warring is never the answer. Indeed, it almost always is the source of the problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you two will be very happy together. You have so much in common. Barsoomian (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, there's no need to be snide. Just use the discussion page instead of edit-warring. It's not really that difficult a request to fulfill, now is it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS:HASH says to avoid use of the hash symbol, so it should be avoided and the majority of articles you apparently checked do that. I don't see the problem with doing it here. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't copy the remarks of Sebastian, since he simply attacked me personally, and didn't address the issue at all. But I see you insist on regurgitating his crap here, in a totally inappropriate venue, making it clear that it all is simply a personal vendetta. Barsoomian (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian gave some good advice; take the matter up on the article's talk page instead of edit-warring was a completely valid suggestion and very relevant, since that is what you should have done. Discussing on someone's talk page wasn't going to achieve anything. Your response, "I'm sure you two will be very happy together", was inappropriate and uncivil, as was this post, which you fortunately saw fit to edit. Jack Sebastian most certainly did not attack you. Claims of stalking and personal vendettas really don't help your cause and make it hard to carry on a reasonable discussion; you need to concentrate on the topic at hand. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we are at the talk page, because I opened the discussion. You just reverted, and put insulting and stupid templates on my Talk page to try to intimidate me. Barsoomian (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You only opened this discussion because I archived the content from my talk page. In doing so you excluded content that sets you in a bad light. I templated you because your persistent refusal to comply with the MoS warranted it. If you're only going to argue, don't expect me to reply. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I included all your remarks. I excluded another editor who just abused me personally. Which I'm sure you agree with, but are not on the topic of this article. As for your template: "Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles", it is complete garbage. As I have demonstrated by numerous examples, my usage is NOT "unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand ", it is just not what you like. There are thousands of articles in Misplaced Pages that do exactly the same without anyone complaining of "difficult to understand", except you. Barsoomian (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have learned through hard experience that "Other Stuff Exists" isn't the strongest of arguments for inclusion. Were it a standard method of doing things and made sense for this particular article, then noting the precedent would seem on point.

But at least, both of you are talking now. So long as the conversation focuses on the problem and not on personality, it should be a resolvable issue, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an interaction ban. You are deliberately, repeatedly breaking it. Stop it. Barsoomian (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am unaware of where this interaction ban was stated as such. Could you kindly provide a link to it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:

Lists of British television series episodes